Tangerine_
Well-Known Member
I get a warm fuzzy feeling every time an insecure boy reveals how intimated they are by strong intelligent women.
Please, do go on.
Elizabeth Warren
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
Please, do go on.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Something that made me take a closer look at Warren was her stance on China. She made mention of CCP espionage in the US and pointed out how the PRC has been trying to influence US media outlets while she was on a visit to Beijing in 2018. Many analysts say that she would be very tough on Jinping. This is something that has me intrigued about her.
www.reuters.com
www.cnbc.com
Senator Warren, in Beijing, says U.S. is waking up to Chinese abuses
U.S. policy toward China has been misdirected for decades and policymakers are now recalibrating ties, Senator Elizabeth Warren told reporters during a visit to Beijing amid heightened trade tensions between the world's two largest economies.
Elizabeth Warren could be 'even tougher than Trump' on China, says analyst
Media reports say China has grown hesitant to pursue a broad trade deal with the U.S. that could include reforms to its industrial policy and subsidies.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
I think the next POTUS should focus on a Russia first policy and Uncle Sam should fuck mother Russia until she shits out Putin or he STFU and stays in his own corner with a very sore asshole and an empty wallet. That's not to say the new president can't walk and chew gum at the same time, but I would classify China as more of a rival than an enemy, even though Jinping is an asshole. China poses a more long term threat as a rival in the economic, trade and military spheres, an accommodation can be reached with China about certain core issues at least. China is rising because of core cultural values, smarts, hard work, a valuing of education and ambition. The elites are well educated, have a belief in science, technology and free markets, and this ancient civilization is now expanding and harnessing the power of western science, technology, education and ideas.Something that made me take a closer look at Warren was her stance on China. She made mention of CCP espionage in the US and pointed out how the PRC has been trying to influence US media outlets while she was on a visit to Beijing in 2018. Many analysts say that she would be very tough on Jinping. This is something that has me intrigued about her.
Senator Warren, in Beijing, says U.S. is waking up to Chinese abuses
U.S. policy toward China has been misdirected for decades and policymakers are now recalibrating ties, Senator Elizabeth Warren told reporters during a visit to Beijing amid heightened trade tensions between the world's two largest economies.
Elizabeth Warren could be 'even tougher than Trump' on China, says analyst
Media reports say China has grown hesitant to pursue a broad trade deal with the U.S. that could include reforms to its industrial policy and subsidies.
China's problems started when they cut themselves off from the world and the world moved ahead while China stagnated and finally the world forced the door of trade open and then the colonial powers took over the country. This mistake has be recognized and rectified, China is open to the world and for business, it will cram capitalism down the west's throat! They do have a mercantilist policy, but so did Japan and Korea at one time and it seems to be part of the evolution of these places.
Asia has awoken to the modern world and the Asian tiger economies are a sign of this, places like the Philippines must be benefiting from this Asian renaissance? They have an large educated population and proximity to the action, so something must be rubbing off on them.
Last edited:
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Canada's media is even more polluted with CCP bullshit. Good luck with that.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Russia is a more immediate threat, China is more of a rival, survive Putin first, then worry about China, one enemy at a time. China is out for its piece of the world and the future, no matter who is in charge there. If they had a free election in China the CCP would probably be elected there, based on their economic performance over the past couple of decades. They are gonna be a tough nut to crack too, corruption will take its toll soon enough though, in a capitalist system democracy is the only force that can keep it in check. You don't need democracy for capitalism to work, just responsible government, that is impossible to maintain without democracy and often that is not enough.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
I'm all for joining with the USA to deal with China, as soon as America gets a responsible government run by adults. Remember TPP, that would have gone a long way towards curbing China, except numb nuts trashed it. Russia controls numb nuts and got him elected POTUS!
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
If China had democracy lol...
Dude, Tibetans can only speak their language when they become refugees in places like Nepal. Uighurs, don't even get me started. The only Chinese people who even have the right to read whatever they want are Taiwanese. That's why Hong Kong is in a state of complete chaos. They have been exposed to the world for decades while the CCP has kept the rest of PRC in a state of perpetual captivity. Human rights do not exist there. Falun Gong was more popular than the CCP by far only a decade ago. They're widely considered a cult now because that's what the CCP makes its subjects believe. China is a bully and the rest of Asia, especially ASEAN is pretty much in a consensus about it. That thing you mentioned about the CCP, as if you were illuminating me in an Elizabeth Warren thread, yeah that was info that I first exposed to RIU.
What you're not understanding is that for 80 years, China has always been the most immediate threat by convincing us to focus on other shit first. Mao wrote all about this shit in a work called "Combat Liberalism". North Korea is a Chinese threat. Duterte is a Chinese threat. China having any control in the US economy is a FAR bigger threat than Putin. Hate to spill the beans here, but election tampering only accounts for a tiny decisive tipping point in the election of Trump in 2016. Most of that was good old American stupidity.
Really, you have no idea.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
I'm not a fan of the CPP, it was the drive and industry of the chinese people that lead to their rise in recent years. We are witnessing what is going on in Hong Kong right now and I do know about the atrocities committed by china in Tibet, I never said they were nice guys.
Right now Putin controls America and its foreign policy and is driving the country into the ground because of Trump, the country faces an existential threat. Yea 90+ % of the problem is American stupidity and bigotry but Trump won 3 states by the slimmest of margins and the Russians played a big part in that win. Taking advantage of social division in multicultural democracies is the name of the game, exploit existing weaknesses using modern communications technology.
China is a threat to the west as an economic competitor and it will be a serious one too, they have a plan and are following through. America will have to join with other western countries to confront China as in TPP and maybe when you're rid of Trump and the republicans you folks will get serious about it. Right now you had better deal with the Russians, Trump and the GOP mess, or you won't have to worry about China so much if Putin owns ya first.
Right now Putin controls America and its foreign policy and is driving the country into the ground because of Trump, the country faces an existential threat. Yea 90+ % of the problem is American stupidity and bigotry but Trump won 3 states by the slimmest of margins and the Russians played a big part in that win. Taking advantage of social division in multicultural democracies is the name of the game, exploit existing weaknesses using modern communications technology.
China is a threat to the west as an economic competitor and it will be a serious one too, they have a plan and are following through. America will have to join with other western countries to confront China as in TPP and maybe when you're rid of Trump and the republicans you folks will get serious about it. Right now you had better deal with the Russians, Trump and the GOP mess, or you won't have to worry about China so much if Putin owns ya first.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Both issues are immediate and urgently in need of address. Both require attention now, not "maybe when you deal with one". In any case, the Senate has already released findings, Mueller has already indicted Russian nationals, the country is already focused on the way US tried to withhold aid to Ukraine. It has been a tripolar world for a long fuckin time and it has literally never been an option to deal with one while letting the other rampant. Sorry, you do seem late to the party here. As if anyone could forget Putin lol.
If you dislike Warren, tell us why. Point something out. Cite something. Don't just post memes and tell us not to worry about Chinese aggression. This is a Warren thread and I shared an article about her stance on an issue. It's a damn important issue.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
America won't be able to address anything until Trump and the GOP senate are gone. How would you suggest we deal with China unless we band together in united action and nobody can deal with Trump. As I said the next POTUS can walk and chew gum at the same time, deal with Russia while addressing the issues with China in concert with others. Right now the country is leaderless and adrift and nothing will really change until the election and even then maybe not if they don't take the senate too.
I kinda like Liz myself, but I figure the democrats need all the advantages and votes they can get and that might mean using people's prejudice against themselves. Donald feared Biden the most because he's the one who would cut into his base the deepest, the old white fart vote, Liz would be up against misogyny and the usual bullshit, not to mention her health plan is unpopular with people like yourself. Old joe was a prick, but I figure he would beat Trump by the the largest margin and have the longest down ballot coattails. America needs to get rid of the GOP senate, repudiate Trumpism and give the democrats a big mandate for change and the best candidate to do that is who I would support. I'm Canadian and I'm here for the big show, the doing of the Donald, so I don't have a dog in the fight for democratic nominee, American business.
Last edited:
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I disagree with your opinions on how the US should handle foreign policy but thanks anyway.
As for the healthcare thing, I am only opposed to passing single payer if it's going to add significantly to the deficit while removing all choice, as I fear that such deficits will lead to higher taxes when the federal budget demands the revenue. Warren seems very much willing to compromise in that regard and to offer different amounts of coverage. I'm opposed to bernies brain dead plan because it takes away all choice and replaces it with full comprehensive coverage that is far more than I want or need and I would prefer the choice to have less coverage and less cost. After costs come down, it's a different discussion.
Why is this nuance so hard to grasp?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
um,
Russia is a threat to the US and democracy worldwide
China is a threat to the US and democracy worldwide
Iraq? no; Syria? no; Venezuela? no ; Cuba? no; Canada? just kidding
It's not about choice, or even what to do next but a recognition of where the threats are coming from.
Warren has demonstrated that she is willing to speak truth to power, has plans for what to do and she's promising to be an activist on more than one issue. We have the ability to take on several issues at once. The US can walk and chew gum at the same time.
China isn't a capitalist nation either. It's a mercantilist economy ruled by a hereditary oligarchy. It might have just become a hereditary monarchy. Yi Jinping has tenure-for-life which, if history is any guide, means he will try to pass on his power to the next in line in his family.
Regarding what to do about China, cutting trade ties is an option that we should keep as an extreme measure. I don't have an issue with the US cutting trade ties to China if it comes to that, I just objected to Trump's grand standing and chaotic policies regarding trade with China. That said, there is plenty we can do to contain the threat China poses to the US and others in the world without isolating us from them. As you say, we don't have a competent leader and I think we are headed towards a solution for that. But let's not mince words about what and how much of a threat China poses to the US and many other places in the world.
Also, free Tibet.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Perhaps because I haven't been following the debate too closely, no dog in the fight. Liz was getting a lot of criticism for her plan, it was one of the few detailed ones, so it could be picked apart. Like the democratic race and a lot of other American issues like health care I have little knowledge or interest.
BTW I'm kinda happy with single payer here in Canada, as are most folks, once people have healthcare it becomes a third rail real quick, like Obama care. All I really know about your opinions on the matter are that you seem to have good private healthcare and would like to retain it under any proposed plan. I had private insurance too when I was working, it supplemented the government plan and paid for extras, we still have private health insurance in Canada.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Well, it's a robust debate full of nuance and has taken place for weeks on many of the top threads in this subforum, threads you have commented in. You should read about it before you ascribe something to me that is inaccurate. Also, I don't know if you have ever noticed it, but the US and Canada are in fact different and separate countries with different and separate economies and different and and separate healthcare costs. Just because your country has allocated funds and raised revenue for single payer healthcare does not mean that the US federal government has set aside the funds for it.
I'm guessing you are going to require me to break it down, yet again.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Nope, I'll take your word for it, you know the issues and your own preferences, I don't comment too much on American domestic issues and hardly at all about the democratic race. Any normal human who can win will do as far as I'm concerned, Trump has got to go, defeating him and the GOP by a large margin would be nice though. Look on the bright side, Donald could be removed soon, I figure it's even odds for a removal by the senate, ya never know.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
This is not addressed to anyone in particular, just an addendum to the Warren thread:
The single-payer debate and the pertinent facts regarding it should include a comparison between the different plans and why the differences matter. At first, I was not aware of the differences between the healthcare plans of Sanders and Warren.
I flatly rejected Sanders' plan because of the high cost and lack of funding along with the loss of choice. Essentially the cost of Sanders' plan was estimated between 32.6 trillion dollars and 49 trillion dollars for the first decade. The reason why this is estimated as a decade is because it is a near consensus among economists that the passing of single-payer (or an expansion of medicare to all who want it) would reduce aggregate healthcare costs over time. That is the major reason for wanting it and that is the main talking point. It has been over-simplified to simply focus on taxes vs costs and both Warren and Sanders are correct that costs would come down. Using the (lowest) 32.6 trillion dollar ten year estimate of Sanders' plan, along with the revenue generating ideas in the plan, which I think are fantastic revenue generating ideas that should be implemented regardless of how the federal government moves forward with healthcare, it is a fairly straightforward process to extrapolate that his plan would lead to an additional 1.4 to 1.7 trillion dollars in federal budget deficit. The result would be a tax hike on the middle class and there is really no way around it. The plan already includes huge tax hikes on the rich and still only funds half of the cost. Repealing Trump's tax cuts would not even cover the deficit which currently stands at an estimated 1.1 trillion dollars. Therefore, passing Sanders' healthcare plan, as is, at this time, would lead to nearly 3 trillion dollars in deficits.
Before I contrast this with other plans, I find it useful to include the federal budget figures for (fiscal) 2019. I'll round the numbers off for brevity.
Revenue = 3.4 trillion dollars
Expenditures = 4.4 trillion dollars
deficit = almost a trillion dollars
And some figures regarding healthcare costs with the current lack of a system in place.
2019 costs = around 3.5 trillion dollars (paid by consumers, not part of the federal budget)
projected costs for the next decade anywhere between 35.4 trillion and 52.1 trillion dollars (again, not part of the federal budget)
This is why they argue only that you'd end up paying less, which is true for many, but not all.
Now, let's get into Warren's plan. As of late, Warren has responded to pressure by compromising with voters who have shown concern regarding tax hikes. She has laid out a 20.5 trillion dollar ten year plan which would be implemented after a 3 year transition period in which we would have a choice. This serves several purposes. The most important of which, in my opinion, is a reduction of aggregate cost. Call it whatever you want to, it's Medicare for all who want it. During this 3 years, the federal government would compete with private insurance companies to deliver value and reduce cost while making healthcare coverage immediately available. This would very rapidly eliminate the problem of 27 million Americans lacking healthcare and actually reduce the deficit if the funding mechanisms are implemented. Furthermore, even those on cheap private plans would likely see an improvement of value such as lower premiums. If they do not offer more value, they will go extinct.
By offering this, Warren has secured my vote.
The single-payer debate and the pertinent facts regarding it should include a comparison between the different plans and why the differences matter. At first, I was not aware of the differences between the healthcare plans of Sanders and Warren.
I flatly rejected Sanders' plan because of the high cost and lack of funding along with the loss of choice. Essentially the cost of Sanders' plan was estimated between 32.6 trillion dollars and 49 trillion dollars for the first decade. The reason why this is estimated as a decade is because it is a near consensus among economists that the passing of single-payer (or an expansion of medicare to all who want it) would reduce aggregate healthcare costs over time. That is the major reason for wanting it and that is the main talking point. It has been over-simplified to simply focus on taxes vs costs and both Warren and Sanders are correct that costs would come down. Using the (lowest) 32.6 trillion dollar ten year estimate of Sanders' plan, along with the revenue generating ideas in the plan, which I think are fantastic revenue generating ideas that should be implemented regardless of how the federal government moves forward with healthcare, it is a fairly straightforward process to extrapolate that his plan would lead to an additional 1.4 to 1.7 trillion dollars in federal budget deficit. The result would be a tax hike on the middle class and there is really no way around it. The plan already includes huge tax hikes on the rich and still only funds half of the cost. Repealing Trump's tax cuts would not even cover the deficit which currently stands at an estimated 1.1 trillion dollars. Therefore, passing Sanders' healthcare plan, as is, at this time, would lead to nearly 3 trillion dollars in deficits.
Before I contrast this with other plans, I find it useful to include the federal budget figures for (fiscal) 2019. I'll round the numbers off for brevity.
Revenue = 3.4 trillion dollars
Expenditures = 4.4 trillion dollars
deficit = almost a trillion dollars
And some figures regarding healthcare costs with the current lack of a system in place.
2019 costs = around 3.5 trillion dollars (paid by consumers, not part of the federal budget)
projected costs for the next decade anywhere between 35.4 trillion and 52.1 trillion dollars (again, not part of the federal budget)
This is why they argue only that you'd end up paying less, which is true for many, but not all.
Now, let's get into Warren's plan. As of late, Warren has responded to pressure by compromising with voters who have shown concern regarding tax hikes. She has laid out a 20.5 trillion dollar ten year plan which would be implemented after a 3 year transition period in which we would have a choice. This serves several purposes. The most important of which, in my opinion, is a reduction of aggregate cost. Call it whatever you want to, it's Medicare for all who want it. During this 3 years, the federal government would compete with private insurance companies to deliver value and reduce cost while making healthcare coverage immediately available. This would very rapidly eliminate the problem of 27 million Americans lacking healthcare and actually reduce the deficit if the funding mechanisms are implemented. Furthermore, even those on cheap private plans would likely see an improvement of value such as lower premiums. If they do not offer more value, they will go extinct.
By offering this, Warren has secured my vote.
