1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

[OFFICIAL] Elizabeth Warren for President thread

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Os Trigonum, Jan 1, 2019.

  1. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    47,156
    Likes Received:
    36,009
    Why would college be an end all choice if was free? When people refer to free college it's implied that means free trade school, undergrad, community college etc.

    The restrictions shall be academic based, not monetary based. It's not like schools don't have the tools to determine who is academically fit to complete their programs. Trade schools being free is also important. A lot of trade schools require students to purchase their own very expensive equipment and is a road block for many people to attempt those proffesions.
     
  2. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    43,149
    Likes Received:
    25,188
    That's fine if there are work based requirements though I wonder how It would affect the funding of smaller colleges.

    Maybe some failures and changes are necessary for these institutions
     
    fchowd0311 likes this.
  3. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    47,156
    Likes Received:
    36,009
    Yes we can agree to that. There definitely is a mentality especially in middle class suburbia, where kids believe they have to go to college regardless of any passions and join programs like general studies or business administration and the schools know this and cater these programs to the lowest common denominator and thus the degree is essentially a paper mill.
     
    Invisible Fan likes this.
  4. ThatBoyNick

    ThatBoyNick Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    28,281
    Likes Received:
    43,346
    Somewhat agree. Not all corporations are not necessarily adverse to the voters, but the vast majority are, and at the end of the day corporations have no business buying our elections. Bernie hasn't proved anything in the general of course, but he's blowing Joe Biden out of the water with fundraising in the primary which is huge considering Joes not only been the front runner for months, but he's by far the most well-known establishment figure in the primary.

    I agree if most want significant change they should go with Sanders, but I don't think the average person is deep enough into politics to be aware of details like that. The general narrative on mainstream media is that Bernie and Warren on the same politically, but Warren is better because she's new/fresh, and a women.

     
  5. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    47,156
    Likes Received:
    36,009
    God that lady is cringe worthy. Look at her biography. She's the definition of a privlaged trust fund baby. think moderates like Warren more because they the no she's workable. She's willing to reform within the system and that she has more success successfully authoring successful bills in the senate.
     
    jiggyfly likes this.
  6. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,472
    Likes Received:
    110,434
    seems like as good a time as any for some good old-fashioned opinion piece regurgitation from the Wall Street Journal:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/king-warren-of-the-roundtable-11570395953?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

    King Warren of the Roundtable
    The Senator orders the ‘stakeholder’ CEOs to endorse her agenda.
    By
    The Editorial Board
    Oct. 6, 2019 5:05 pm ET

    Well, that didn’t take long. In August the knights of the Business Roundtable announced that they are putting “stakeholders” ahead of shareholders as their primary business purpose. Now Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is rising in the presidential polls, is demanding that these CEOs prove they mean it by endorsing her grand design to remake American capitalism.

    “I write for information about the tangible actions you intend to take to implement the principles” in the Roundtable’s Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation, Sen. Warren wrote to JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon and other CEOs late last week.

    Her letter then denounces corporate profits, stock buybacks and dividends that she says leave workers behind. “I am pleased that the Business Roundtable has acknowledged the harm that this trend inflicts on the economy and that you, on behalf of JP Morgan Chase, have pledged to take steps to reverse it,” the letter adds.

    “If you, and the other 181 corporate executives who signed the BRT’s new Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation, plan to live up to the promises you made, I expect that you will endorse and wholeheartedly support the reforms laid out in the Accountable Capitalism Act to meet the principles you endorse. I have attached a copy of the bill.”

    You have to love that “I expect” line. She’s not President yet, but she’s already giving orders to CEOs about how to behave if they know what’s good for them. Very Trumpian. And entirely predictable.

    The Roundtable CEOs hoped to put themselves on stronger political ground by explaining how successful businesses serve more than shareholders. The left responds to this truism by claiming that even CEOs now think capitalism is immoral and demanding that they cede corporate control to political actors. The Roundtable has succeeded in energizing Ms. Warren and the left to believe they can scare business leaders into political retreat.

    And make no mistake, Ms. Warren’s Accountable Capitalism Act would end capitalism as we know it. Every company with revenue of more than $1 billion would have to obtain a new federal charter, in contrast to the current system of state charters.

    Instead of serving the interests of the shareholders who own the company, CEOs and directors would have to serve some combination of “the workforce,” “customers,” “the local and global environment” and “community and societal factors.” Forty percent of directors would also have to be employees, which would usually mean union representatives.

    How this would work in practice is anyone’s guess, other than that it would subject every decision to vetoes by social-justice warriors, unions, trial lawyers and politicians. As Phil Gramm and Mike Solon recently wrote on these pages, the capital and life savings invested in U.S. corporations would soon be devoured by these multiple and often competing political interests.

    This can’t be what the Roundtable CEOs signed up for, and it will be fascinating to see how they respond to Ms. Warren’s effort at political intimidation. It would be a mistake to dismiss her letter as mere grandstanding for the Democratic primaries. The Senator is now the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, which given Donald Trump’s vulnerabilities means she is the favorite to become the next President.

    If you don’t think she’s serious about her policies, ask Obama Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner or Antonio Weiss, the Democratic banker she blocked for a job at Treasury. If she wins with a Democratic House and Senate, all of her agenda becomes politically achievable.

    ***

    Yet the lesson of Ms. Warren’s letter to CEOs is less about her agenda than it is about the obligations of business in a free society. In a 1970 essay, Milton Friedman wrote about “the short-sightedness” of executives who give speeches about social responsibility.

    “This may gain them kudos in the short run,” the great economist wrote. “But it helps to strengthen the already too prevalent view that the pursuit of profits is wicked and immoral and must be controlled by external forces.” Once this view is widely believed, the result won’t be control by “social consciences” or “pontificating executives” but by “the iron fist of Government bureaucrats.”

    CEOs can’t buy off Mrs. Warren and the left with this or that rhetorical or policy concession. Her intention is to co-opt and redirect the capital that business and individuals now control. The only way to defeat this threat is to defend the morality of free markets and the moral and fiduciary duty of corporations to their shareholder owners.



     
  7. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    43,149
    Likes Received:
    25,188
    Big exaggerations there. Capitalism and the stock market can still function. A lot of people already admit there are cracks in shareholder corporate governance. The short term mindset of many are a large reason why Wall Street has been decoupled with Main Street's woes. Not to mention the loopholes and tricks for a minority, such as a founding family, to assume controlling rights.

    Warren, in the letter linked, put on a big boy pants tone that's intimidatingly uppity, but it is at its core asking for clarification to a vague principle that sounds good yet utterly unenforceable, much like some billionaire creating a charitable trust with no real underlying details on how that trust functions.

    The fact that she mentions abuses and fissures in the shareholder system (such as leveraging debt for overpriced buybacks) makes me like her more than fear her.

    /shrugs
     
    #827 Invisible Fan, Oct 7, 2019
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2019
    Nook, joshuaao, Hakeemtheking and 2 others like this.
  8. jiggyfly

    jiggyfly Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2015
    Messages:
    21,011
    Likes Received:
    16,853
    Ya think?
     
    fchowd0311 likes this.
  9. SamFisher

    SamFisher Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    58,732
    Likes Received:
    36,182
     
    RayRay10 likes this.
  10. Zergling

    Zergling Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    5,726
    Likes Received:
    3,625
  11. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,472
    Likes Received:
    110,434
  12. dobro1229

    dobro1229 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    23,888
    Likes Received:
    19,692
    This is the outcome of Donald Trump being president. The bar has been lowered to such a degree that nit picking like this will look laughable.

    FoxNews running multiple segments about how WARREN LIED (the horror!!!) about something that happened 30 years ago just seems so incredibly ridiculous and really reaching for anything.

    Warren is telling a story about hardships of women in the workplace. The point of the story is that women need to be supported. When Biden fabricates a story about his Scranton days, the point is how workers need to be treated better.

    When Trump lies it is all about Trump. When he lied about his crowd size was it really a story about how we need to take care of our veterans better???... no. It’s about Trumps ego. When Trump lies about having business deals in Russia when he has a letter of intent to build Trump Tower Moscow is he making a point to highlight the need to help 3rd world country starvation??.. no he’s simply hiding corruption.

    Does lying hurt any politician ... yes. Does lying about her job pregnancy 30 years ago to make a point about women’s hardships hurt Warren with the Democratic electorate???... no. Warren won’t lose one vote over this. Anyone like you who watches FoxNews and reads far right websites who thinks this is a scandal that will hurt Warren in the era of Trump was never even thinking about voting for a Democrat in the first place.
     
  13. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,472
    Likes Received:
    110,434
    I don't watch Fox News and as far as I know the sites I read don't qualify as "far right" . . . nice try though
     
  14. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    48,669
    Likes Received:
    17,295
    RayRay10 likes this.
  15. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    34,620
    Likes Received:
    33,563

    It’s actually a great day for her. She will need much more and more obvious lying than this to get elected POTUS, and this is a start.
     
    FranchiseBlade and Invisible Fan like this.
  16. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    43,149
    Likes Received:
    25,188
    The point Donny and Slick Willie has made is that you can lie as long as you sound like you care <3
     
    joshuaao likes this.
  17. jcf

    jcf Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,190
    Likes Received:
    2,271
    There are a lot of young people who go to college, don't try very hard and then find themselves unable to find a job in their area of study. Not a big fan of handing out a free education without any skin in the game or any expectation of results. You may be envisioning a system that rewards hard work/success -- I have no idea. But, if the idea is simply to make it free, there will be even more people attending college and treading water until they have had their college experience.

    I'm also not a big fan of the government basically taking entire professions out of the free market. Physicians used to be highly paid and the best and brightest aimed to get a medical degree. Flash forward and hard working doctors (unless you are a select specialist) make less than they did years ago and the money is sucked out by those who aren't practicing medicine. Now, our best and brightest want to be in the hedge fund or private equity business. Are you in favor of limiting what professors and administrators could make if the government is going to be funding collegiate level education going forward?
     
    FranchiseBlade likes this.
  18. jcf

    jcf Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,190
    Likes Received:
    2,271
    Hmm. How well are high school teachers paid? Do you think really good professors will accept that level of compensation or will they simply apply their gifts elsewhere?
     
  19. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    47,156
    Likes Received:
    36,009
    Paradigms would need to be shifted. From believing that the wealthiest don't pay their fair share to believing we don't need a defense budget that is equal to the next 14 larges military budgets combined.

    No one said that level of change would be easy. A massive change in inertia is required. The teachers in my school district were paid well when I went to high school and that had to do with the school district my parents decided to move to that had high property taxes.

    Academic merit should be the barrier not whether you parents can afford it or not.

    And no, our best and brightest aren't in hedge funds or private equity. That industry is chalk full of nepotism and kids who have enough capital to not be afraid to invest and risk it all.

    It's why some of our brightest engineers cannot be entrepreneurs because they are bogged down by debt and would have to take a massive risk in investing instead of taking the safe position at Lockers or Raytheon.
     
  20. jcf

    jcf Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,190
    Likes Received:
    2,271
    I agree completely that academic merit should be the barrier.

    I don't agree on best and brightest. Certainly, some very gifted people are always going to pursue medical or engineering professions based on ability or what they are really interested in. However, right or wrong, money is a huge pull and a lot of high achievers are now trying to land such financial jobs.

    I can't comment on individual situations re: being an entrepreneur but there are engineers who make that jump obviously.

    So, how would you pay gifted college professors if college was paid for with taxes? To take your example, if college should be free so that a gifted engineer can take the risk of being an entrepreneur, how do you support limiting your professors from earning their best living? Are they not entitled to maximize their income too?
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now