Both Trump and Warren held very well attended rallies yesterday and each laid out their vision for attacking corruption in America.
Warren attacked large corporations and wealthy individuals for using their money to exercise outsized influence over government. She offered a detailed set of policies that included an outright ban on foreign government lobbyists, strict limits on stock trading by government officials and more ethical restrictions on members of the executive and judicial branches.
Trump attacked the corruption (his word) of the failed liberal establishment for undermining America’s sovereignty and cultural heritage. His called for his reelection and the election of more Republicans who would support his trade policies and who would support gun rights and immigration restriction.
This essentially provides two competing visions of populism: one focused on perceived government infringement on the status quo, the other focused on wealth infringing on government decision making.
Both candidates are speaking of “draining the swamp”. Here’s my question: to what extent is corruption in government a matter of policy – i.e., if we block gun control legislation, restrict abortion and reduce immigration will that address corruption? Or is corruption a matter of politicians putting the accumulation of personal wealth and of campaign contributions ahead of the public good.
People can say what they want about Warren… but she is using her position in the Senate to nail down the actual legislation that she would like to see passed.
None of this vague promises… there is printed text to back up what she says.
Here is the link to the anti-corruption bill she introduced.
Yes. I went to Elizabeth Warrens website and did a lot of looking, she has her thoughts and ideas and plans well thought out. Are they possible? Depends on if she wins and how Congress is composed if that happens. But she knows what she wants and is going for it.
Oh, I went there initially looking for any evidence that she, as one of the top three front runners, has made any mention of “confiscating” people’s guns, people’s cars, and people’s straws, as was claimed by one of our resident Right Wing Experts on everything. I should note that she didn’t do any of that. Further neither of the other two top front runners have done that as well.
The closest Obese Donald has come to draining the swamp is from the huge number of folks that have left his administration for one reason or another. Unfortunately those folks came along with him or were hire by him. So there has been no net loss from the swamp.
And will always be corrupt. As long as the feds can pick economic winners and losers corruption is inevitable. Return government closer to the people, cut the feds power and corruption will be reduced.
I don’t think so. Then you would have a lot more people free to feather their nests without any worry they would have to face constituents in the next election. Not to mention the entrenched bureaucracy would run rampant with their corruption without anyone with long experience to oversee them.
Warren wants to levy a 2 percent annual wealth tax on all households with a net worth of over $50 million and a 3 percent annual tax on those households with a net worth of more than $1 billion. Unlike an income tax or a sales tax, both of which tax money when it moves around, a wealth tax draws on the same pot of money every year, making the pile smaller and smaller over time. It’s essentially a tax on large savings—the money that investors and entrepreneurs rely on to start new businesses.
These are apples and oranges. Sure, there should be control of government corruption…with a balance that we have free speech and the ability to address Congress.
Sure we should enforce our immigration laws and refine them as needed. That isn’t really a matter of corruption, though (except to the extent that some break those laws for cheap labor).
We can do both.
And…yelling “corruption” where you have no proof of any undermines any efforts for real reform. You can’t impeach your opponent every time you lose.
The taxes on large incomes have been reduced dramatically over the past forty years… with a corresponding impact on the inability of the government to fund necessary things to support the economy, such as infrastructure.
Each reduction has been supported by the promise that it will lead to an increase in investment. but, as with the Trump tax cut, there was no increase in investment… the money was large spent on stock buybacks and dividend increases – further increasing the wealth of the richest Americans. Contrast that with the Clinton tax increase in 1993, which once the Republicans were done yelling how it would tank the economy, kicked off a substantial period of growth – because investors approved of Clinton’s effort to reduce the growth of the deficit.
Only a small portion of new business start up comes from personal capital – much more comes from institutional investors.
A return to slightly higher tax rates hardly constitutes a lack of respect for private property.
I agree… plus they just run for something else. We have term limits, they are called elections. Why do people want the government deciding how long we can keep our politicians?
