Bolt? No way! And if we did, where on Earth would we GO?

See? The DOG gets it...

See? The DOG gets it…

Our good friend Bryan may be taking a hiatus from the blog, but does that mean we can’t comment on what he posts on social media?

Of course not!

So let’s consider this:

Oh, come on, Bryan! Joe’s had some slip-ups here and there, but that one’s not even worth mentioning.

Seriously, did you have the date of the Parkland shooting memorized? I didn’t. If you had asked me out of the blue to say when it was, without looking it up, I’d have said maybe 2017 (and I’d have been two months off). And if you corrected me and said no, it was 2016 — when Obama and Biden were still in office — I’d have accepted it without question or surprise. It would still seem about right.

As it was, Joe was less than 13 months off. NOT “two years.” It happened in February 2018. Obama and Joe were still in office for most of January 2017. Learn to read a frickin’ calendar, people.

Now, real quick, when was the Sandy Hook massacre? When did that guy shoot up the theater where they were showing a Batman movie? If you can tell me within a year, good for you. But I won’t think less of you if you can’t.

So no, there’s nothing in this incident that makes me or (I hope) anyone else want to “bolt” from supporting Biden.

But let’s go to a bigger question: What if we DID want to “bolt” — where would we go?

It would be nice to have a backup plan, because humans are fallible, and for that matter Joe could get sick or something.

But I don’t have one. Oh sure, some of you will say there are plenty of good options, and in fact better ones than Joe, yadda-yadda. Well, yeah — for you. But not for me, speaking as a quintessential Biden supporter. Which is the kind of person that Bryan’s tweet was about.

I have my reasons for supporting Joe, which we’ve discussed here, and I don’t see anyone else measuring up according to the standards that matter to me — such as experience, understanding of the job, character and ability to win. I don’t see anyone even coming close, among the three or four other Democrats who might be seen as viable at this point. (Viable for the nomination, I mean — I don’t see any of those three or four as promising for the general. There are others who might do well in the general, but I don’t see them getting the nomination.)

And we — Americans I mean, not Democrats — have to get rid of Trump, as an essential first step in marginalizing Trumpism, and restoring our country to what it was from 1790-2016.

Only Joe is in a position to do that.

So stop trying to seize on every little human mistake, and let’s focus on the big things.

Because we need to get this thing done…

76 thoughts on “Bolt? No way! And if we did, where on Earth would we GO?

  1. Doug Ross

    He didn’t forget the date. He said he met with the victims of Parkland as Vice President.

    “”I met with them and then they went off up on the Hill when I was vice president,” Biden said at the forum. The former vice president made the same error later that day when he told reporters, “Those kids in Parkland came up to see me when I was vice president,” while describing members of Congress ducking meetings with the students.”

    That’s a level of forgetfulness/false memory that is immediately concerning. I might forget having done something in the past but if I “remember” doing something I didn’t actually do — especially something as newsworthy as meeting with a group of people who were involved in a school shooting, that’s a big problem.

    Let’s not forget – Joe Biden’s brain function will not improve next year or four years from now. That’s not how aging works. He is at his mental peak for the rest of his life TODAY.

      1. Doug Ross

        So more than a year after he was out of office? I mean, come on… does he not recall where he was at when he met them and when? It was at a fundraiser in Florida! Not in Washington. At best, you could say he wasn’t really impacted by the meeting to remember the details.

        I’m just wondering what he will have to do before you accept that he is not up to the challenge of a very tough next 15 months. He hasn’t even got into the hard part yet.

        1. Scout

          I suspect he combined two memories. Maybe with this one…

          Which did happen on Capital Hill, when he was vice president, and involve the families going on to lobby Congress members after speaking to him.

          It could be aging, but it also could just be the way memories work. Similar memories get stored together and non-salient details get confused. Non aging people make these kind of errors with memory. But it could also be aging. I’m not saying it isn’t, just that there are other explanations too.

          I don’t think this is really fair though: “At best, you could say he wasn’t really impacted by the meeting to remember the details.”

          I think he was very much impacted by the emotional details, which are the ones that matter to him, and I suspect his memories of the conversations they had and the feelings they shared would be accurate. He probably doesn’t remember what particular clothes he was wearing or what color the carpet was either. Those details, like time and place, would not be the important part of the memory to Joe.

          That is my take anyway, based on what I perceive to be what makes Joe tick. Basically he cares about people.

            1. Brad Warthen Post author

              Actually, Scout just described the way he is. With Joe, it’s never strictly business. It’s personal.

              And if that’s what she wants him to be, well, he’s what she wants him to be…

          1. Barry

            trump can’t remember sexually assaulting any of the 15+ women that accused him.

            But he can remember the private parts he grabbbed, just not the names of the persons they belonged to.

              1. Barry

                sure it is when Trump can’t seem to remember plenty of things

                The democratic nominee is running against Arthur Spooner, not Einstein.

                1. Doug Ross

                  Ok, let’s agree that both Trump and Biden are too old and mentally incapable of being President for the next four years. I’m fine with that.

        1. Brad Warthen Post author

          … which brings us back to Why Joe: He’s a decent guy. You can’t find a more decent guy. And everybody knows it. It’s his defining characteristic, not this or that policy proposal.

          Which makes him the perfect antidote to what we have in the White House now.

          People can come up with whatever reasons they choose to support someone else. But Joe is the antidote…

  2. Doug T

    Bolt? Oh hell no. We know what’s in his heart. We know what he stands for. And except for Michael Bennet where would we go?

    Oh hell no.

    1. Harry Harris

      Booker, first and best. Klobuchar, Bennet, Buttigieg, Castro, from center to center-left. There are choices who can win. Harris will tack center if she climbs high enough.

      1. Doug Ross

        I’d like to see the scenario where Castro, Bennett, or Klobuchar get the nomination. How does that happen considering their current polling and fundraising? You’re suggesting that any of those five can jump over Biden, Sanders, Warren? Buttigieg MAYBE because he’s the shiny new toy… His candidacy depends on a top 5 finish in Iowa or NH. Anyone who hasn’t got a top 5 after SC will be done.

        As long as Biden stays in, a longshot has no shot.

        1. Harry Harris

          I was suggesting policy alignment toward the center as a place where Biden supporters might land. If a significant number of his supporters shifted to any second tier candidate, it would show as a boost and get a lot of newsfolks’ attention. We all have seen what momentum shifts can do this far out in an election.

          1. Doug Ross

            Yes, Joe’s voters will land somewhere… I would guess Harris first.. then Booker.. then Buttigieg maybe… some will choose Warren or Sanders. But I don’t see any measurable bump for Castro, Bennett, or Klobuchar. They are so far down now that their only hope would be if Biden specifically endorsed one of them.

            1. Doug Ross

              Most of the 2% or less candidates aren’t running to win. They’re running for a VP slot. Warren/Castro or Booker, Biden/Booker or Klobuchar, Sanders/Gabbard…

  3. Doug T

    I agree Brad. Scaramucci whatever said Warren would lose 40 states in a landslide. Sounds ‘bout right to me. Harris asked Joe to nominate her for senator at the Calif convention then ambushes him in the debate. I would vote Green Party if it came to Harris.

    I know Bennett won’t make it but I like him….and maybe Tulsi. She’s a tough cookie.

  4. Barry

    I know conservatives hate CNN now and won’t appreciate this but their year long investigation into Russia’s activities in Africa released this past week is OUTSTANDING reporting, and unnerving. The best I’ve seen in a long time.

    CNN doesn’t get the credit they deserve for their international investigative reports. They are by far the best tv news network regarding this type of reporting. This work could have resulted in the deaths of these reporters.

  5. Brad Warthen Post author

    The Post and Courier reports on a new poll that of course shows Joe still leading strongly in SC:

    Despite two shaky debates and some recent misstatements, South Carolina Democratic voters still prefer former Vice President Joe Biden in the South’s first presidential primary….

    That “Despite” is, to me, nonsensical.

    Debates and overblown “gaffes” have nothing to do with why people like Joe. It’s interesting to me that a lot of people don’t get that…

    1. Doug Ross

      The leading candidate with supposedly the strongest resume and highest name recognition can only garner the support of 1/3 of the voters. That’s a red flag that will continue to wave for the next six months. There is literally nothing he can do to increase his share except hope other centrist leaning candidates drop out. His support is a mile wide and an inch deep.

      I listened to Bernie Sanders on the Joe Rogan podcast this week (8 million views). He spent an hour talking in depth about a variety of topics — off the cuff, without notes. While I don’t agree with his politics, he was obviously informed, engaged, thoughtful, willing to admit he didn’t have answers to every problem in the country. You could tell he wasn’t coached, prepped, fed talking points…

      I’d encourage everyone to listen to the interview…

      I don’t think Joe Biden would be up to that type of interview. His handlers would freak out.

      1. Brad Warthen Post author

        I’ve never known a politician who was more up for an interview than Joe Biden. The first time I met him, on a busy Friday afternoon when he dropped by to visit with us at the paper, I thought he would never stop talking. He went on for about 2.5 hours. I enjoyed it, but I had so much to do that day!

        My subsequent meetings with him have been the same.

        Yes, those videos I just linked to are 12 years old. Does he still have that kind of energy? I don’t know. But he has a lot more than I do. I was VERY impressed at his stamina the last time I saw him, on Oct. 13. I was with him for just a slice of his day — a little over three hours — and he never stopped, never slowed down. I think he’s the kind of extrovert who draws energy from interacting with people (whereas it tires us introverts)….

        And my understanding was that he was doing the same with some other candidates that day and night.

        And while I haven’t been following him around, I assume his days since then have mostly been just like that.

        The fact that he’s not dead tells us he’s got a lot of what JFK called “vigah.” And that tells me he’s probably more or less still the same kind of guy who can get through a grueling interview…

        1. Doug Ross

          Pressing the flesh isn’t taxing on the brain. Reagan was able to be protected for most of his second term. I want to see Joe do an hour on his own with no notes. If he can do that without messing up, I’ll hold off on any more comments about his age. But I expect he will be packaged like Hillary. Friendly interviews, big audience prepared speeches, lots of handshaking.

  6. bud

    I get why the false equivalency crowd supports Joe Biden. They don’t care that he botched the Clarence Thomas hearings or that he voted for the reprehensible Iraq war or that he has a poor record on criminal justice. They can ignore his age because to them that just supports the notion that he will continue with the anachronistic liberal new world order nonsense. I get that. But why do mainstream Democrats support him? Especially when there are so many excellent candidates that embrace pragmatic American values and necessary bold policies to address global warming and income inequality. But so far at least the polls show that many Democrats DO back Biden. I suspect much of his support is because many believe his is the best person to beat Trump. That IS very important, if true. Also many Democrats, especially African Americans, like his association with Obama. But a few more senior moments and creepy touchy-feely moments could put the kibosh on his support. Perhaps if the economy sinks many Democrats will be less inclined to put so much weight on the best-to-beat-Trump factor if it becomes clear ANYONE will beat Trump.

  7. Doug Ross

    So how is Joe Biden following up on his gaffe filled weekend in Iowa ?

    “Biden is on vacation this week in his home state of Delaware. ”

    Red flag… red flag… red flag…

    This from a story on The Hill about his allies suggesting he scale back his appearances to limit his opportunities to screw up.

    “The allies, growing increasingly nervous about Biden’s verbal flubs, have said it’s an approach that’s been suggested to campaign officials on the heels of the former vice president’s stumbles. Biden has a tendency to make the blunders late in the day, his allies say, particularly after a long swing on the road, like he had last week in Iowa. They say something needs to be done to give the candidate more down time as the campaign intensifies in the fall. “He needs to be a strong force on the campaign trail, but he also has to pace himself,” said one ally who has talked to members of the campaign team and others in the broader Biden World about how to move forward.”

    This narrative is not going to go away. When your supposed friends start talking about you like they do about their grandfather who’s starting to lose it, you’re in trouble.

    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      And what do you suggest?

      Folks, there is one candidate who is fully qualified and likely to beat Donald Trump. His name is Joe Biden.

      And the whole world, it seems, is trying to help Donald Trump by taking Joe down with a thousand little cuts.

      Seriously, people, what’s your plan if you succeed in taking Joe down? What’s the backup?

      There isn’t one.

      So all this petty stuff is pretty pointless, and nothing but destructive to the country. Only Donald Trump benefits from this constant picking at Joe.

      I’m going to take a moment here to change the subject and express my profound gratitude to Joe Biden for stepping forth and putting himself through this, because he most assuredly didn’t have to do it. He’s earned a happy, restful retirement, far more than most people.

      But we needed him, because there was no one else in position to do what needed to be done.

      And I am very grateful to him…

      1. Doug Ross

        65% of Democrats feel there is a better option to defeat Trump. In fact, considering Trump’s negatives and the potential for a recession, there are very few Democrats who should not have at least a 50-50 shot at winning. This isn’t Republican negative campaigning — it’s Joe’s own party saying “Step aide and let someone with more energy take the lead”.

        It’s not petty to assess the mental and physical capacity of a candidate for president. It’s as much of a factor as experience and policy positions should be.

        There is an EASY way for Joe to get ahead of the negativity. A very easy way. Campaign MORE, do MORE interviews, demonstrate that the naysayers are wrong. Taking a week’s vacation (when he doesn’t have a job like most of the rest of the candidates) is not a good sign. Mayor Pete is campaigning AND being a mayor. Bernie, Warren, Harris, Booker, etc. are running harder and doing their day jobs. Joe has been on cruise control for ten years and he needs vacations???

        1. Doug Ross

          And while Joe is sipping mint juleps in Maryland, Tulsi Gabbard is reporting for duty on a two week National Guard active duty assignment in Indonesia.

          “The 38-year old Hawaii Army National Guard officer who served in the Iraq War told Fox News last week that “I’m proud to be able to have the opportunity to serve my country in different ways and I’m looking forward to fulfilling that duty.””

          I would think you would think very highly of Tulsi. She’s my favorite Democrat ever. But then she’s not pro-perpetual war..

          1. Barry

            I was disappointed in an interview with her when she went out of her way to avoid saying anything bad about Assad or Putin. It was just strange.

            She has no chance.

            James Smith volunteered to serve in war and it got him ZERO respect from the pro military conservatives (many who wouldn’t volunteer to even visit a veteran in a hospital let alone volunteer to serve) in South Carolina.

            1. Doug Ross

              I don’t think she has a chance either.. Except as a VP option for Bernie.

              But I’m fine with supporting someone who isn’t a retread like Joe Biden or a misguided shrill librarian like Warren.

            2. Doug Ross

              So if she said she wanted to kill Assad and Putin, what else would stop you from voting for her? Because that is the only content I ever see against her.. Assad or Putin.. her military service apparently isn’t enough of a sign of her commitment to the United States.

              1. Barry

                She doesn’t have to say she wants to kill anyone. It was just odd seeing her so passive against even saying anything bad about them. She was more upset at her fellow Democrats than Assad or Putin.

                But, I’d vote for her 1000 times over Trump.

      2. bud

        there is one candidate who is fully qualified and likely to beat Donald Trump. His name is Joe Biden.

        I’m retired so I guess I can waste a bit more time going over this – again. Regardless of what you think of Biden’s opponents they are most assuredly qualified. So it is just not accurate to make this claim. Let’s just give a brief synopsis of a few of the over candidates:

        Elizabeth Warren – US Senator 6+ years; Served on many advisory boards in the Obama administration including the consumer financial protection bureau; law professor at various locations including tenure as associate dean
        Bernie Sander – US Senator 11+ years; US House congressman 16 years; Mayor of Burlington Vermont 8 years
        Corey Booker – US Senator 6 years; Mayor Newark NJ 7+ years; Served in other offices in Newark government for several years.
        Most of the others are either senators or governors.

        Three of the younger candidates, Buttigieg; Tulsi Gabbard and Seth Moulton have served in the armed forces something that is considered highly important by many. Biden on the other hand was a draft dodger which could be problematic to some moderates. From 9/11 Families for a Strong and Safe America:

        “According to the documents, Biden, 65, received several deferments while he was an undergraduate at the University of Delaware and later as a law student at Syracuse University. A month after undergoing a physical exam in April 1968, Biden received a Selective Service classification of 1-Y, meaning he was available for service only in the event of national emergency.
        “As a result of a physical exam on April 5, 1968, Joe Biden was classified 1-Y and disqualified from service because of asthma as a teenager,” said David Wade, a campaign spokesman.

        I’m a bit uncomfortable pointing out Biden’s flaws because he is very likely to become the nominee. But it is really off-putting to suggest to those of us who have reservations about BIden we are somehow “petty and pointless”. It’s important to pick the BEST candidate to beat Trump and I find Biden a highly flawed man who just may NOT be that person. I know many liberals who just will not vote for Biden. Those people are irrational to be sure but those are lost votes that Brad and others seem to believe don’t exist. But they absolutely do! So let’s think this through before we pick a flawed candidate that will not be the best man to take on Trump.

      3. Mr. Smith

        “there is one candidate who is fully qualified and likely to beat Donald Trump. His name is Joe Biden.”

        This is just plain hysteria.

        Practically ANY of the Democratic candidates would make a better president than the one who currently plays that role on TV. Claiming otherwise undermines the Democratic field and only serves to help re-elect the pseudo-president.

        1. Brad Warthen Post author

          I think maybe you missed part of that sentence. There are two conditions cited, not one:

          1. fully qualified
          2. likely to beat Donald Trump

          If either of the conditions is not met, then the candidate is of no good to the country…

          1. Brad Warthen Post author

            It’s interesting that you would consider a belief so widely held — including among the plurality of Democratic voters — to be “hysteria”…

            1. Doug Ross

              Two thirds of Democrats don’t agree with you. The guy with the highest name recognition and most experience is not the first choice of most people in the party. That’s important. Most of those 2/3 will vote for him but not enthusiastically. Old white guy isn’t going to inspire a huge turnout.

            2. bud

              Yeh Brad you really need to get off this “fully qualified” screed. It really does come across as hysterical. It is pretty well established that several of the Democrats are “qualified” in any meaningful sense of the term to be POTUS. Technically the only delineated qualifications are to be a natural citizen and 35 years of age. Perhaps you need a new term. How about old guy who agrees with me.

              1. Brad Warthen Post author

                I’m curious as to what you consider to be adequate preparation to be president.

                What kinds of experiences do you want to see in a candidate’s background?

                Whom do you think has a resume that comes anywhere near Joe’s?

                Let’s see… Bernie has been in office a long time — as a complete flake who didn’t consider the Democratic Party to be far enough to the left for him. And who, in fact is NOT a Democrat.

                At no time in our history, before 2016, would anyone have for a moment considered him to be a contender for the nomination of a party from which he has always kept himself aloof.

                That’s Bernie. How about the others? Who comes close to Joe, in your book?

                1. bud

                  You’re right we should absolutely get the best qualified eligible person as the Democratic standard bearer. Who else is more qualified than a man who has actually served as president. Therefore I’m throwing my support behind Jimmy Carter.

                2. Doug Ross

                  Trump : No political experience
                  Obama: State senator 7 years, half a term as U.S. Senator
                  Bush: TX governor 5 years (TX governor is known to be one of the least powerful)
                  Clinton: Governor of a small southern state
                  Bush Sr: extensive political career, terrible President
                  Reagan: 8 year Governor of CA

                  The last four Presidents have had zero or very limited military experience (Bush flying around Texas playing Top Gun fantasies).

                  So it doesn’t take a whole lot to be President. Other than Marianne Williamson, the rest of the candidates have enough experience to at least qualify.

                  1. Brad Warthen Post author

                    Ah, but not to be taken seriously in competition with Joe Biden.

                    And while I risk starting a whole OTHER argument here — which I hate because I’m no great fan of W., but people are so unfair to the guy that I have to defend him now and then — flying the F-102 is not “playing Top Gun fantasies.” Flying a supersonic interceptor, even in training, is hardly like playing a video game…

                  2. Brad Warthen Post author

                    By the way, we’ve had this conversation before and I’ve made this point before, but I’ll make it again:

                    The two presidents in my lifetime who had the least relevant experience were Kennedy and Obama. They were exceptions because they were immensely talented politicians. They were naturals, phenoms, blessed with raw leadership talent. That’s how they overcame their light resumes…

                    Oh, and I’ve got to ask: You started your litany with “Trump : No political experience.”

                    Uh, yeah, and what’s your point? He’s the perfect example of why you don’t elect someone with no political experience.

                    Of course, using him as the example insults other disqualified people. He has so many OTHER disqualifying characteristics that I can say something I couldn’t have said of any other president in our history: If you just grab an average person off the street (somebody fairly normal seeming, non-schizophrenic, say, and with no swastika tattoos), I expect he or she would do a better job, and reflect less shame upon the office, than Trump. Being completely unprepared for the job is one of his less spectacular disqualifications…

                3. Doug Ross

                  “Uh, yeah, and what’s your point? He’s the perfect example of why you don’t elect someone with no political experience.”

                  He hasn’t been the disaster you keep trying to make it out to be. The country hasn’t fallen apart. He hasn’t started any wars like fanatics claimed would happen… he’s tried in his own way to establish a different foreign policy (one you hate). But all in all it’s been pretty much an average Presidential effort. He’s done as much as Obama did in his first term considering he’s working in the exact same hostile environment that Republicans used against Obama. If Democrats weren’t so interested in making sure nothing happens until November 2020, things might be different.

                  What Trump has proven is you don’t need to be a politician for years to be President.

                  1. Brad Warthen Post author

                    “He hasn’t been the disaster you keep trying to make it out to be.”

                    Yes, he has. Every single day, usually in multiple ways that same day. To those of us who see it, it’s like getting hit in the face with a huge, resounding slap. But to you, there’s nothing there.

                    We’re just not going to agree, and I’ve learned that there’s no way I can make you see what I see, so let’s just not even go down that rathole….

                4. Doug Ross

                  Joe Biden’s experience is ancient history. He hasn’t done anything relevant this decade.

                  As for George Bush flying a jet. Whoopee… he wasn’t doing it to protect the country. There’s a lot of father-son psychological components to W’s life. Never could quite live up to his father’s legacy.

          2. Mr. Smith

            I’m quite able to read and grasp full sentences.
            I am also able to grasp the implications behind words and sentences.
            And the implication behind practically everything you post on this topic is:
            “It’s Biden or catastrophe.”
            I don’t see it that way.
            And anyone who at this point in the campaign concludes that he’s the only viable option available is in my view borderline hysterical.

            1. Doug Ross

              It’s more stubbornness than hysteria. Brad’s got the Biden Blinders on. Some would call it loyalty to a fault.

  8. Harry Harris

    “Let’s see… Bernie has been in office a long time — as a complete flake who didn’t consider the Democratic Party to be far enough to the left for him. And who, in fact is NOT a Democrat.”

    Calling Bernie a complete flake is an indication in my view that you’ve not familiarized yourself with either his current or former views. He is serious and thoughtful – not to mention experienced as a collaborator on many issues with an array of legislation. Most of views are likely very different from your, but calling him a flake exhibits a large ignorance of his career or a careless use of language on your part.

    1. Barry

      I’ve always respected Bernie Sanders. He didn’t play the game of personal insult politics, and largely sticks to issues, especially when a campaign is over.

  9. Harry Harris

    Yep. I hope this time he doesn’t get stuck on campaign lines and goes into why his proposals will work. As of now, he’s being out-explained by Warren.

    1. Doug Ross

      Can she explain her wealth tax? I want to see a working example.

      From :

      In 2012, the Wall Street Journal wrote that: “the wealth tax has a fatal flaw: valuation. It has been estimated that 62% of the wealth of the top 1% is “non-financial” – i.e., vehicles, real estate, and (most importantly) private business. Private businesses account for nearly 40% of their wealth and are the largest single category.” A particular issue for small business owners is that they cannot accurately value their private business until it is sold. Furthermore, business owners could easily make their businesses look much less valuable than they really are, through accounting, valuations and assumptions about the future. “Even the rich don’t know exactly what they’re worth in any given moment

      1. Harry Harris

        Hey. It’s the Wall Street Journal. By the way, counties and cities tax real estate, cars, boats, and even business inventories. I would bet she can explain it to you, but I’d also bet you wouldn’t like it.

        1. Doug Ross

          Explain it to all the countries that have tried it and gave it up.

          Are you considering the Wall Street Journal fake news?

          How much will the IRS have to be expanded to implement this new tax? It’s quaintly naive that you think that assessing the value of a car might be the same as, say, assessing the value of Mark Cuban’s NBA team the Dallas Mavericks. Or Jeff Bezos’ ownership of the Washington Post… or Eli and Edythe Broad who own one of the largest art collections ESTIMATED (key point) to be worth $2 billion dollars. Does Warren expect people like the Broad’s to sell off their art to pay the wealth tax bill? She hasn’t got a CLUE about how she would implement this tax. That is why I would never vote for someone so ignorant who feeds on class warfare with such screeching zeal.

          1. Doug Ross

            There’s also the small matter of whether a wealth tax is constitutional.

            ” In the United States, depending upon how Article 1, Sections 2 and 9 of the United States Constitution would be interpreted, the implementation of a wealth tax not apportioned by the populations of the states might require a Constitutional amendment in order to be passed into law. The United States Constitution prohibits any federal direct tax on asset holdings (as opposed to income tax or capital gains tax) unless the revenue collected is apportioned among the states on the basis of their population”

            Warren’s wealth tax would be tied up in the courts longer than she would be in office… and even if implemented would face literally hundreds of individual cases where the valuations would be contested… likely for years before a dime was seen.

            Warren is the worst kind of politician possible. A phony pandering academic.

            1. Doug Ross


              “Some other European countries have discontinued this kind of tax in recent years: Austria, Denmark (1995), Germany (1997), Finland (2006), Luxembourg (2006) and Sweden (2007)[:”

              What do they know (from experience) that Professor Warren doesn’t.

          2. Harry Harris

            I don’t favor a wealth tax at all. I’m only asserting that you are not familiar with Warren’s proposal and are only responding to a caricature of it. I strongly favor reform of the income taxes, FICA, and medicare to make them more progressive and help reduce the deficit. Warren wants to design a way to pay for some added spending that I don’t think is wise. Republicans never bother with that, but only promise dishonestly that top-end oriented tax cuts will “pay for themselves” (see Ronald Reagan, George W Bush, Donald Trump, and concurrent Republicans in Congress). They then discover the debt crisis that they created and take aim at Social Security, Medicare, and programs that support working poor people – claiming they are trying to save them. It’s class warfare that they have waged successfully since the early 1980’s.

            1. Doug Ross

              Uh, I know EXACTLY what her wealth tax proposal is. It’s right here on her webpage:


              It’s full of total fantasy. But here’s some highlights:

              “a significant increase in the IRS enforcement budget;”

              “For example, the IRS would be authorized to use cutting-edge retrospective and prospective formulaic valuation methods for certain harder-to-value assets like closely held business and non-owner-occupied real estate.” Ha ha ha… using cutting edge and IRS in the same sentence is hilarious.

              “For the rare taxpayer with an extremely high net worth but liquidity constraints that make it difficult to pay this additional tax, there will be an option to defer payment of the tax for up to five years, with interest. ” Isn’t that compassionate? Hey, guy with a business you spent your life building, we’ll let you sell it off but give you five years to do it and charge you interest for the privilege! Oh, by the way, during those five years, you’ll still be paying a wealth tax on what’s left.

              Read it for yourself and tell me what the probability of passing anything that looks like her proposal could be. IT’S ZERO!

              Seriously, anyone who thinks this is possible is living in a fantasy world and shouldn’t be allowed to run for President.

              1. Doug Ross

                As for making taxes more “progressive”, they already are. Rich people pay the majority of federal taxes by a wide margin. If you are getting any government services, thank a millionaire.

                1. Harry Harris

                  Which one should I thank? The multi-billionaire who paid an effective 12% rate or the mega-millionaire who paid an effective 14% rate? What about the declared multi-billionaire who paid a zero rate over several years after claiming to have taken a “small loan” from his father and built a real estate empire.
                  I can’t thank myself, because favorable treatment of my passive income gives me a rate lower than it should be on income. I do pay a lot of state and local taxes because of a SC law that transferred most school tax to business property. I guess folks with school children should be thanking me for that. I consider paying it a civic duty.

Comments are closed.