Election 2020

Could a Warren/Sanders Team-up Topple Biden?

Maybe. But it is hard to imagine Sanders endorsing Warren until and unless Warren defeats him consistently and by a significant margin in several early states.


Call it the socialist scenario—the risk that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren could combine forces to defeat Joseph Biden in the Democratic primary.

The RealClearPolitics polling averages have Biden leading Sanders and Warren nationally and in the early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire. But these same polls show the "not Biden" vote represented by Sanders and Warren to be larger than the level of Biden support. If that vote were combined rather than split, the socialist scenario says, it could result in a Democratic presidential nominee who is either openly socialist, like Senator Sanders, or an ideological ally of Sanders, like Senator Warren, who says she is a capitalist but who is campaigning with a call for an annual wealth tax and for what she calls "big, structural change."

The possibility is generating concern from Americans who are more cautious about "big, structural change." The concern is heightened because Biden is old enough that he can seem vulnerable rather than inevitable.

As is often the case with socialism, however, the fantasy is some distance from reality.

The primary campaigns of the previous presidential cycle are familiar precedents and somewhat reassuring ones, at least for those who aren't Sanders or Warren enthusiasts.

On the Republican side in 2016, the fact that there were more "not Trump" voters than Trump voters wasn't ever enough to stop Trump; the "not Trump" vote was fractured among a variety of candidates such as Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz, just as the "not Biden" vote is currently split. The way these contests are structured, with a large field of candidates, you don't really need a majority, just a strong plurality, at least until the nominating convention.

On the Democratic side in 2016, Sanders drew a lot of votes in 2016, too—43 percent, by one incomplete count cited by Wikipedia. But in 2016, the socialist opposition wasn't enough to defeat the establishment front-runner, who in 2016 was not Vice President Biden but Hillary Clinton. It's not clear that the Democratic primary electorate has moved so far left since 2016 that re-running a similar experiment with Sanders in 2020 will produce appreciably different results than it did in 2016.

It is hard to imagine Sanders endorsing Warren until and unless Warren defeats him consistently and by a significant margin in several early states. Similarly, it's difficult to see what Warren would get from throwing her support to Sanders. Even if Warren were promised the vice presidency on a Sanders-Warren ticket, Democratic voters who are excited by her might be dismayed to see a woman of color—if you credit Warren's claim to Native American ancestry—stepping aside to play a merely supporting role. Warren herself might resist the idea and prefer to persist in the quest to make history as the first woman president.

Even if Sanders or Warren somehow managed to win the Democratic nomination, they'd have to defeat President Trump actually to make it to the presidency. That wouldn't be easy. An incumbent president running for reelection hasn't been defeated since Bill Clinton beat George H.W. Bush in 1992. Trump will seize the opportunity to define his opponents: "crazy Bernie," "Pocahontas."

And even if Sanders or Warren somehow did manage to defeat Trump and win election as president of the United States, the former Burlington, Vermont, mayor or the former Harvard law professor would have a hard time fully implementing a socialist or "big structural change" program in a system that requires 60 Senate votes for a lot of legislation. President Trump ran promising to build a border wall and repeal ObamaCare. He has done neither, despite having Republican control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate for his first two years. Not that Trump hasn't accomplished anything at all. He has done a lot. Sanders or Warren would probably do a lot, too, if either one became president. But Washington has a way of stalling ambitious plans.

That reality may, paradoxically, account for some of the support out there for Warren and Sanders. If voters really thought these candidates were going to implement their programs fully, the voters might be more hesitant. But by the time Sanders-style socialism or Warren's "big, structural change" finally make it through the Washington compromise meat-grinder, they might eventually wind up looking less revolutionary and more incremental.

It's not a risk I'm eager to take.

It may not be a risk that the majority of the Democratic Party is willing to take. But Trump sympathizers may be consoled that some of the same factors—Congress, the "deep state" bureaucracy, entrenched special interests—that have hampered Trump could provide some brakes or guardrails if the socialist scenario comes to pass and Sanders or Warren wind up in the Oval Office.

NEXT: PragerU's Lawsuit Against Google Seeks To Rewrite the First Amendment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. …Democratic voters who are excited by her might be dismayed to see a woman of color—if you credit Warren’s claim to Native American ancestry—stepping aside to play a merely supporting role.

    This is going to be a very small subset of voting Democrats, even among the ones especially crazy for identity politics.

    1. Should just say “Democratic voters who are excited by her might be dismayed to see a woman stepping aside to play a merely supporting role to an old white man”.

      1. And. O way Bernie will go for riding bitch on the ticket.

      2. I earned $7000 last month by working online just for 7 to 9 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this Site. If You too want to earn such a This amount of money then come and Check it. …….. Read More

    2. Anyone dumb/ignorant enough to believe that she’s a “woman of color” deserves to lose, at everything.

      1. Haha. Even if she’s not dumb enough to run on that, you can bet she’ll be reminded of it a lot.


    3. My Boy pal makes $seventy five/hour on net. he has been job less for six months.
      However he earns$16453 genuinely working at the internet for some hours. Immediately join from the source……
      HERE:::::>>>> http://www.workatthehome.com

  2. They both look constipated.

      1. LOL the Metamucil Ticket.

  3. Call it the socialist scenario—the risk that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren could combine forces to defeat Joseph Biden in the Democratic primary.

    Haha. These would the two finalists in the Democrat shitshow?

    The fact that Black Americans are not supporting Kamala Rouge should scare the shit out of Democrat leadership. Evidently Biden is more popular among Black Democrats because he was Obama’s VP and dutifully kissed Obama’s ass.

    Joe Biden is an East Coast Democrat so has the same issue with national politics that Kamala Rouge, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren do.

  4. ╔════╗───────────────╔═══╦═══╦═══╦═══╗─╔╗╔╗╔╗

    1. That’s cool, but can you make one that says “Cthulhu” instead of “Trump”? I really think it’s just a matter of time before IT throws ITs hat in the ring and I want IT to know I’m on ITs side.

      1. HAIL ANTS

        1. I too welcome our new insect overlords

          1. Giant meteor 2020

            1. What is Giant Meteor’s climate change policy?

              1. Hasn’t been officially announced, but it will surely make a huge impact

      2. Why vote for the lesser evil?

    2. Quit spamming the board with your stupid banner. All right, we’ve seen it. Now say something new.

      1. Jesus of open competition on your inanity?

        1. Yeah. Chipper MW is demanding that OTHER people post something different.

          He is such a stupid troll that he does not even realize that his material is the same all the time.

  5. guaranteed win for trump

    “…Democratic voters who are excited by her might be dismayed to see a woman of color—if you credit Warren’s claim to Native American ancestry—stepping aside to play a merely supporting role.”

    woman of color LOL!

    Are they trolling her?

    1. White is a color.

      1. Technically, white is all the colors.

        1. I thought black was all the colors (or is that grey) and white was the lack of colors? I Looked it up its sorta like is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable. For culinary purposes it is a veggie but botanically matches the definition of a fruit (iirc, to lazy to look up).


  6. Bernie’s support plummets when people learn EVERYONE will pay more in taxes to fund all his ‘free’ stuff. There aren’t enough rich people to pay for everything so he’s going to stick the middle class with the bill.

    1. Agreed, but they are going to do everything in their power to make sure that fact doesn’t become apparent until after the election

    2. Yeah well we’re running trillion dollar deficits under Trump and still paying interest on trillion dollar Republican wars from the last asshole Republican president so you can shut your fucking mouth about spending money.
      Under Bernie the spending would simply be reallocated from utter worthless trash like gratuitous military spending and the evil police state to things that actually improve the quality of our lives like infrastructure and health care.

      1. Totally agree about the trillion dollar Republican Wars. But you’re missing the point that both major parties produce asshole presidents. (Sorry, but anyone who orders the drone murder of a group of innocent kids eating breakfast is an asshole. Period.)

        As for creating an “evil police state,” the socialists wrote the book on doing that and could easily make a living giving lessons to governments everywhere who want to achieve a totalitarian state. Ever heard of Stalin? Mao and the Red Guards? The Khmer Rouge?

      2. Vast majority of yearly dedicate spending is for entitlement programs shithead.

    3. Realistically, he’s not even going to stick the rich with the bill – it will just be the middle class. The rich can afford special pleading and adjusting their income and lifestyle, the middle class can’t.

      1. Realistically, he can’t stick the rich with the bill. From a previous post:
        I added up the Forbes 400 on 30 Jan 2019. It came to $2.891T. Not even three trillion dollars, not even one year of the Federal budget, or three years’ deficit, even if you could confiscate all of it.

        And if you did confiscate all of it, it’s not Scrooge McDuck swimming pools full of gold and jewelry, or even cash, or sitting in bank accounts. It’s assets: things, property, not-cash. Investments mostly: stocks and bonds; some mansions, yachts, biz jets, Ferraris, and other toys. But all of it has to be sold to become the cash you can use to pay down the national debt or even eliminate the budget debt for a measly three years. $3T is peanuts and won’t even put a dent in all the single-payer schemes.

        You couldn’t convert it to cash anyway. You’d have to sell it, and the only people who could buy it, couldn’t, because all their wealth has been confiscated.

        You couldn’t nibble at it either with Lizzie Warren’s 2% or 5% wealth tax, or Bernie Sanders’ 77% inheritance tax. Not only does the basic problem remain, that it is not cash but assets which have to be sold, but the value isn’t even known until you sell it, so you’d just be guessing what your stolen 2% or 5% or 77% is. With so many more sellers than buyers, the values would be depressed and you’d get pennies on the dollar, if you managed to sell much at all; everyone with the wealth to afford buying it would be scrambling to sell their own assets to pay their own wealth tax.

        1. You don’t understand the effect of wealth taxes. Warren’s 3% is far too high to be effective and combined with no change in income tax it’s a guaranteed failure.

          But a lower wealth tax (say 1%) – with that change in income tax – would only force the wealthy to ensure their assets pay a current return. They wouldn’t sell anything at all. eg – Bezos and Buffett would change their dividend policy re Amazon and Berkshire. That would immediately make it possible for other investors in Amazon/Berkshire to earn an income while remaining shareowners. Right now, other investors have to sell (paying more in capgains) to receive an income and once they sell they lose their ownership. Right now, the LACK of dividends is all just part of the tax sheltering game because income is taxed while assets aren’t. And that itself creates huge distortions. eg CEO’s get far more option grants when the share price is volatile which it is when dividends are low/zero and that volatility also makes them more valuable. And it’s part of another tax game – which is why CEO’s have transformed their pay package in that direction over the last 30 years.

          The point of wealth taxes is NOT to raise revenue. It is to ensure that capital and labor (the main source of income tax) have the same tax burden – to level the playing field and eliminate the ability for both Marxists and plutocrats to rig the game. And to ensure that capital actually pays taxes for the services rendered to it by govts protection of property. Personally I’d like to see a ‘semi-libertarian’ (along the lines of Switzerland) take up Warren’s proposal (which does have the benefit of introducing the concept of a tax based on basis points similar to how investment portfolio fees are charged) and show how it can actually be part of a very effective tax reform. A tax reform that btw can eliminate a ton of govt spending pressures – and thus reduce spending long-term – when govt is called upon to ‘fix’ problems that result solely from a tilted playing field.


            Haha. Resentful dooshbag.

          2. You imply there is free money. There isn’t. Changing Amazon shares to pay a dividend which would pay the wealth tax means that much less money (your 1%) no longer goes back to increasing the wealth. It’s the opportunity cost.

            Wealth decreases by 1%, just as the tax is designed to do, either way.

          3. Further, the arithmetic shows plainly that no wealth tax can raise the money required. Suppose the total wealth of the top 10,000 is $5T. 1% is only $50B. 3% is only $150B. That’s not even a rounding error.

            1. the arithmetic shows plainly that no wealth tax can raise the money required.

              What part of The point of wealth taxes is NOT to raise revenue. do you not understand? Are there too many words in that sentence?

              Just to give you two examples of ‘social problems’ that CAN get reduced dramatically with a wealth tax – Social Security (saving for retirement) and Medicare (saving for healthcare expenses at the aged end of life). Companies that pay dividends to shareowners make it FAR easier for people at lower incomes to accumulate wealth by buying and holding. They don’t need to fork over 1-2%/year to Wall St simply to do the overfrequent buying/selling that is required when companies don’t pay dividends. The tax system doesn’t need all the bullshit/games of capgains/losses, double taxing dividends, estate taxes, etc because ‘income taxes’ DO NOT FIT with the actual income of capital – so there is no need for the ‘tax-advantaged’ savings accounts that merely divert savings from non tax-advantaged savings. All of those serve as BARRIERS to accumulating wealth because they serve as tax gimmicks for those who already have wealth.

              The effect is that regular folks CAN accrue wealth merely by saving. Using Switzerland – only 1.7% of the peeps there have less than $10,000 in savings compared to 28% in the US. The working definition of ‘middle class’ in Switzerland is 2+ years income in savings – 45% in Switzerland meet that, 38% in the US but the big difference is virtually none of that is ‘residence’ in Switzerland (which doesn’t subsidizes homeownership) most is ‘residence’ in the US. When people can actually save for their retirement and elderly medical, that REDUCES govt spending and eliminates the appeal of both a Sanders and a Trump by eliminating the politicization of those as issues.

              And they aren’t doing this by raising a ton of revenue. The federal level in Switzerland raises (and spends – they don’t need massive public debt either) about 11% of GDP. The last time the federal govt here raised/spent that little was —– before WW2. Wealth tax is not about the revenue. It is about creating a level playing field re the tax system cuz ‘income tax’ SUCKS as a means of taxing capital. That is precisely why those with capital who want to rig the system PREFER an income tax.

              1. Jfree… how about go investigate some of the countries that have tried implementation of wealth taxes instead of living in an ignorant world of what you think might happen.

                1. I just did you moron. Switzerland is a country. It’s not just a word I made up.

                  1. Sorta like your 1% wealth tax is just made up whereas 3% is totes legit. Or is it the other way round? I guess I didn’t understand that part.

              2. What part did I not understand? Maybe the part where you try to justify a 1% wealth tax as workable where a 3% wealth tax is not.

                1. A 1% (100 basis points) wealth tax equals a 20% imputed tax rate on a portfolio that generates 5% return per year. Lower if the return is higher – higher if lower. That is neither an unachievable rate of return on a portfolio nor an egregious tax rate on said return.

                  A 3% wealth tax would require a 15% return per year to be a 20% imputed tax rate. That becomes purely punitive if a portfolio (balance sheet) only generates an 8% return. So yes – there is a huge difference.

                  The only difference between a tax imposed on the portfolio itself (a wealth tax that is assessed on a households balance sheet rather than their income statement) rather than solely on ‘realized’ returns is that it eliminates the tax gaming of when to ‘realize’ a return. And it eliminates the free-riding of owners (eg the Buffett bailout during TARP) who insist that their property ownership be protected by government even when they aren’t buying/selling but are holding/owning.

                  Further, I am not advocating a wealth tax in isolation or as a supplement – but in combination with income tax changes. IDK the specific numbers that would work here – but in Switzerland they are able to manage a flat income tax rate of 12% with a 30k exemption. So for both the existing and the aspirational wealthy, they are looking at a completely different ‘tax dynamic’ re their own behavior. I suspect our numbers would have to be higher than Switzerland to be revenue-neutral cuz we seem to really love running and bombing the entire world. Course we also like making our kids pay our bills. So it’s entirely possible that Americans are not adult enough to even have a serious discussion about government finances.

                  1. In other news, you still haven’t answered my basic point, that no wealth tax will work because the only way to turn wealth into cash is to sell it, and the only people who could buy it are the very ones who are trying to sell their own wealth to pay their own wealth tax.

                    1%, 3%; 5% growth, it doesn’t matter.

                    Wealth is not liquid when there are no buyers.

                    1. WTF are you on about? Do you not even understand how those who own property CONTROL their ownership of that property?

                    2. How stupid and/or ignorant are you to think you actually control your property? Are you from some parallel universe?

                  2. A wealth tax would be difficult to calculate – and your example of a 5% return is too simplistic. The value of a given portfolio can go up and down. The tax code already taxes income from dividends and interest (except for tax-free bonds), as well as capital gains. It’s entirely possible a wealthy person (in a given year) could have income from their portfolio that was the same or higher as last year, but the market value of their portfolio could go down. Jeff Bezos is super wealthy, but most of his wealth is in AMZN stock – which pays no dividends. We need no pity Mr. Bezos, but the stock today is lower than it was a year ago. There are plenty of other ultra-wealthy people that have most of their wealth in privately held assets, and I think assessing an accurate value on that kind of wealth once a year will be difficult. As to your kids (I don’t have any) paying our bills – so what – we’re all paying the bills now of the previous generation. Government debt mostly gets rolled over. We live in a credit based economy – and if we expect the economy to grow, then in the aggregate, debt will grow -including government debt. Managing government finances prudently is the challenge – but it’s primarily about living standards and inflation. The federal government is a currency issuer – so from an operational standpoint, we should not compare it to a household like yours or mine – we are currency users.

            2. Suppose the total wealth of the top 10,000 is $5T

              And by the way, these numbers are wrong. Total wealth in the US is roughly $93 trillion. 78% is owned by the top 10%. 40% is owned by the top 1%. 22% is owned by the top 0.1% (that’s 126,000 households and is where Warren’s 3% kicks in). 12% is owned by the top 0.01% (that’s near enough your 10,000 at 12,600 households – but 12% is more like $11 trillion).

              And while Warren is using this for envy/socialist reasons to expand govt, the way to look at it is to reform the tax system. eg cap gains tax revenue ranges from $40 billion (2009) to roughly $140 billion (2014) /year. All those groups above can avoid much of that simply by temporarily selling part of their portfolio at a loss – and yes they can easily avoid wash-sale rules that were put in place spec for them cuz they have tax accountants and private bankers. Those HNW groups are in fact a major reason capgains revenue fluctuates so much. HNW could have easily captured cap losses for a decade in 2009 to shelter future cap gains without ‘risking’ actually losing control of any assets.

              Those tens to low hundreds of billions are the tax revenue you’re actually talking about to be revenue-neutral. And yes – a wealth tax can deliver multiples more than that – to offset other tax reform like reducing the marginal rates at the top – which are intended to hit the wealthy but in fact don’t. They hit peeps like Mike Trout and PewDiePie (guys working to accumulate wealth) instead.

              1. I cited my sources. What are yours? Are you counting every little kids piggy bank?

                You still haven’t answered my basic point, that wealth cannot be taxed without destroying it. Not I do not mean transferring ownership, I mean destruction: the very act of having to sell it in a market with no buyers means its value drops to nil.

                Answer that!

                1. I cited my sources. What are yours?

                  Well try – financial position of the United States

                  According to that, total net worth is $123 trillion but gotta adjust that for govt, foreign entities, possibly some double-counting re financial entities and the owners of financial entities, etc.

                  that wealth cannot be taxed without destroying it.

                  Why is that unique to wealth? Logically, that would also apply to income or consumption or ANYTHING that is taxed – RIGHT NOW. Hell that logic was used to rationalize the TARP bailout (omg – gotta rescue the stock market and banks otherwise paper portfolios of the wealthy will vanish).

                  1. Income is already liquid and easy to tax.

                    Taxing wealth — stocks, binds, real estate, factories, warehouses, inventory, yachts, jets — property which must be sold to realize its value — all at once creates a buyer’s market.

                    Are you that ignorant?

                    1. property which must be sold to realize its value

                      You obviously have never actually owned most of those forms of property. No you don’t have to sell property to realize 1% of its value in liquid form. Yeesh.

                      You seem to enjoy the strawman about wealth – that mysterious ‘other’ thinks it’s all Scrooge McDuck playing in a swimming pool of gold with art masterpieces on the wall in an $800 million house. None of which generate anything because they are merely consumption or speculation rather than a productive investment. Correctly blast that as a strawman. And then assume that very strawman back into existence in order to assume that the only way the wealthy can deal with a wealth tax is to do exactly what that Scrooge McDuck strawman would have to do because those assets are non-productive.

                      Shit – make up your mind.

              2. Damn JFree I am impressed. Don’t know if I agree with you (because it is clear to me now I did not understand this issue well enough to have formed a justified opinion) but now I will seek out more info on the wealth tax topic. Good job.

    4. Not everyone will pay for the free goodies. More like 47% of the voting population. (And I bet it’s actually a lot less nowadays, that figure of who actually foots the bill was from Romney’s presidential run).

    5. There isn’t enough money PRRIOd to pay for all their crazy bullshit. Especially if we’re still letting a million plus people in every year. And that doesn’t even cunt our massively porous border.

      Interestingly,Bernie claims to be dead’s et against an open border.

  7. Teams are supposed to be complementary, pairing an angry old senile fool and an angry old lying fool is hardly an improvement over just sticking with an old fool. (I’m not one of those that thinks Joe’s gaffes are a sign of incipient senility, I’m pretty sure Joe is just exactly as sharp as he’s ever been.)

  8. Call it the socialist scenario—the risk that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren could combine forces to defeat Joseph Biden in the Democratic primary.

    Wait, I thought Biden was the socialist scenario. Warren/Sanders is the ‘FEMA setting up concentration camps for the UN takeover in preparation of the One World Order’ scenario.

  9. Trump should run for the Democratic nomination.

    1. Lol. That’d be hilarious. Espescially if he won. The election could be over the veep.

      1. I think he’d have a good chance of winning.

        1. I wonder who the jilted Republicans would nominate. Couldn’t be any Trumpista — or could it? Would the election be between Trump 2.0 and Trump Lite, or between Trump 2.0 and some anti-Trump who nobody had ever heard of?

          1. I was suggesting Trump take both nominations.

    2. ‘Someone has to save the Democrat party from itself. I accept the challenge. It’ll be fun. I promise. Best fun ever. But first we have to get rid of these two party poopers. They poop a lot.”

      Trump 2020.

  10. Warren and Sanders? Lordy. Talk about a “gift” from from socialist hell.

  11. Only if they do each other.

    1. Dude! I’m trying to eat here.

  12. What the article is missing is Senator Warren rise in the polls. While Biden and Sanders have remained solid but stalled. Senator Warren is making inroad with minority voters. This will negate Biden strong support with these voters. Senator Sanders has his 2016 base but doesn’t seem to be building it bigger. If Warren comes in 1 or 2 in the Iowa Caucuses I think it will be a 2 candidate race for the nomination.

    And what Senator Warren has going for her is that President Trump’s Pocahontas barb has gone flat. He will need a new dig if he wants to impress anyone outside his base.

  13. Call it the socialist scenario—the risk that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren could combine forces to defeat Joseph Biden in the Democratic primary.

    I’m all for it. Let’s have a referendum on socialism. Warren/Sanders 2020.

    1. I agree Trump 2020 bailouts for farmers (especially rich farmers), government support for golf courses, and seizure of private property (for the wall). We can call it my socialism vs your socialism. It will be bigger than Ali vs Fraser.

      1. Yeah…….that shit really compares to single payor, free college for all, the Green New Deal, a wealth tax, massive tax hikes on the ones we already have, etc..

        Are you really this fucking stupid? Really?

      2. I agree Trump 2020 bailouts for farmers (especially rich farmers), government support for golf courses, and seizure of private property (for the wall). We can call it my socialism vs your socialism.

        So according to you, Trump’s socialism is like a gnat compared to Warren/Sander’s great white shark. Glad we settled that.

        Yes, I’ll take a gnat over a great white shark any day.

      3. Define rich farmers? If you own a 1000 acres, a couple of grain trucks, a combine harvester or two, a wheel tractor, you have assets now in the millions of dollars, but your net pay will make you solidly middle class. Most so called rich farmers have little to no liquid assets and are only rich on paper. A combine harvester, new on the showroom floor starts at around $250,000. An acre of arable land, here in Northeast Montana (hardly a high demand area) starts at around $900-$1500 an acre. A 1000 acres just about is enough to break even with current wheat prices (which have been depressed since at least 2015, so you can’t blame the trade war).

        1. I don’t mean to say the average farmer is rich but there are large corporate farms. These corporate farms often get the bulk of subsidies whether as tariff relief or just regular subsidies like sugar. These are as much socialism as giving people healthcare. In fact giving the farmer you describe health care coverage might be better for them than a farm product subsidy.

          1. Again define corporate farms. My ranch is listed as an LLC, as are many of the surrounding farms and ranches in the area, if not LLC an S-corporation or C-corporation. My board of directors include me and my wife only but for tax, laibility and insurance reasons we chose to incorporate. This is fairly standard, in fact I would state this is the norm rather than the exception. The idea that some huge corporations owns and operates farms is an urban myth. Most (95%+) are family owned while also being incorporated. Several relatives may cooperatively operate a farm or ranch (also fairly common) and again, it is easier to incorporate to protect all involved.

            1. Lets not get hung up on the definitions. I will agree that a family owned operation could be incorporated and this is not a feature of size. What type of government support do you see as important to allow farmers to be successful? Whether that is direct subsidy for some commodities, insurance for unforeseen crow failure (drought, flood, tornado, ect.), infrastructure (road or irrigation) or family support like healthcare. If you support these do you see it as socialism or something else?

              1. I am not arguing for or against Government funding for farmers. I am arguing against myths that are continuously perpetrated about “large corporate owned farms”. You would be hard pressed to find anything of the sort. There are a few but they are extremely rare and are usually co-ops, thus are still technically farmer owned.

                1. Saturday mornings I go to my local farmers market to buy fruits and veggies. Saturday afternoon I go for a bike ride in the country and pass by a large dairy farm with a large milking operation. You would acknowledge that both are farmers but one is much more a business in-line with medium to large scale corporations.

              2. In fact you stated there are large, corporate owned farms that get the subsidies then referred to sugar refiners. Refiners are processors, not farmers. Tyson doesn’t grow pork or poultry (though they contract it out). Darigold doesn’t own dairies (again they buy milk from farmers, most of who belong to their co-op), if it wasn’t for Deseret meats in Florida (owned by the Mormon Church) I would be hard pressed to come up with a single large, corporate farm that you alluded to.

                1. Reason also often confuses the two. They’ll talk about overall agricultural profit, including after processing and value added, then falsely conflate it to farm profits. They also will talk about urbanites receiving subsidies without mentioning these are mainly people who sit on the board of a family owned farm, and probably have a close relative still operating the farm.

                  1. The urbanites receiving subsidies are the institutional investors that own farmland. They get the rents that farmers pay – and over time that also means they get much of the subsidies at the margin. 30% of farmland is now owned ‘off the farm’ and it ain’t just the siblings/cousins of the farmer who is still operating the old family homestead. It is in fact those institutional investors – viewing farmland as a mere portfolio asset – who have driven up farmland prices thanks to their ability to get subsidized money from the Fed. Those institutional investors are also irrevocably committed to the whole mono/subsidy regime because that props up the land value. Which kind of eliminates the farmers ability to test different crops and diversify away from that model – not that I think that’s likely anyway given the age of most farmers.

                    I agree there is much confusion between farmer-as-operator v farmer-as-landowner. Probably even by farmers themselves in making decisions about whether to own the machinery or the land.

                2. OK, so we have farmers, processors, coops and a religious group. My question then is who is getting the new farm subsidies to off set losses to the China tariffs.

  14. Could a Warren/Sanders Team-up Topple Biden?
    They’d break a hip just reaching over to shake hands.

  15. How is it that the identity politics people get more ideological every year while the Democrat candidates get older and whiter every year? Someone’s not getting the memo

    1. That’s mean! You know full well that Warren is 1/1024th Native American!

  16. those “guardrails” didn’t stop Obamacare from being passed

  17. Waiting for this election….

  18. warren is a very great investor he can be a simple person even though the money he has is very much maybe there are only a few people in this world like myself I as a young person really like his life

  19. Considering Warren is closing on Sanders in the polls, who would be the potential candidate and who would be the potential VP. I doubt either would step aside for the other.

    1. no one ever votes for the VP

  20. As a Libertarian any of the democrat candidates are enemies of both individual and economic freedom. Trump is no libertarian but at least we can support most of his judicial nominees. The libertarian purity has zero chance of impacting the election. I am in a state that is not a swing state and voted for Gary Johnson. Once he was out of the debates he seemed to have lost interest and chose the most un-libertarian of running mates. Whomever is chosen for 2020 won’t get as many votes as Johnson.

  21. Boy. The Democrats are doing their darndest to make me forgo my usual symbolic Libertarian presidential vote, and cast my ballot for Trump (while holding my nose) in 2020.

  22. Aide (to Sanders and Warren): Polls show you two look too uptight.
    Sanders (grinning to Warren): Should we have sex to loosen up?
    Warren (puts on Cherokee attire): Let’s do it. Do you remember how?
    Sanders: Do you?
    Warren (disrobing): Maybe we should get someone to come in and intervene?
    Sanders (disrobing): Socialized sex?
    Sanders (stroking it): Socialized is the same as socialist?
    Warren (poking it): Not….sure.
    Aide (to other aide): Do they realize we’re still in the office?
    Aide (looking away in disgust): This has to have been part of Lovecraft’s Dream Cycle.

  23. You can stack your garbage as high as a house, but that doesn’t mean it’s a house. Or better than the other giant stack of garbage.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.