Topic: Lets get US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) into Bitcoin (Read 2257 times)

It's about PR. Politicians (and journalists) need to be educated lest they perceive Bitcoin only in a negative light. Taking a strictly "us against them" viewpoint seems shortsighted.


Doing that is fine, but has limits. If Bitcoin is to grow it needs to enter the mainstream, which includes more moderate political viewpoints. Elizabeth Warren might not be a good fit, but some politicians are open to Bitcoin, like state rep Mark Warden from New Hampshire.

Every you post about this reads like it's from the hip. I could write a book called "Demon Summoning Cancer Babies for Jesus" and it would have more credibility than anything written by a politician.

I don't get why you are looking for friends in Washington. At the end of the day, there are none. Look to this community, look to yourself. Find a problem and fix it. Make something better with your own means. That's positive. That benefits the world.

Hiring a politician to point a gun at people to get your way isn't any different just because it's YOUR politician

Then, please, feel free to pay those taxes for yourself. Just don't try to make everyone else join you.

A world in which bitcoin was a major financial force would begin to curtail governments' abilities to deficit spend to the degree to which they currently do. Thus, pro-big-government statists who correctly think these things through would be anti-bitcoin. But that *does* take some vision, and is a long-term thing that's perhaps not on the radar of a politician constantly focusing on near-term election cycles.

I understand the skeptical views on Elizabeth Warren. I'm skeptical too.

It just seems to me someone writing a book called "Rigged" about how the economic system is often rigged against people who work hard and play by the rules might be open to Bitcoin. Neither she or anybody else can stop it anyway, but she could be a powerful ally.

While he's been disappointing on some key issues, I'm glad to see he's got some cajones on this. I still have like 70 of his yard signs in my garage and was thinking about putting them out with the trash but he's redeemed himself a little on this one. Now, if he only doesn't vote in favor of another fiscal cliff deal like he campaigned against. The others you listed are no big surprise, Massie, Jones and Amash are top shelf congressmen for sure. Yoho and Labrador get honorable mentions.

The attitude in this thread is far too negative. "Statists hate Bitcoin"? Myth. Bankers hate Bitcoin because it is competition. But Bitcoin makes no claim to compete with the state. Bitcoin does neither garbage collection nor road building. Bitcoin neither collects taxes nor regulates markets. There is no reason whatsoever for a statist to hate Bitcoin, unless said statist is affiliated with the banking system.

Elizabeth Warren, in my opinion, would be a good fit for Bitcoin.

I had no idea we had so many Elizabeth Warren experts? They even know her opinion on things she has never commented about. 

D - whammy
MA - whammy

yeah i can see it now "OMG BITCOINS R KILLS THE CHILDRENS WE MUST STOP!" 

She IS the privileged/elite:

And:

Do you really think that someone who has a net worth of about $14.5 million (USD), who works at only tax-exempt institutions, and plainly does not donate much to charity is going to favor bitcoin?   It is about power, and whatever it takes to get there for her, and bitcoin is anti-power because it is decentralized by its nature.

She makes "the rich" who make more than $150,000 per year look like mere pikers.

If she really was in favor of the "redistribution" she claims to favor, she would do it voluntarily.  Instead, she favors it for others, at the point of a gun and not herself.  Look at Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.  They are very much in favor of higher taxes on "everyone" -- except themselves when the set up foundations for tens of billions of dollars to protect it from taxes.

Warren is a progressive ("Progressivism is a general political philosophy advocating or favoring gradual social, political, and economic reform through government action.") and that means statist and the state will have a much harder time controlling bitcoin as bitcion grows and improves.  

I agree with the poster above, by all means, try to get her in favor of bitcoin.  It would be great, but I seriously do not believe that there is any hope when you look at what she believes in.

Well...the fallacy of her thinking is that by implicitly being in favor of big-gov/deficit-spending, she's actually helping the privileged/elite at the expense of the little guy.



That is NOT how a pro-regulation uber-dem is going to see it. She'll see bitcoin as "hoarders'" and scammers' electronic-gold delight, rife with theft and loss concerns, money laundering, scams, etc. The inability to do chargebacks will make her want to put incredible scaffolding in place around everything bitcoin in order "protect" the poor little helpless souls that we Americans are in her myopic mind.



As noted above, the fact that bitcoin trades electronically with no chargebacks is going to be the dealbreaker for someone like her with regard to being pro-bitcoin.

This part is important. If nobody takes it, it's not global.

... famous last words


... uumm, don't we have that (i.e., no-fee) now -- without even being taxed?

+1

If you earn francs in America they are taxed; albeit only "capital gains" and in USD equivalents. The same should apply to Bitcoin.

having bitcoin taxed.??. no, because bitcoin is not government owned.. thats like an american being taxed by france because he does a trade using us dollar.

it has nothing to do with france.. the dollar is not owned by the french so the french should not be taxing dollars

bitcoin should remain nregulated and untaxed. but if you convert it to fiat, then yea expect taxes

Why not? Cash is anonymous.


As I said above my instinct about her is she is in favor of the little guy, not the privileged/elite. That's what Bitcoin is about. I believe the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is in line with that, for example, ensuring banks can't charge loan shark level interest rates on credit cards, or have obscure non-obvious penalties and fees. Such protection I'd say is a good thing because, guess why, ordinary people have no financial alternative to banks!

In other words the regulation she would champion is only necessary because the financial system is so abusive to the little guy.

Bitcoin gives people options and it's a voluntary currrency. Regulations on Bitcoin for that reason are far less necessary, if they are at all. Bitcoin is not very different than people deciding to trade gold nuggets. That's anonymous and irreversible too, and wouldn't be very easy for the CFPB to regulate, but would she say Americans shouldn't be able to trade gold? I doubt that.

I agree, but I am pretty sure the anonymity part isn't going to sit well with her. It is also definitely harder to regulate, especially through her own agency. I see no good reason why she should be enthusiastic about Bitcoin given her agency wouldn't be able to regulate it on a practical level.

Most of the current community, that is. If Bitcoin is to take off, it needs to cater to a broader political spectrum. Having my mBTC taxed is a small price to pay for a low-fee and fast decentralized global financial transaction system.