Lets get US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) into Bitcoin

[totaleclipseofthebank]

She is probably the most vocal critic of the US banking system, and might be interested in the technology to make them permanently obsolete. Any MA bitcoiners have ideas on how to do this?

[acoindr]

Interesting idea. Two links for an idea of her views on banking:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/elizabeth-warren-student-loans-91079.html
http://www.politico.com//story/2013/03/elizabeth-warren-plans-book-on-middle-class-89095.html

"[Her book title] refers to how the economic system is too often rigged against families that work hard and play by the rules. The story is national, but it's also personal. These are issues close to my heart," said Warren, a favorite among liberals and a favorite target for conservatives, who opposed her appointment to head the consumer bureau. She instead ran for the U.S. Senate, defeating incumbent Sen. Scott Brown.

[ruletheworld]

The libertarians are going to hate it. She's all for better regulations. Remember that not every enemy of big banks will be a friend of Bitcoin. For some, this might appear worse. Of course, no harm trying I don't know how to get her attention though.

[acoindr]

The libertarians are going to hate it. She's all for better regulations. Remember that not every enemy of big banks will be a friend of Bitcoin. For some, this might appear worse. Of course, no harm trying I don't know how to get her attention though.

Some in the Bitcoin community are already in favor of regulation. Bitcoin is only a currency, a tool, and there are many ways to use it, just as there are many ways to use cash. Adding regulation doesn't change some of the core features Bitcoin has like the inflation limit and anonymity to those that take the time required to ensure it.

[Voogru]

Someone like Warren, who is at heart a socialist, would never support something like Bitcoin.

If she figures out that Bitcoin 'accounts' can't realistically be confiscated, seized, taxed, or regulated (bitcoin->bitcoin is unregulated, and can never be regulated), she'd probably try to get the government to ban it. Especially if all of a sudden a bunch of wealthy people decide to start buying bitcoins to avoid capital controls, or other regulations.

Also, remember that the goal of socialism is to abolish the use of currency all together. Because it's 'unfair'.

[BitTrade]

You can't be serious with this.  She is a statist, through and through.

REAL friends of bitcoin in congress (anti-legal tender laws, pro-competing currencies)

Justin Amash (R-MI)
Thomas Massie (R-KY)
Kerry Bentivolio (R-MI)
Raul Labrador (R-ID)
Walter Jones (R-NC)
Ted Yoho (R-FL)
Jared Polis (D-CO)

See Ron Paul's bill on competing currencies (a bill annually introduced, and annually killed in committee)  http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1098#

[acoindr]

Someone like Warren, who is at heart a socialist, would never support something like Bitcoin.

If she figures out that Bitcoin 'accounts' can't realistically be confiscated, seized, taxed, or regulated (bitcoin->bitcoin is unregulated, and can never be regulated), she'd probably try to get the government to ban it. Especially if all of a sudden a bunch of wealthy people decide to start buying bitcoins to avoid capital controls, or other regulations.

Also, remember that the goal of socialism is to abolish the use of currency all together. Because it's 'unfair'.

Bitcoins can be taxed. Remember that (rich) people already avoid taxes by clever money management & loopholes. That's why there have been ideas floated about letting people bring offshore money back into the U.S. at a special rate, so that money can actually be put to use.

It's sort of like pirating music vs. people that pay legally. You'll always have people willing to pay and play by all rules because that's the easiest.

As for what's in her heart she seems to be populist, and at the end of the day that's what Bitcoin is really about.

[Voogru]

Someone like Warren, who is at heart a socialist, would never support something like Bitcoin.

If she figures out that Bitcoin 'accounts' can't realistically be confiscated, seized, taxed, or regulated (bitcoin->bitcoin is unregulated, and can never be regulated), she'd probably try to get the government to ban it. Especially if all of a sudden a bunch of wealthy people decide to start buying bitcoins to avoid capital controls, or other regulations.

Also, remember that the goal of socialism is to abolish the use of currency all together. Because it's 'unfair'.

Bitcoins can be taxed.

Only if you hand them over.

They won't like the fact that:

1. They can't determine how many you own.
2. They can't scare a bank into giving them your money.

[franky1]

Some in the Bitcoin community are already in favor of regulation.

MOST of the community want bitcoin unregulated. but agree with the regulations revolving around the exchange to FIAT.

i personally prefer experienced and licenced financial institutions to control the FIAT to bitcoin exchanges.. much more then some 17yo zit faced guy that can run off at a moments notice.

but for the:
bitcoin for other altcoins
bitcoin for goods
bitcoins for services
bitcoins for everything else

should remain unregulated, but atleast follow a certain moral compass and understanding of security risks, which we all independently learn and use to control our own funds

[dree12]

Some in the Bitcoin community are already in favor of regulation.

MOST of the community want bitcoin unregulated. but agree with the regulations revolving around the exchange to FIAT.

i personally prefer experienced and licenced financial institutions to control the FIAT to bitcoin exchanges.. much more then some 17yo zit faced guy that can run off at a moments notice.

but for the:
bitcoin for other altcoins
bitcoin for goods
bitcoins for services
bitcoins for everything else

should remain unregulated, but atleast follow a certain moral compass and understanding of security risks, which we all independently learn and use to control our own funds

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.

[ruletheworld]

The libertarians are going to hate it. She's all for better regulations. Remember that not every enemy of big banks will be a friend of Bitcoin. For some, this might appear worse. Of course, no harm trying I don't know how to get her attention though.

Some in the Bitcoin community are already in favor of regulation. Bitcoin is only a currency, a tool, and there are many ways to use it, just as there are many ways to use cash. Adding regulation doesn't change some of the core features Bitcoin has like the inflation limit and anonymity to those that take the time required to ensure it.

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.

[acoindr]

I agree, but I am pretty sure the anonymity part isn't going to sit well with her.

Why not? Cash is anonymous.

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.

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.

[franky1]

Having my mBTC taxed is a small price to pay for a low-fee and fast decentralized global financial transaction system.

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

[dree12]

Having my mBTC taxed is a small price to pay for a low-fee and fast decentralized global financial transaction system.

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

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

[Melbustus]

Someone like Warren, who is at heart a socialist, would never support something like Bitcoin.

If she figures out that Bitcoin 'accounts' can't realistically be confiscated, seized, taxed, or regulated (bitcoin->bitcoin is unregulated, and can never be regulated), she'd probably try to get the government to ban it. Especially if all of a sudden a bunch of wealthy people decide to start buying bitcoins to avoid capital controls, or other regulations.

Also, remember that the goal of socialism is to abolish the use of currency all together. Because it's 'unfair'.

+1

[mandelmus]

Having my mBTC taxed is a small price to pay ...

... famous last words

... for a low-fee and fast decentralized global financial transaction system.

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

[dree12]

Having my mBTC taxed is a small price to pay ...

... famous last words

... for a low-fee and fast decentralized global financial transaction system.

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

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

[Melbustus]

I agree, but I am pretty sure the anonymity part isn't going to sit well with her.

Why not? Cash is anonymous.

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.

As I said above my instinct about her is she is in favor of the little guy, not the privileged/elite.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[cr1776]

As I said above my instinct about her is she is in favor of the little guy, not the privileged/elite.

She IS the privileged/elite:

In 2008, the earliest year for which Warren has released income tax returns, Warren and her husband Bruce Mann had a combined income of $831,208,[1] which increased in 2009 to $981,670.  Warren was paid an average of $350,000 per year by Harvard Law School during 2009-2010.[2]

Warren’s net worth as of the end of 2011 was as high as $14.5 million.

And:

Warren and her husband, who have a combined net worth of approximately $15 million and a combined annual income (as of 2011) of almost $1 million, spent almost their entire careers at tax-exempt educational institutions which do not pay any taxes. - See more at: http://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/factory-owner-speech/

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.

[illpoet]

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