Don't know whether to laugh or cry at little guy brainwashees upset because billionaires might have to pay more taxes. I hope rocketman 1981, Bobbie and Legend and the gang can get some sleep while another of their idols makes and idiot of himself.
Wake up. Cutting taxes on the rich while spending more and more on stupid wars increases the 21 trillion which is mainly owed to the billionaire class. This is almost the opposite of socialism, but I guess you could call it socialism for the rich.
Starbucks apparently trying to distance itself from Schultz to avoid the threat of a boycott and backlash from Dems unhappy with the potential Schultz candidacy https://nypost.com/2019/01/30/starbucks-is-scrambling-to-distance-itself-from-howard-schultz/
and Paul Krugman goes off the rails by criticizing "fanatical centrism" . . . https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/31/...l?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage whereas Marc Thiessen cites evidence that Democrats want their party to move more to the center than to the far-left: Indeed, the neosocialist turn national Democrats have taken is precisely why Schultz decided to run as an independent. He calculated that he could not win the Democratic nomination running as a conventional, centrist Democrat. “I no longer feel affiliated [with the Democrats] because I don’t know their views represent the majority of Americans,” he says. Schultz is right. In fact, a recent Pew Research poll found that 53 percent of Democrats want the party to move in a more moderate direction, not embrace the radical policies of Ocasio-Cortez. That is precisely what the party needs to do if it wants to beat President Trump. Democrats should be trying to win back the millions of once-reliable Democratic voters who twice cast their ballots for Barack Obama but switched to Trump in 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...edb0c92dc17_story.html?utm_term=.d297e975f6a3 Thiessen: But instead of tacking to the center to win back voters, Democrats are embracing leftist policies such as government-run health care, government-funded college for all, a government-funded job guarantee and a “Green New Deal.” Together, these programs would cost $42.5 trillion — about twice the national debt. And they are claiming they can pay for it all by taxing the very rich. That’s impossible, and Americans know it. But it is what the most rabid elements of their party are demanding. This is the problem with our politics today. Both sides have decided that the way to win is no longer to persuade those in the middle, but rather to throw red meat to their hardcore supporters and get them more worked up than those on the other side. Lost in the shuffle are millions of reasonable, persuadable citizens who are left to choose between two unpalatable alternatives. These are the new “forgotten Americans,” and Schultz is betting they are looking for a leader. He calculates that there is an underserved population of voters who hate today’s radical, polarized politics and want competent centrist leadership.
First reasonable candidate to surface to challenge the Trumpster, I don’t blame the Dems for being mad.
Bailing out wall-street and lining the pockets of defense contractors isn't socialism. That's crony capitalism. The type of programs Warren wants, frees up the expenses of average citizens which generates more demand in products and services which eventually leads to more tax revenue. If a family doesn't have to worry about going bankrupt because their child was suddenly diagnosed with leukemia, maybe they can afford to buy that new 4k tv or brand new Ford Explorer. If a freshly graduated engineer doesn't have to worry about paying off 80+ grand in student loan debt, maybe they can consider taking out a mortage on a house sooner in their lives. Maybe they can consider being entrepreneurs if their student loan debt didn't exist. Middle class citizens spend more of their money into the economy than the wealthy. Ask the Volkswagen Auto Group who owns brands such as Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche, Lamborghini etc which brand is their largest revenue maker.
You are correct but you prove my point. There have been very few incumbents that have lost. Bush Sr. was popular for a while after Desert Storm, but conservatives were angry about him raising taxes when he said he wouldn't, and as a result he had to suck up to Limbaugh etc. to prove his conservative bonafides. That alienated centrists. Then the recession happened; then Perot happened; then the Dems nominated the centrists Slick Willie who got the name because he was very smooth and a great public speaker and debater. And the Dems were able to make Bush Sr. look out of touch. So, it took a confluence of several unique events for Bush Sr. to lose. Carter losing is another story, but suffice it to say he bungled several things, most notably the attempted rescue of the American hostages in Iran; and he had arguably only won because of the Watergate backlash. And he had the misfortune to go up against one of the greatest public speakers and politicians in American history. Hoover lost in 1932 due to the onset of the Great Depression and FDR's skill in public speaking, campaigning, and politicking. So, a number of unusual things have to come together for an incumbent to lose. And they did in 1932, 1980, and 1992. But off the top of my head, you can't find any other examples. An incumbent losing is rare.
Most left wingers can't argue policy without resorting to personal attacks, and that's because they are emotional thinkers.
And they shut down when presented with reality because they glitch out. NPC's can't actually say anything beyond their preprogramed scripts.
"So let’s give Schultz credit for bringing the country together, even if only in its bipartisan detestation of him. " now that's a great line http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/howard-schultz-inadequacy.html
Thanks for posting this column but you buried the lede, Os. The money meat: In general, centrists are furiously opposed to any proposal that would ease the lives of ordinary Americans. Universal health coverage, says Schultz, would be “free health care for all, which the country cannot afford.” And he’s not alone in saying things like that. A few days ago Michael Bloomberg declared that extending Medicare to everyone, as Kamala Harris suggests, would “bankrupt us for a very long time.” Now, single-payer health care (actually called Medicare!) hasn’t bankrupted Canada. In fact, every advanced country besides America has some form of universal health coverage, and manages to afford it. The real issue with “Medicare for all” isn’t costs — the taxes needed to pay for it would almost surely be less than what Americans now pay in insurance premiums. The problem instead would be political: It would be tricky persuading people to trade private insurance for a public program. That’s a real concern for Medicare-for-all advocates, but it’s not at all what either Schultz or Bloomberg is saying. And that's about that for "centrism" as a cognizable philosophy or movement. Now let's get to teh real problem The real problem here is that leading lights like Marc Theissen, and @Os Trigonum can't see is that "centrist" Howard Schultz, a standard-issue Republican, a boring rich old white guy whose only policy issue is unabashedly pro rich/anti-labor, pro-tax cuts for the wealthy, pro-benefit cuts/pain infliction on the poor - GOP dogma for the last 40 years - can't run as a Republican against a failure/unpopular President/incompetent buffoon becuase he's not racist enough and doesn't ignore science. That's what should prompt the soul-searching. But it won't. That's why being a centrist is a loser's game at best and a fraud in all likelihood. There's no education in the second half-kick of a mule
I was likewise infuriated by the bail-out although it might have been necessary to save the economy. What irked me is that those who failed in their jobs and took outrageous bets (with a lot of different groups including well-meaning but misguided gov't policies) were allowed to walk off in many cases with their fortunes intact. So, we agree there. On taxes, we seem to agree that it is a matter of degree. I am not being critical of your position because I share the desire to see some fruits of hard work, but people naturally wanting the newest TV tech or a brand new truck takes some of the "moral imperative" arguments off the table because there will still be others with far less while some are buying luxuries. Again, not being critical because I believe people should be able to spend money on nicer things based on hard work or saving and investing. It still comes back to degree and what level of taxation is appropriate. Where we may disagree is that I don't know if massive taxation will really lead to the results advocates for it want. It is the "dormant" money that
Sorry. Dormant money of the wealthy that gets invested and allows for innovation, tech advances and the creation of more wealth and ultimately jobs. And, if you get the chance to be an entrepreneur, i hope you go for it. But the 80-100 hours per week and the need to sign on to a lot of debt to start and grow your business (or raise sufficient capital) may not loo
attractive if you realize that you are going to start being taxed heavily at 400k. Most people (admittedly some do it for passion) make those sacrifices (and investors choose to invest) in the hopes if making a lot of money.
Oh I certainly agree on the 2007-2009 bailouts (TARP and all the rest). It should be noted that both GWB and Obama supported these bailouts, although the money was a lot bigger coming from Obama (I believe). In any case, these things should be left to the free/private market. Businesses should be allowed to fail. That has to happen, otherwise we are rewarding inefficiency and dysfunction, and with taxpayers funds to boot. And, are the Detroit automakers in any better position than they were pre-bailout? Recent news seems to suggest otherwise. If more taxes were used to pay down debt, and not for new or expanded govt programs, I'd be more amenable to federal taxation. But the amount of waste and outright corruption in things like Medicare makes me less sympathetic. And that's to say nothing of how many social programs are rewarding dysfunction and creating disincentives in the American economy and society. Before anyone thinks about raising taxes, spending needs to be cut way back first. As for SS and Medicare, I don't argue for their abolition, but they need to be scaled back if they are still going to be around (if we want them to survive) long-term. On the topic of luxury spending, as long as someone has the money for it, I don't think we can or should look down upon it. For example, a rich guy that buys a yacht is employing a lot of people.
Middle class having more disposable income to spend money is more beneficial to the economy than wealthy people having more disposable income. Again, ask the executives at VAG which one of their brands generates the most revenue: Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche or Lambo.
Anyone that offers phrases like this in their commentary is pretty much disqualified as an objective observer/commentator. Of course, perhaps you have no aspirations toward that goal.
