But it takes a special degree of self-delusion to believe he can win as an independent.
I’d consider voting for him. And I haven’t voted for anything but a Republican in three decades.
Schultz, however, provides no rationale for his campaign other than a pox on both the Democratic and Republican houses, while fear-mongering about the debt without any plan to reduce it other than bringing the two parties that he is slagging together to fulfill the Republican fantasy of cutting entitlements.
Perot and Schultz started out with the same message. And both parties fear-monger about the debt, until it’s not in their best interests to do so. Which leads many to believe that the only real chance of getting it under control would be under an independent President who neither side has a vested interest in obstructing.
It’s not a winning message and it is reflected in the fact that Schultz’s favorability rating currently polls in the low single digits across all political stripes, Democratic, Republican, and so-called independent.
Unsurprising, in that the media, complicit with the existing political system and military/neocon complex, has basically savaged him, and for all the wrong reasons.
The Tea Party and the Occupy movements were both reactions to the utter failure of the plutocratic class regarding the financial crisis, with the former originally focused on protecting predominantly white Americans from having to shoulder the cost of digging out from the crisis and the latter focused on breaking up the power of the plutocratic corporate class that created the crisis to begin with and was then bailed out by the government.
The former did not have a racial component. The latter never was able to articulate any “focus” at all, with most of the participants unable to spell “plutocrat” much less define it.
Mitt Romney’s campaign was doomed because he could never shake off the stench of his plutocratic instincts, openly revealed in his 47% comment, no matter how much he pandered to the nativism in the Republican party.
Pretty much the same as Hilary Clinton. It’s hard to run as a champion of Main Street when everyone knows you were getting 250K a speech from Wall Street.
it is important to remember that he also promised economic nationalism
Which he’s pretty much delivered on.
To fix the issue of cost for Obamacare users not qualified for subsidies
Actually, he promised to replace Obamacare in total.
to tax the wealthy
Mixed bag. Important to remember here that he finally got rid of the tax deductions that the rich loved and took most advantage of.
And to not touch Social Security and Medicare.
Which, of course, he hasn’t.
The fact that these were all lies
Well, they weren’t. Adding up the above, that comes to 2.5 out of 4. Kind of typical for a POTUS.
In other words, there is no constituency for entitlement reform
Big problem, that. Because if entitlements aren’t reformed, big cuts are coming, based on current law.
and the constituency for debt reduction and decreased government spending among regular, primarily white, Americans is more driven by the belief that such spending is going to others and not them, as opposed to any existential fears about the government being unable to borrow or even the cost of financing that debt.
Let’s just say that no sane person (and certainly not one who can do arithmetic) believes that the government’s ability to borrow at the current rate is infinite. Where the tipping point is, however, is anyone’s guess.
Every Democratic president since Reagan has dramatically reduced the deficit from the beginning of their term until the end.
Well, there’s only been two (small sample size), and one of them participated in RAISING IT significantly in his first year in office, which made reducing it rather easy.
One, Bill Clinton, even left a budget surplus that his Republican successor immediately squandered through tax reductions that favored the wealthy.
Well, that’s not really true, now, is it? The surplus was basically lost when the dot com boom busted (which was still on Clinton’s watch — March of 2000) and revenues to Treasury took a big hit. Then, 9/11 happened, which incurred massive spending on the Afghan response and the setup of Homeland Security that would have happened even if AlGore had been elected POTUS. That was enough to turn the surplus into a deficit, even though AlGore would not have lowered taxes and engaged in an Iraq adventure.
In addition, Obama offered the “Grand Bargain” in 2011 which, in return for higher taxes on the wealthy, offered the entitlement reform that Schultz says he seeks. Boehner and the Republicans refused. But, for Schultz and the elite pundits, both sides bear responsibility.
Hmmmm. In 2012, the rates were raised, by agreement between Obama and Boehner, to the same level as suggested in the 2011 deal. So, revenue was a moot point.
The larger travesty was Obama’s failure to put the weight of the Presidency behind EITHER the Rivlin-Domenici or the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction plans. Pity, that.
Domenici-Rivlin Debt Reduction Task Force Plan 2.0
In 2010, the Bipartisan Policy Center convened a Debt Reduction Task Force of 19 former elected officials and…
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform - Wikipedia
The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (often called Simpson-Bowles or Bowles-Simpson from the…
He has called Ocasio-Cortez’s plan for a 70% tax on earnings above $10 million “un-American” and accused her of being “misinformed”.
Well, I don’t know about “unAmerican”. That’s a value judgement that I tend to shy away from. The plan is, however, silly and AOC is indeed misinformed.
“He has further described Elizabeth Warren’s plan for a wealth tax “ridiculous” and his partner in plutocracy, Mike Bloomberg, has derided it as leading us to become Venezuela.”
Obviously, “becoming Venezuela” is hyperbolic and silly. However, Warren’s wealth tax is indeed ridiculous, and probably unconstitutional.
Of course, he grew up in subsidized middle class housing in an era where the top marginal tax rate was, wait for it, 70%.
Quite. Any every well informed American knows how silly THAT 70% tax rate was, how it distorted the economy, how it was correlated to the fact that recessions were twice as common while it was in force than afterwards, how it was a factor in the nightmarish economic conditions of the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, and how Reagan had to clean up that mess by lowering the marginal rate to 28% whilst getting rid of the distortive tax shelters that were creating moral hazard in investment.
And, as Chris Hayes constantly points out, every American who owns a home pays a wealth tax based on a valuation provided by the government. It is called a property tax. As far as I know, we are not yet Venezuela.
Hmmm. A property tax has very different implications than a wealth tax does. An individual who wants to minimize property tax can purchase a less expensive home or rent. But, nobody sane would try to minimize wealth; that’s counterproductive.
But, it’s Chris Hayes. Consider the source. He’s a leftist propagandist.
And Warren’s wealth tax is incredibly popular with both parties.
Well, taxing somebody else is always popular. Until you realize that Main Street ends up paying part of the price.
Republicans are still focused on destroying Obamacare while offering no real plan to replace it in any way.
Well, that’s not really true, either. A full implementation of HSA’s is most definitely a real plan that has promise in both controlling costs and covering everyone. However, the GOP tripped over themselves by underfunding it when they put their plan on the table.
But, as Paul Waldman notes, that “unaffordable” number actually pales in comparison to the $50 trillion we are expected to pay under the current status quo.
Nobody is arguing that we don’t spend too much. However, these comparisons between out of pocket costs and percent of GDP need work.
The plutocrats don’t want to admit that and the media barely discusses it, focusing instead on the mythical elimination of private insurance.
Medicare for All IS the elimination of private insurance. And that’s not going to fly.
America is suffering from the failure of capitalism.
Nonsense. There are issues in the existing capitalistic system which are putting our workers on the losing side. Some of these are fixable. But it’s hardly a “failure”; the system has never been perfect.
Median wage workers have not seen an increase in their inflation adjusted wages in nearly a half century. Recent record low unemployment has not significantly altered that fact despite the economic theory that says it should.
That’s one of the problems. A booming economy still does in fact raise the wages of all participants, including at the lower margins. The problem is that in a global economy, the low-end participants aren’t in the USA.
We have laws against monopolies. Is the government not being aggressive enough, or are you redefining the term?
Trumpism addresses the failure of American capitalism with nativism and self-destructive protectionism.
Wait. You were just complaining about the US worker not seeing wage increases. Now, you’re complaining about measures designed to change that?
This isn’t about economics, is it? This is about Trump, for you.
That includes a new charter for corporations over $1 billion that requires co-determination and consideration of employees, customers, and communities, as opposed to just shareholders, in their decision-making. In addition, it would shifts who decides how and to whom corporations make their political donations to a supermajority of shareholders and the board. Needless to say, those on the right describe this as “the wholesale expropriation of private enterprise in the United States”
Well, it pretty much is. It’s generally a good idea to let the people who know something about business make the decisions concerning it. Unless you want to lose out to foreign competition, who has no concern whatsoever with the American worker.
Right now, a minority of voters are represented by a majority of US Senators and in a little more than a decade from now, it is estimated that 30% of the population will control 70 seats in the US Senate.
With roughly the same population situation in 2008, the Democrats won 59 seats. This is a non issue.
Extreme partisan gerrymandering and voter suppression have created state governments where a minority of voters have established an almost permanent legislative majority.
I too am concerned about the fact that all 9 congresspeople from Massachusetts are Democrats, even though 35% of the Mass. population is Republican. :-)
The Supreme Court, nearly half of whom have now been seated by those minority presidents, is now seen as increasingly partisan and political.
Only by other partisans. :-)
None of this bothers the plutocrats, who demanded their corporate tax cut and got it.
Shit. The corporate tax cut was the best thing this Administration has pulled off to date. And very similar to the one Obama proposed, it should be said.