2020 US Election (Part One)

[Estebonrober]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ceo-schultz-calls-for-higher-taxes-on-wealthy

He just doesn't like Warren's idea

Which means he doesn’t actually like the idea of balanced budgets or stewardship of the nation. He doesn’t actually like the idea of the social contract or human decency towards the planet or each other. In actuality he is a blowhard who might pull enough of the centrist vote to guarantee Trumps re-election which increasingly looks like the point of this “campaign”.

He should promise not to self finance and let the contributions of voters dictate whether he is a viable candidate.

 

[Lexicus]

No one who understands economics likes balanced budgets.

 

[Sommerswerd]

It required healthy people to join in the market and for people not to abuse the per-exisiting conditions by getting treated and then leaving the market
The first part of the mandate was pretty much dead as Republicans ruthlessly undercut this, discouraging participation and actively telling everyone not to purchase obamacare

I remember seeing this interview where this elderly Republican woman was presented with a bunch of things the ACA provided... and one by one, she stated that she supported each one of them. This was actually a pretty common theme during the Obama Presidency... showing Republicans approve all the tenets of the ACA, while simultaneously vehemently opposing it.

What was special about this particular interview, was that when they got to the big reveal, where she was informed that the ACA that she professed to hate so much, actually contained all those great proposals that she had just stated she approved of. Her reaction, was to then say something like (paraphrasing) "Oh... well all that sounds pretty good... I like the ACA... I just don't understand why they called it Obamacare... I can't stand that name, cause I can't stand him. I just can't support anything called Obamacare... they shouldn't have named it that."

Indeed.

 

[Estebonrober]

No one who understands economics likes balanced budgets.

Yea I’m not certain about MMT being anything we should be relying on without international legal changes. Also fwiw I just want to pay the wealthy treasury and bond holders back with their own money from now until about half that 20 trillion is paid off with which the green deal needing to come first is going to be a while. I’d venture to guess about forty years. Basically matching the forty years of social piracy that’s sort of taken place since about 1980.

 

[Broken_Erika]

I remember seeing this interview where this elderly Republican woman was presented with a bunch of things the ACA provided... and one by one, she stated that she supported each one of them. This was actually a pretty common theme during the Obama Presidency... showing Republicans approve all the tenets of the ACA, while simultaneously vehemently opposing it.

What was special about this particular interview, was that when they got to the big reveal, where she was informed that the ACA that she professed to hate so much, actually contained all those great proposals that she had just stated she approved of. Her reaction, was to then say something like (paraphrasing) "Oh... well all that sounds pretty good... I like the ACA... I just don't understand why they called it Obamacare... I can't stand that name, cause I can't stand him. I just can't support anything called Obamacare... they shouldn't have named it that."

Indeed.

They don't need Obamacare 'cause they have the ACA!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Of course, if you believe that a President Schultz would push to raise taxes on the wealthy, you just might be a colossal moron.

Well, millions of people believed Trump was 'one of them,' so....

 

[Lexicus]

He's not a threat to Democrats because he's likely to draw voters from their candidate.

I figure Schultz is a threat to the Democrats because they intend to run a nice, safe campaign to peel off all those 'moderate Republicans' who are the exact people we'd expect to vote for Schultz if that were an option.

 

[Takhisis]

No one who understands economics likes balanced budgets.

I've seen this point argued in Cutlass' old ‘Money’ thread some years ago and I can agree with some of it, but this Schultz person is opposed to balanced budgets for the opposite reasons to yours.

You want the budget to be a tool for redistributing wealth downwards. Schultz vocally wants to make rich people richer, and to hell with anybody who might complain.

 

[Lexicus]

I've seen this point argued in Cutlass' old ‘Money’ thread some years ago and I can agree with some of it, but this Schultz person is opposed to balanced budgets for the opposite reasons to yours.

You want the budget to be a tool for redistributing wealth downwards. Schultz vocally wants to make rich people richer, and to hell with anybody who might complain.

Wait, are you claiming that he is opposed to balanced budgets? Is that reasoning from his opposition to higher taxes?

 

[Takhisis]

Cut taxes, subsidise the rich, get the country massively indebted… isn't that basically his entire spiel?

Edit: his entire act should he ever become president. He'll claim whatever about wanting a balanced budget, but in reality what they do is the above.

 

[Lexicus]

He claims to want to address the national debt, which means he's for budget surpluses, not balanced budgets.

Also, incidentally, I don't oppose balanced budgets. I don't have any arbitrary preference regarding the government's balance, my entire point is that having such preferences is dumb.

 

[Takhisis]

I don't believe him in the slightest (see my edit).

 

[Gori the Grey]

"Oh... well all that sounds pretty good... I like the ACA... I just don't understand why they called it Obamacare... I can't stand that name, cause I can't stand him. I just can't support anything called Obamacare... they shouldn't have named it that."

Well, now we have one more surprise for you, ma'am. But it's one you're going to like. The program isn't called "Obamacare"; it's called the Affordable Care Act.

I figure Schultz is a threat to the Democrats because they intend to run a nice, safe campaign to peel off all those 'moderate Republicans' who are the exact people we'd expect to vote for Schultz if that were an option.

I don't think so, and I'm not worried about him in the least. I think there's zero constituency for "a different billionaire who wants to parachute into the White House and run things in the interests of billionaires." No anti-Trump person, left or center, wants that. And the right who do want that already have Trump (with the other stuff he brings them). He'll be gone before May of this year.*

NON-EDIT: The referent for "He" when I wrote this post was Schultz. In retrospect, I realize that, in context, it could be taken as referring to the more immediately precedent Trump. I've chosen not to clean up my writing because, well, I guy can hope, can't he?

 

[metalhead]

I figure Schultz is a threat to the Democrats because they intend to run a nice, safe campaign to peel off all those 'moderate Republicans' who are the exact people we'd expect to vote for Schultz if that were an option.

Schultz won't run if they nominate someone like that. A traditional, "Let's try to appeal to the center-right that never votes for us" Democrat makes his candidacy wholly redundant.

He's basically making a threat that if the nominee is Warren or Sanders, he will jump into the race and run in the middle and try to discredit them. Based on what we've seen from him so far, I'd have to imagine that in that scenario, he would have the opposite effect from what he intends.

 

[Berzerker]

"In his speech, Schultz also touched on the threat posed by the nation’s $22 trillion debt and the need to reduce health care costs. “Neither side has developed -- let alone offered -- a credible plan to reduce costs by increasing competition,” he said."

Great, so now he's pivoting to running against Medicare for All. He went from being a vain rich asswipe running against his taxes going up, to a vain rich asswipe who thinks "competition" will lower health care costs. At least the first stance made logical sense, despite its moral turpitude. This is just garbage.

Of course, if you believe that a President Schultz would push to raise taxes on the wealthy, you just might be a colossal moron.

Do you have evidence he's a liar or should all the colossal morons just take your word for it?

Which means he doesn’t actually like the idea of balanced budgets or stewardship of the nation. He doesn’t actually like the idea of the social contract or human decency towards the planet or each other. In actuality he is a blowhard who might pull enough of the centrist vote to guarantee Trumps re-election which increasingly looks like the point of this “campaign”.

He should promise not to self finance and let the contributions of voters dictate whether he is a viable candidate.

And he hates puppies

Do 'contributions of voters' include all the special interests funding the campaigns of Democrats and Republicans? Will the 2 parties stop taking all that money from corporations, PACs, unions, etc? I'd rather someone win the WH by self-financing than taking bribes.

 

[Lexicus]

I think there's zero constituency for "a different billionaire who wants to parachute into the White House and run things in the interests of billionaires."

I dunno, maybe I'm being uncharitable toward the "moderate" Democrats but as far as I can see everyone who doesn't want Warren to win (leaving Sanders out of it as he hasn't declared his intentions) wants a different person (not billionaires, but I'm not sure how much of the point here hinges on the candidate being a billionaire) to parachute into the White House and run things in the interests of billionaires.

Schultz won't run if they nominate someone like that. A traditional, "Let's try to appeal to the center-right that never votes for us" Democrat makes his candidacy wholly redundant.

Fair point, though I'm not sure anyone ever lost money betting that a billionaire's ego was too large.

He's basically making a threat that if the nominee is Warren or Sanders, he will jump into the race and run in the middle and try to discredit them. Based on what we've seen from him so far, I'd have to imagine that in that scenario, he would have the opposite effect from what he intends.

I can only hope this is right.

 

[metalhead]

Do you have evidence he's a liar or should all the colossal morons just take your word for it?

Do I have evidence that the billionaire won't act against his own material interest? Yes. The behavior of pretty much every billionaire in the history of the world, and even of fake ones like the current president.

I can only hope this is right.

I just have a hard time envisioning the type of person who was otherwise going to vote for Elizabeth Warren, who instead decides to vote for Howard Schultz. I mean I'm sure this person exists, but are there a lot of them? More than would make the much more obvious leap from Trump to Schultz?

There is probably a better case to be made that a campaign targeted at keeping Warren voters home could find some success, but Howard Schultz is going to have to get an awful lot better at politicking if he has any hope of convincing anyone of anything.

Then there is also the fact that if you gave Warren or Sanders a second billionaire to run against, and a real one at that, it just gives them so much more material to work with.

 

[rah]

But as bad as he is, I probably would have voted for him the last time since I refused to vote for either major candidate.
In an upcoming match between Warren and Trump I could see my self voting for Warren but if there was a more centrist independent that would change things.

 

[Lexicus]

I'd rather someone win the WH by self-financing than taking bribes.

But then, you probably also think that Trump is a noble anti-corruption champion, who is draining the swamp like he promised.

 

[Lexicus]

Well, looks like rah offered a more effective rebuttal than I could have.

But as bad as he is, I probably would have voted for him the last time since I refused to vote for either major candidate.
In an upcoming match between Warren and Trump I could see my self voting for Warren but if there was a more centrist independent that would change things.

I think there are many more people out there like rah, @Gori the Grey and @metalhead.
Whether the electoral math means people like him are peeling off from the Republicans or the Democrats is a different question, but I think the existence of a constituency of such people is fairly beyond doubt. I might also be biased because everyone in my union is constantly grumbling about how the Democrats are "going too far left" and many of them expressed enthusiasm about Bloomberg when I was on the campaign trail last year...