General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOK, that's it for Schultz.
Until yesterday I had no idea who this Schultz guy was. Today I saw on the CNN print out (what do they call that stuff that isn't the "crawl" cuz it does't move), that he said Elizabeth Warren's idea of a tax on the very wealthy was "ridiculous" and she knows it will never pass. Sounded like man-splaining to me. Made me furious. Why wouldn't it pass? It's not complicated, like, maybe, Medicare for all. It's easy. I completely agree with her response, he's in it to keep the system rigged for himself and his buddies.
He so quickly went from "who's he?" in my mind to "No way!!!!!"
JaneQPublic
(7,113 posts)Wounded Bear
(58,721 posts)I don't and I most probably won't vote for any billionaire businessmen for elected office.
Businessmen make shitty presidents. History bears that out. Most of the worst presidents were businessmen first.
Billionaires will do what they do, which is defend their privelege and try to expand it.
Frankly, I think we need both suggestions, OAC's high marginal tax rate and Warren's wealth tax.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)Doremus
(7,261 posts)That's all I need to hear to know he's a fucking oligarch.
wryter2000
(46,082 posts)Let him campaign on reducing Social Security. See how far that gets him
Haggis for Breakfast
(6,831 posts)genxlib
(5,542 posts)They call the bottom of the screen text a "chyron"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chyron
It is a silly obscure name for one of the most damaging things in politics. I personally believe that the chyrons are more influential on Fox news than the verbal discussions. Loyalists watch and listen but millions of uninitiated see these chyrons in average coffee shops, waiting rooms, etc. It is this surreptitious exposure to non-news consumers that I think is really dangerous.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)...silently in such places. Yes, you've scared me. But thanks for the info.
The Mouth
(3,164 posts)when following the word "Fox"
Haggis for Breakfast
(6,831 posts)The Mouth
(3,164 posts)I'm OK with Fox "News" , or Faux News. But never "Fox News".
I learn new stuff here in DU most days. I'm 77.
Ferrets are Cool
(21,110 posts)Soph0571
(9,685 posts)That he would split the repubs rather than the democratic vote?
world wide wally
(21,755 posts)NBachers
(17,146 posts)c-rational
(2,596 posts)We had a similar tax code in the 50's and 60's. Inequality has resulted in the move to more nationalism and a more unjust society. There are a lot more people in the 0-90% group and this is why they want voter turnout limited. Let the people speak.
Fuck that guy, he sounds like a Republican.
isitreal
(26 posts)This man knows money and the power of it. He is forgetting that Business and politics should not mix. Now is the time to give him an education and stop spending money at Starbucks. As soon as he sees good impact to his bottom line he will be reconsidering if this is a wise move for him.
Vote now stop giving starbucks your money.
oasis
(49,410 posts)Some kinda Dem, that guy. Screw all billionaires with over inflated egos.
cstanleytech
(26,320 posts)make it to the floor for a vote.
onlyadream
(2,168 posts)And right away I thought this guy was a jerk.
SergeStorms
(19,204 posts)usually wealthy white men, have to stop thinking that the office of president is a good place to "start" their political career. That's insane. That's like a writer of children's books thinking they're qualified to run the largest publishing company on the planet.
librechik
(30,676 posts)Doitnow
(1,103 posts)nation in the world, why is it we can't afford to have medical care for everyone if every other industrial country can afford to do exactly that?
Don't you just love the way these billionaires just love to try to influence decisions even before ordinary people get the chance to get ideas aired? Like ---oh, you people are too stupid to even think about progressive ideas. Huge proportions of Americans want progressive solutions, polls show. Progressives are in the MAJORITY in wanting these new solutions, therefore progressives make up the CENTER. Ignore the "far left" label. Some would like to make them dirty words, like they've made the word, "liberal."
musicblind
(4,484 posts)It's just his opinion.
I will not vote for the guy, because he's trying to be a spoiler. I'd vote for Elizabeth Warren over him any day. If he wants to run, he should jump in the primary rather than run as a self-funded independent.
You ask why wouldn't Medicare For All pass? We can't pass legislation keeping guns out of the hands of people on no-fly lists. 80 some percent of Americans agree on that, but we can't pass it because Republicans won't let us. The ACA was based on a heritage foundation plan and they still wouldn't give us a single vote.
It won't pass in the near future because the other party will not give us any support and we are very unlikely to have a supermajority in the near future.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't propose it, that doesn't mean we shouldn't tout its virtues, and that doesn't mean we shouldn't push for it as a party. All that means is we should be realistic about it actually happening. Republicans will NOT vote on anything Democrats support no matter how popular it is with the general public. We will have to wait until we have another supermajority to pass Medicare For All. Then we will have to spend years defending it in court - both the court of opinion and the court of appeals - just like we did the ACA.
None of that means Elizabeth Warren shouldn't advocate for it, that just means it's an uphill battle.
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)getting insurance out of healthcare was "unAmerican." He's an entitled ass.
dawg day
(7,947 posts)Not the coffee guy.
And maybe he doesn't realize that several countries-- Canada, the UK, France-- have single-payer, where you just show your NHS card and get the services-- you know, pretty much like Medicare for all. And they spend far, far less on health care than we do.
oasis
(49,410 posts)Joe941
(2,848 posts)I'll be supporting Bernie if he runs.