'For Billionaires, Things Are Already Fine': Ocasio-Cortez Pinpoints Why Howard Schultz Has No Serious Tax Plan
It did not take Rep.
It did not take Rep.
One more time. If those supporters of the Democratic party claim a Howard Shultz run for President would help lead to a Trump win as it would divide the vote it would because it shows the Democrats are NOT a progressive party but one that seeks the same votes the Republicans want. It would be because the right wing candidate Trump better at getting those votes than would be the right wing candidate Schultz. It would be because the Democratic party not doing enough to get the votes of those 50 percent of voters that tsay home because neither Democrat or Republic is seen as representing their interests.
I can’t imagine why anybody for any reason would vote for this guy except he founded Starbucks which is more or less a blight on the United States. It’s kind of like the walmart of coffee but the robots who go there think they are at the greatest place on earth. That said - it would come as no surprise if this guy goes all the way. Given the nature of our system, the influence of money, the powerlessness and ignorance of so many of the people in the U.S. - yes , anything is possible and we have a monster in the white house now who so aptly proves that.
For not being a politician, Schultz sure sounds like one. Talk about tap dancing and obfuscation. Too bad he was not forthcoming on what Schultz thinks is a better way to do this, but on the other hand; we already know what his answer would be: A better way is anything that does not hurt my bottom line!
England under King George, was ruled by Kings,Lords, Earls and the oligarchs of that time, and looks to me like America is the same except the titles are different, now they are called billionaires!
True, but they continue to fool so many people by pretending to be a progressive party because of the progressives like Sanders, AOC and others that destroys the real progressive party: THE GREEN PARTY.
I can’t stand Walmart, but I tolerate Starbucks if we are on a road trip and that’s where the family wants to go and I need to stay awake driving. I’ve had much worse coffee (I hate McDonald’s coffee) and I’ve had better.
Shultz as a presidential contender though? He is at the bottom and I really don’t like some of the others. The idea that you can criticize someones idea without giving a simple concrete proposal of what you would do should get you laughed out of the race immediately. This guy is worthless unlike the coffee from his company which isn’t that bad.
Yes Mr. Schultz and that statement is exactly why I have lost trust in you! Too bad you did not say: WE CANNOT AFFORD NOT TO DO IT.
Starbucks is just another monopolistic company which wants to control the market. How many small, locally owned coffee shops have been pushed out by the monopolistic practices? Of course, Wall Street will fund and support a monopoly like this one but do you think they will be there with funding for smaller locally owned businesses. Wall Street loves monopolies. I don’t like their coffee either but I guess that is a matter of personal taste.
Sometimes the ego gets so big it can’t help running for president.
It’s counterproductive to rail against one progressive over another. The more progressive entities, factions, or people the merrier. Let’s embrace them all until the dust settles.
We start by building a bigger and bigger tent of progressives, their evolving ideas, and the far left can follow along or eat cake.
Schultz reminds me of someone just simply bored. He’s the image of Scrooge McDuck swimming around in his cash and coin vault until he gets bored.
For someone to whom small is large, it’s easy to believe that being rich means being a victim.
I don’t know, lots I suppose. As many retailers suffered under Walmart and bookstores under Amazon. I boycott some things based on my beliefs (e.g. I’ve been boycotting meat by being vegetarian for around 35 years now), but I’m not willing to boycott chains (or most of them anyway - I just don’t need to go to Walmart since I hate the environment there and Target isn’t significantly more expensive and is always available wherever I live). For independent stores, I frequent a small hardware store (but still go to Home Depot for somethings) and I go to smaller mountaineering stores (but still go to REI which is at least a co-op but it is now the closest thing to a monopoly on that market). If there happens to be a cool independent coffee place (I’ve been to a couple along the 395 in CA), I’m happy to go there, but more often than not I’m in Starbucks (on the rare times I buy coffee premade - most of what I drink is made at home).
As to laws on monopoly behavior - I’m all for them. And no way should Amazon or any mail order firm before them have been able to get away with not charging state sales tax - we probably should have instituted a national sales tax too.
I agree, but perhaps I was not clear, I have not railed against well meaning progressives, but the corruption of people like Pelosi and Schumer and the other elites in Democratic party that pretend to be progressives. Thanks for your reply.
I understand that in today’s world (the so called free market) we frequently have no options. Go to middle america - where can they shop? What choices do they really have? Frequently only Walmart which has taken over the market in communities that used to have a vibrant downtown. We have a system of finance that favors Wall Street stock traded businesses over small locally owned businesses. And the sad thing is that we are doing this by ourselves - think our 401(k)s or IRAs (if we have them) go to investing in locally owned businesses? We have a financial system run and dictated by Wall Street and their Washington toadies who do whatever they are told.
I’m no fan of the corporate dem’s like Schumer and Pelosi, but is it fair to call their tendency to play to the big interests “corruption”
I only consider it corruption if laws are broken.
Idon’t want my comment to represent cover for bad guys, but we have to change the laws or the next Schumer and Pelosi will do the same money grubbing.
Oh yes. And if you read any of @JoanRobinson 's posts, she will lay out many reasons for why this is quite reasonable.
I thought your point was for @Shantiananda to not unfairly criticize real progressives like AOC and Sanders by lumping them in with the entire Democratic party and if so, I agree 100% with that point. (And we can still fairly criticize them and want them to be better as we are recognizing that if the entire party were of the same caliber we’d be in a different universe)
I was just trying to clear the air on overdoing descriptions these politicians that certainly operate at times as corrupt puppy dogs, but legally are not.
And as far as Bernie getting the Trump treatment from democrats running, I know Bernie can hold his own.
Going grocery shopping now. Surely will be buying some choice beef. Sorry Pony and fellow veg’s.
What’s happened is that, starting approximately Inauguration Day 1981 and increasingly since then, US laws have been rewritten to make legal that which had once been illegal. Consider the Constitution’s phrasing for reasons to impeach: “treason, BRIBERY (emphasis mine), and other high crimes and misdemeanors;” when we speak of “campaign finance reform,” we’re talking about the need to once again make bribery illegal—thanks a bunch, SCOTUS.
The repeal of Glass-Steagall during the Clinton presidency is another such example—in fact, Citibank merged with Traveler’s Insurance even BEFORE the repeal became law. Laws regarding media consolidation and cross-ownership have been so diluted as to be meaningless.
And so on…