Home | About | Donate

More Billionaire Presidential Candidates: A Bitter Pill

More Billionaire Presidential Candidates: A Bitter Pill

Leo Gerard

Billionaires are pretty damn sure they know what’s best for you. No more taxes on the rich and none of that Medicare for All is what’s best for you, according to two billionaires toying with seeking the presidency.

Or, maybe, that’s what’s best for them.

One of those billionaires, former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, called Medicare for All un-American. Actually, what is un-American is the fact that America is the only first-world country that fails to provide universal health insurance.

2 Likes

Will Our Freedom From Greed Ever Become A Reality?

1 Like

NO. Greed takes no vacations. We have to limit the max campaign spending, and subsidize candidates with less by using tax dollars. They can run on ideas, not wealth. Of course the SCOTUS may have other thoughts.

3 Likes

Bloomberg sez:
“We need a healthy economy, and we shouldn’t be embarrassed about our system.”

No oxymoron there.
“We need a healthy body, and we shouldn’t be embarrassed about filling it full of tumors.”

2 Likes

The problem is that rich guys like Bloomberg, Schultz and Trump will argue that they have a First Amendment right to spend their own money promoting themselves. We need a Constitutional Amendment to stop this.

Would never vote for Schultz or Bloomberg for anything just like I don’t patronize Starbucks or Amazon or Uber, etc, etc. Had it with billionaire monopolists who want to tell us how to run our own country. Why don’t they leave here - they and their money - in the end we will be better off and find a way to make it very well without them. They much prefer charity giving which gives them control and good PR versus higher taxes that let us the people decide where the money goes. Tax the hell out of them!

The billionaire politicians who have run outside of party have not been particularly more damaging than other candidates, who have largely run for billionaires while running under the aegis their various organizations. Schultz’s lack of empathy with front-line workers and wage-earners does not make him stand out from recent Republican or Democratic candidates.

One might imagine that the point of Schultz running, for someone interested in egalitarian or humanitarian politics, would not be that there might be a temptation to vote for him, but that he draws part of the neoliberal-neoconservative vote from both parties. The major concern of the Democratic body politic, then, as opposed to that of many Democratic voters, is that his presence might open avenues within the party for possible candidates towards the relative left and popular side of the Democratic spectrum–for Sanders, Warren, Gabbard, et al.

There is likely a case for comparing a Schultz candidacy to that of Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996. Perot’s money allowed him to run fairly independently for whatever combination of ideas or ideals or vanities motivated him. A lot of the common wisdom at the time was that he influenced the election by drawing more votes from Bush and Quayle in '92 and from Bob Dole than from Bill Clinton, thereby facilitating Clinton’s two victories. Thus, Perot’s candidacy has typically been treated as an advantage to Democrats, and by extension to liberal, progressive, or leftist interests in some broad sense.

Was it?

In fairly deep retrospect, that’s a hard case to make. Bill Clinton administered NAFTA, an era of reduced social spending, and a murderous regime of sanctions and inspections to prepare Iraq for invasion. He crippled the Democratic Party as an alternative to corporatist and what had been “Reagonomics” and would come to be called “neoliberal” politics.

You cannot lose much allowing votes to be drawn from lousy candidates. There’s no percentage in allowing any fool to run until there’s some way to produce a decent, representative candidate who has authentic access to the electoral system.

I’m figuring we’re none of us holding our breaths, right?

Howard Schultz could play a helpful role if he gave his workers at Starbucks a raise to $15/hour. Now his workers are shamefully underpaid.

1 Like

When I opened a computer store in 1980, my business partners told me there were two rules in business: 1) Make a profit and 2) Make every decision in favor of profit. (“On these two laws hang all the laws and the prophets”).

Business that don’t follow the rules stated above either aren’t real business, but hobbies or a tax write off, or they don’t stay in business.

Governments provide SERVICES, not products. Governments do not follow the rules of business because they can institute taxes to provide income.

The real question should be not what is the national debt or deficit, but what are the services and how efficiently are they provided.

Here endth the lesson.