Other than Sanders, it seems all the dems have decided to give the ball to Clinton.
It just makes me scratch my head and just ask you guys for ideas. There are more republicans running than there are voters in Iowa. I await breathlessly for Colbert to throw in his hat and challenge Trump to a debate on his show.
You know how clowns have such a bad image in America?
Trump isn’t helping.
And neither are you John
Trump is a republican. My Question is, as the country seems to becoming more liberal, legal pot, gay marriage etc. , and Obama is out, where are the Dems?
The landscape has totally turned against dinosaurs like Huckabee, Santorum, etc. Yet they are running again. Perhaps looking for a job at Fox news. I have a better chance of winning, but they are running. I bet Palin and Pat Robertson are next. Why stop at 20?
So on the Dem side, it appears to be down to Sanders and Clinton. Why did Frankin pick this moment to shut up? It’s a puzzle. People are begging Warren to run, like sending her money and begging.
Doesn’t it seem like the climate is right to elect a dem ? It’s like the 4th of July with no fireworks. The field is so open on the left I think Amy Shoommer could take a decent crack at it.
It’s hard to think of Hillary Clinton as a Democrat. She has been a foreign policy hawk and a friend of Wall Street and the neo-liberal agenda. I’m sure, however, that on a variety of social issues, we can count on her to “say” the right thing.
I gave money to Sanders’ campaign. He is running as a democrat, even though he identifies as a socialist. For all those reading who’ve been conditioned to think of socialism as a bad thing: In the last 10 years, we have socialized the auto industry (GM), the banking industry (bailout) and the insurance industry (ACA). The military industrial complex is almost completely socialized. Agribusiness is socialized through subsidies and protective tariffs. Oops, I was trying to argue that socialism was a good thing, and just I disproved my point.
Back to the original question: Why are there so many Republicans and so few Democrats running? Regarding the Republicans, my guess is that most of them are on some super-secret Bush payroll. They’re being paid to sound as ridiculous as possible, which comes naturally to some of them. One by one, they will fall on their swords, with only Jeb Bush left standing, taking the nomination. ‘Jeb!’ will have to move to the center for the general election. This will make all the right-wingers upset, but by that point it’ll be a question of the lesser-of-two-evils. The republicans will still not have enough whites, I mean votes, to win in the general election, so they and their cronies will push a narrative regarding how “close” the election is in key states (because the public loves a horse race), then work their darnedest to suppress the vote in those, supposedly, ‘close’ states, through felon disenfranchisement, purge lists, voter-ID requirements, paperless black-box voting machines, roll-back of sections of the Voting Rights act, etc. And if the election is still contested in the end, a majority of Supreme Court justices can decide the outcome.
As for the relatively few Democratic candidates, maybe it has something to do with Democrats being spineless (Bernie Sanders not included) and rolling over to power. That power is Hillary Clinton.
By the time a man gets to be presidential material, he’s been bought ten times over. --Gore Vidal
[QUOTE=elpuebloUNIdo;1653286]
It’s hard to think of Hillary Clinton as a Democrat. She has been a foreign policy hawk and a friend of Wall Street and the neo-liberal agenda. I’m sure, however, that on a variety of social issues, we can count on her to “say” the right thing.
"Back to the original question: Why are there so many Republicans and so few Democrats running? Regarding the Republicans, my guess is that most of them are on some super-secret Bush payroll. They’re being paid to sound as ridiculous as possible, which comes naturally to some of them. One by one, they will fall on their swords, with only Jeb Bush left standing, taking the nomination. ‘Jeb!’ will have to move to the center for the general election. This will make all the right-wingers upset, but by that point it’ll be a question of the lesser-of-two-evils. The republicans will still not have enough whites, I mean votes, to win in the general election, so they and their cronies will push a narrative regarding how “close” the election is in key states (because the public loves a horse race), then work their darnedest to suppress the vote in those, supposedly, ‘close’ states, through felon disenfranchisement, purge lists, voter-ID requirements, paperless black-box voting machines, roll-back of sections of the Voting Rights act, etc. And if the election is still contested in the end, a majority of Supreme Court justices can decide the outcome.
As for the relatively few Democratic candidates, maybe it has something to do with Democrats being spineless (Bernie Sanders not included) and rolling over to power. That power is Hillary Clinton. "
You may be on to something. Especially the part about how some repub shills may be paid to run, to make Bush seem sensible, not the anointed Inc. flack that he is. Betcha Sara will run next !
Also Gore Vidal: “There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat.”
Bernie Sanders is a sheepdog. His job is to get you to believe that the Democratic Party stands for something other than the endless war, austerity, racism and torture that it and the Republicans always deliver.
Bernie Sanders said that the only real change that was going to happen was from the bottom. He has used his soapbox to point out the ways in which our political, economic, social and environmental systems are broken. The issue of Sanders shilling for Hillary Clinton in the general election is frustrating but ultimately academic; she is the presumed nominee, regardless of Sanders’ support. If Sanders chose to run as a Socialist and then gets a bunch of votes in the general election, he will be accused by those on the left of being a spoiler if the Republican candidate wins the general election.
I have heard the criticism that those of the left put too much emphasis on electoral politics, particularly at the national level. Think of “change” from above as a kind of political trickle-down theory. We know how economic trickle-down theory has worked. Rather than blame Sanders for operating within a system which he can not change by himself, I would rather point the finger at our screwed up political system which marginalizes third parties.
Those are issues the conservative (shrink the government) libertarians support. FOX news even supported marriage equality. FOX’s main agenda is to continue moving wealth to the wealthy, and move tax $ to corporations in corporate welfare.
Iffy on that
Hard core libertarians, mostly Paul Sr. , have long supported legal pot and gay rights. Not so much Faux news. For instance, most of their paid commentators, O’ Reily, Huckabee, Palin etc. adhere to a “strong christian family”, ethic that seemed to have little room for tolerance of gays or pot heads. They seemed kind of down on Ron Paul in the last election, like he was a nut to Faux.
I like Bernie Sanders, but I fear he would spend us into a black hole. He talks of taxing the crap out of the rich, which has the potential to have them spend a lot of those riches on the campaigns of his competitors if they think he’s a viable candidate. Competitors like Hillary, probably.
While many of those who voted for Obama may feel let down after 8 years, I don’t know if this country is ready to elect any of the current Republican candidates. Or Hillary. Can’t we disqualify all of them and start over with a new batch of people?
Have you looked at the tax rate for high incomes back in the JFK and Nixon era? Much higher tax on the wealthy!!
But whats wrong with Sanders?
If you don’t think the USA has already spent itself into a black hole, well sorry, we have. The way forward is to prioritize income distribution. This is a productive country and we need to keep it that way by revolutionary changes in health care (like copying the success of every other successful country with single payer). Focus on infrastructure and education. Stay out of wars that are designed as tools to funnel billions$ to Connected Republican INcs.
Oh shit, I’m starting to sound like a politician. And where is that blonde girl, she was here a minute ago…
On my summer reading list is “Austerity: History of a Dangerous Idea”, by Mark Blyth.
After the 2008 financial crisis, the U.S. spent trillions to keep the banks solvent, propping up their bogus, speculative financial instruments. The term “black hole” is pretty apropos to that situation, imo, because the banks did not turn around and help to stimulate the economy; instead they just held onto the money.
What if all that money had instead been divided up and given to poor people? Aw, they would just ‘spend’ it! I remember giving a $5 bill to a panhandler standing in the middle of the street in L.A. She immediately ran across the street to the liquor store. My point, is, she used the money to immediately stimulate the economy. Remember the “welfare queens” Ronald Reagan used to talk about, the ones undeserving of government money? Turns out, they were the engines of a healthy economy. If this is making no sense to you, dear reader, maybe it’s because you’ve drunk the Milton Friedman KoolAid.
Governments literally make money. The question of whether there is enough money for roads, food-stamps or fighter jets…is a matter of priorities. Under the terms of our current corporate plutocracy, there will always be enough money to bail out the rich and powerful, but money to feed and educate poor children, that is another story.
I agree that the capitalists will do what they can to keep Sanders from winning, but I need clarification about what that hypothetical “black hole” would look like in reality, were Sanders to become president.
Isn’t Sanders an Independent? Democracy has come down to it not mattering what the politics are, just whether a minority person wins or not. So why challenge Hillary? This country wants a woman president, no matter how fascist she might be.
This is not socialism. It’s called fascism, or more specifically corporatism. Obamacare promised socialized medicine, but like all promises the politicians make, we end up with fascism. Socialism would be the government providing healthcare to everyone. What we got is government forcing us to pay one of a handful of those in the cartel, and we’ll see that be reduced down to two of three choices.
If the intent is to maximize revenue for government, then you need to look at the Laffer curve. That high of a tax reduces total revenue. In any case, even at today’s tax rates, I’m out. I’m at the point where I will sell my company and simply say no more. I don’t want to be forced to support such evil anymore.
We’re so far beyond that it’s ridiculous. US debt and unfunded liabilities have surpassed $1,400,000 per taxpayer. You could seize the assets of every person in the US, from the mega-rich to the dirt poor, and it wouldn’t begin to make a dent. Eventually, you run out of other people’s money, then game over.
We’re so far beyond that it’s ridiculous. US debt and unfunded liabilities have surpassed $1,400,000 per taxpayer. You could seize the assets of every person in the US, from the mega-rich to the dirt poor, and it wouldn’t begin to make a dent. Eventually, you run out of other people’s money, then game over.
Have my doubts about that
Sure, for the little man, Terry is right, but uncle Sam is no small player.
I am reminded of a quote from Pritam Sing, a local developer in my town who is worth 100 M$ or so. Back in the 80’s he did his first big development, buying a surplus Navy base and borrowing a shit load of money to develop it. Then the market crashed and Sing’s cash flow became a drip. I had a friend with a printing business, who wouldn’t take Sing’s job’s anymore, saying he takes months to pay.
The word around town was Sing was finished, the banks would foreclose and Sing was done.
But he tried to outreach to the community. I actually talked to him myself and asked him his secret, to keeping his huge project on track.
He told me money is a matter of scale. When you ow the bank 20 K$ and you are short, it’s your problem. They will write you off. When you ow the bank 25 million dollars, it’s their problem. They have no choice but to work with you, or write themselves off. He eventually righted the ship and the market turned, he paid everyone and turned a big profit.
I see uncle Sam as being like Sing but on steroids, with a legal printing press. To big to fail times 1000.
Writing from inside a black hole…
So imagine we’re not in a black hole right now, then imagine what it would be like if it were that much worse. 
But take Sanders name out and replace it with “winning candidate”. Doesn’t matter who. Our last Republican President didn’t exactly reduce spending. All we seem to know how to do is spend more, and pretend the math is something other than basic reality. Like if we send the debt through this black hole here, it will come out on the other side as a positive number instead of a negative. Right? That’s thinking like a politician!
I don’t know that Sanders would spend more than any other candidate, that was my wife’s comment. I think it doesn’t really matter which of them we vote for, it’s going to happen no matter what.
And if Trump actually wins the nomination (impossible you say? Again, we elected GWB not once, but TWICE), our country will lose a lot of credibility with the international community.
People gave Trump a hard time for saying that we should have a very strong military so we don’t have to use it. Yes, that’s what you’re supposed to want from your military, but it never seems to work that way. There are too many powerful, connected people who will benefit from hostilities; they will get their way.
I hope our voters are a little more sophisticated than that. But again I am reminded that they elected GWB, TWICE.
Jacquie and I couldn’t possibly vote for Hillary. She’s so bought by unions and other “connected people and organizations” that she is unlikely to be able to ever hear the words of the people. Such as a company like STEP, non-union and being squeezed out of being able to function by frozen funding (state) and increasing of unfunded mandates, like raises of minimum wage, sick leave, etc. If the government is supplying the funds to operate agencies like STEP but won’t cover the costs of doing business, it’s untenable. Unlike governments, we are not allowed to print money, nor can we operate with increasingly large defecits. You guys require us to pay our bills!
Obama wanted single payer, but it wasn’t going to be accepted. What got passed was a compromise, as political things often are, and watered down. And even in that form, the Republican’s main hobby ever since has been trying to abolish it. If you thought single payer would be better, don’t blame the President; so did he.
I think I know what that is; it suggests there is a “sweet spot” in revenues that is not directly related to the tax rates. At least with our current, complex tax laws in place. Raise the taxes on big business and the rich, and they’ll find more places to hide their assets or otherwise avoid (legally or not) having to pay as much. So maybe if we can clean up/simplify our tax code, that would make this work a lot better.
Yeah it sounds like Gilby is rephrasing Reaganomics
If the intent is to maximize revenue for government, then you need to look at the Laffer curve. That high of a tax reduces total revenue.
Gilby
Reagan’s basic point was that if we cut taxes it would stimulate the economy so much O’l SAM would get more revenue. We tried it and got deficits instead.
Giby’s point is if we raise taxes it will crush the economy and Sam will get less as a result. Likely also wrong IMHO.
For one thing, people with billion’s of dollars don’t buy more groceries. They usually use it to buy stocks and real estate, driving up the price of investments, but not increasing jobs.
I’m trying to insult everyone, here…
As our system of taxation has become increasingly regressive (e.g. putting the burden on the poor), revolting against taxes has become a political football. When Joe Average talks about how bad taxes are (without making distinctions regarding who has the burden), he is helping to promote more tax cuts for the rich and for corporations. Once the rich and powerful have their taxes cut, taxes have to come from somewhere, so the burden is shifted even more to the poor.
Small business owners feel burdened by onerous government regulations. The small business owner is the poster child for the big corporation. When regulations are cut, they end up benefitting the large corporations. The large corporations don’t care about the success of the small business owner. They would rather crush or absorb the small business owner for increased profits.
Libertarians stress the importance of small government. Some acceptable government functions for libertarians are national defense and the enforcement of contracts. These two items alone preclude us from having a small government. So, absent some massive change in the way our government works, libertarian ideology is purely academic. I love libertarian bumper stickers…driving down the public road with your libertarian bumper sticker.
George W. Bush, a Republican, was a sitting president during the largest expansion of the federal government (the restructuring and creation of Homeland Security). The poor black person is the whipping boy of the Republican narrative (thanks in part to Ronald Reagan) about big government. Conservatives would happily build a big government police state, however, to police the poor blacks who’ve just lost their welfare benefits and are revolting in the streets.
Beltway “liberals” love capitalism. Some of them, however, recognize that a capitalist system, while benefitting them personally, does not meet the needs of all citizens (though our corporate “citizens” are doing quite well), so the government must intervene. FDR’s new deal was designed not to overthrow capitalism, but to help continue it. The affordable care act was not so much a social program as a guarantee of the continued profits of the insurance industry.
The majority of so called “academic” economists are just preachers of the orthodoxy of neoliberal economic religion. They are so smart, they are able to put a positive spin on system which promotes so much suffering.
Read my lips: No new taxes. --George Herbert Walker Bush