crazytown
crazytown's JournalBloomberg plans to spend $100 million on anti-Trump ads in key states
Bloomberg plans to spend $100 million on anti-Trump ads in key states(CNN)Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg plans to spend $100 million on an anti-Donald Trump ad blitz in key 2020 battleground states.
A Bloomberg spokesperson told CNN the digital campaign will target Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin starting Friday and will run through the end of the primary season. The ads will not feature Bloomberg.
The ad blitz comes as Bloomberg is making moves toward a bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. Bloomberg has filed the necessary paperwork to get on the ballot in Alabama and Arkansas, but is not expected to be on the ballot in New Hampshire. Bloomberg has not announced a final decision on whether to enter the Democratic primary race.
"Mike believes that Trump is an existential threat to the country. He's not waiting to take on the President, he's starting now. This is all hands on deck," Bloomberg spokesman Jason Schechter told CNN.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/15/politics/bloomberg-anti-trump-ads/index.html
Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax won't hurt economic growth
Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax won't hurt economic growth(snip -The New York Times reported that the first independent analysis of Warren's tax found it would slow investment) The fact is, the analysis cited by the Times is riddled with problems, from its practical assumptions to the entire economic theory behind the model.
(snip) First, the analysis assumes Warren will use the revenue from her tax to pay down the deficit. But Warren has explicitly said she wants that tax to offset new spending on things like student debt cancelation and a universal child care system. Those sorts of broad-based programs are going to put more money into everyday people's pockets. And those people will be more likely to spend that extra money into the economy than a small number of very rich people are likely to spend less because we taxed them — being rich, you have to cut into a lot more of their wealth before you seriously affect their spending habits.
Another recent modeling run from the Levy Institute looked at what would happen if Warren's wealth tax was combined with new government spending equal to the tax's revenue. (Like, you know, Warren actually wants to do.) "A 1 percent of GDP increase in tax revenues from the richest households, paired with an equivalent increase in public spending, generates a 1.7 percent increase in GDP," Levy found. In other words, economic growth picks up.
https://theweek.com/articles/878431/elizabeth-warrens-wealth-tax-wont-hurt-economic-growth
Assuming Warren will use the revenue from her tax to pay down the deficit when she has explicitly said the monies will be spent, is dishonesty bordering on pedagogic fraud.
Gruesome: Man mauled by giant cat.
It's Messi the puma again. Cat licks fur. Cat licks hair.
AP source: 2nd U.S. official heard Trump call with Sondland
Source: PBS
WASHINGTON (AP) — A second U.S. embassy staffer in Kyiv overheard a key cellphone call between President Donald Trump and his ambassador to the European Union discussing the need for Ukrainian officials to pursue “investigations,” The Associated Press has learned.
The July 26 call between Trump and Gordon Sondland was first described during testimony Wednesday by William Taylor, the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. Taylor said one of his staffers overhead the call while Sondland was in a restaurant the day after Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that triggered the House impeachment inquiry.
The second diplomatic staffer also at the table was Suriya Jayanti, a foreign service officer based in Kyiv. A person briefed on what Jayanti overheard spoke to AP on condition of anonymity to discuss a matter under investiga
Read more: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ap-source-2nd-u-s-official-heard-trump-call-with-sondland
Geez. Was this on speaker phone?
26.0% Biden's RCP Average at an all time low.
Although Biden has been down in the 26-27% range before, 26.0% is his his absolute lowest number since July 6, in the aftermath of his disastrous June debate performance, the lowest since RCP has been averaging his polls Before the July debate he had been averaging 33-35%, since then he has been numbers have been in holding pattern, struggling to break 30%. There have been no sign of a resurgence on the national level.
Warren broke through 15% after the July debate and has stayed there. She has stabilized for the moment at 20% suggesting that the damage has been contained after her obfuscation of the costs of Medicare for All in the October debate. The release of her funding package has neither helped nor hindered.
Buttigieg who established a solid floor at around 5% is back up to 8%. Harris has not recovered from Gabbard's hit in the August debate and remains around 5% (5.3%). Sanders has a rock solid base at 15% and higher.
The outlook remains the same - a brokered convention. Biden at 26% has nowhere near the support he needs to win a majority of delegates, and has not since July. Warren and Sanders have 38.6% between them nationally, which although, national numbers do not translate into State delegates, are a pretty fair indication. Biden can't count on others leaving the race. Buttigieg is not going anywhere, and the majority of Harris' supports may go to Warren. He may do better with the undecided.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
Buttigieg blames 'the failures of the Obama era' on ... the Republicans.
On Obama: I think he did exactly as much could possibly have done within the constraints of the Congress he was dealing with.On the defeats: One thing you can see is any assumptions, any decisions that are based on an assumption of good faith by the Republicans in the Senate will be defeated.
Buttigieg sees the failures of the Obama era as the failures of the political system. When one party is acting in bad faith 'it's just not working'. Rather than blaming an individual or administration, Pete is talking about systemic failure - political and economic, failures than can not be fixed by making trump an 'aberration' and 'restoring' an improved version of the Obama Administration.
Taken from Pete Buttigieg's interview with Ezra Klein, March 28, 2019
https://podcasts.apple.com/ee/podcast/pete-buttigiegs-theory-of-political-change/id1081584611?i=1000433877817
Klein: There's so much talk about what Democrats need to learn from Donald Trump, what do they need to learn from the Obama presidency, what do they need to learn from his presidency for the next Democratic president.
Buttigieg: Well, I think part of it, unfortunately, this is hopefully a short term lesson, but one thing you can see is any assumptions, any decisions that are based on an assumption of good faith by the Republicans in the Senate will be defeated. It's just not working that way right now. And at the same time, I also thing - this isn't a hit on Obama, I mean, I don't know how many months he had total when there were actually sixty votes for what he wanted to do, it wasn't many, so . If anything, one of the biggest lessons is the limitations of the American Presidency (with a hostile Congress).
Ezra Klein's Commentary
The reality is Democrats are debating ever more ambitious policy in a political system ever less capable of passing ambitious policy — and ever more stacked against their policies, in particular. Their geographic disadvantage in Congress is only getting worse, Republicans control the White House and the Senate despite receiving fewer votes for either, and an activist conservative Supreme Court just gutted public sector unions and green-lit partisan gerrymandering.
Policy isn’t Democrats’ problem. They’ve got plenty of plans. Some of them are even popular. What they don’t have is a political system in which they can pass and implement those plans.
Buttigieg, to his credit, has a clear theory on this. When I interviewed him in April, he argued that “any decisions that are based on an assumption of good faith by Republicans in the Senate will be defeated.” The hope that you can pass laws through bipartisan compromise is dead. And that means governance is consistently, reliably failing to solve people’s problems, which is in turn radicalizing them against government itself.
There’s nothing new about a Democratic candidate promising to fix the system. Obama ran on similar themes in 2008. House Democrats opened their session by passing a sweeping package of good-government reforms. But once Democrats take power, concrete policy change, with the immediate benefits it promises, tends to win out over the abstractions of procedural reform. It’s easier to run for reelection bragging about a tax cut than about weakening the Electoral College.
What’s different about Buttigieg is his insistence that he would prioritize political reforms over policy wins. “This is the difference between somebody who’s thinking about 2024 versus somebody who’s thinking about 2054,” he said. “To me, yes, it’s worth it because we’re talking about setting the terms of the debate as they will play out for the rest of my life.”
This is what Buttigieg gets: To make policy, you have to fix the policymaking process. Some of the other candidates pay that idea lip service, when they get pushed on it. But he’s the one who places that project at the center of his candidacy.
NYT: Warren's wealth tax would curb the fortunes of America's richest families.
Warren Would Take Billionaires Down a Few Billion PegsElizabeth Warren’s tax proposals would significantly curb the gigantic fortunes of America’s richest families over time
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/business/economy/warren-billionaires-wealth-tax.html
If a 6% Wealth Tax had been instituted in 1982
This modest-sounding proposal, though, would have a far-reaching impact on the wealthiest Americans when combined with her other tax plans — shrinking colossal fortunes over time and making it much more difficult to hand down multibillion-dollar legacies.
The tax bite for any individual would not equal the $100 billion that Bill Gates jokingly cited, but over time it would still sting, according to estimates by two economists who advised Ms. Warren. If her wealth tax had been in effect since 1982, for example, Mr. Gates, who had made his first billion dollars by 1987, would have had $13.9 billion in 2018 instead of $97 billion.
Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest person, would have had $48.8 billion last year instead of $160 billion. And Michael Bloomberg, who is considering running for president himself, would have had $12.3 billion instead of $51.8 billion.
For Wall Street so loved their money
that they sent their 50 billion dollar son, so whoever art thieved by them, shall not flourish, but uncover lawless strife.
'The industry is more or less united against Ms. Warren. With just months before the first voting begins, it is unleashing a barrage of public attacks, donating money to her rivals and scrambling to counter her blistering narrative about Wall Street'.
This fight isn't really about anger or emotion or civility. It's about power, does who have it, and those don't plan to let it go - Elizabeth Warren
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred.
(snip) The American people know from a four-year record that today there is only one entrance to the White House—by the front door. Since March 4, 1933, there has been only one pass-key to the White House. I have carried that key in my pocket. It is there tonight. So long as I am President, it will remain in my pocket. Those who used to have pass-keys are not happy. Some of them are desperate. - FDR
'Wall Street has long tried to influence American politics and generally donated to both parties, though it traditionally has been more aligned with Republicans.'
“Everyone is nervous,” said Steven Rattner, a prominent Democratic donor who manages the wealth of Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor. “What scares the hell out of me is the way she would fundamentally change our free-enterprise system.”
And lo and behold, Wall Street's paper man throws his hat into the ring, following the money.
References
FDR:https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/october-31-1936-speech-madison-square-garden
NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-wall-street.html
Bret Stephens: Run Mike, Run
Bloomberg has the never trumper vote.
Run Mike, Run
The main question is whether Democrats are inclined to allow the former New York City mayor to save them from themselves.
Until last week, the conventional wisdom was that they weren’t so inclined. Then came that New York Times Upshot/Siena College poll showing Trump competitive with, or ahead of, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in the six battleground states that will likely decide the 2020 election.
If Trump is this strong now, in the midst of his impeachment woes and all the general distaste for him, where is he going to be in 11 months in a contest against opponents with nicknames like “Sleepy Joe,” “Crazy Bernie,” or “Uber Left Elizabeth Warren”?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/opinion/bloomberg-running-for-president-2020.html
Ferrets meet a raccoon at the pool
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayHometown: Whitehall, OH
Home country: USA
Current location: Australia
Member since: Thu Sep 27, 2018, 06:37 PM
Number of posts: 7,277
