|Home||Switchboard||Unix Administration||Red Hat||TCP/IP Networks||Neoliberalism||Toxic Managers|
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Bigger doesn't imply better. Bigger often is a sign of obesity, of lost control, of overcomplexity, of cancerous cells
Picture from Secret Money For Private Armies
|News||Do the US intelligence agencies attempt to influence the US Presidential elections ?||Recommended Links||Tulsi Gabbard||Elizabeth Warren||Donald Trump2020||Bernie Sanders: A turncoat socialist ?||Do the foreign state influence the US Presidential elections ?||Two Party System as polyarchy|
|British attempts to rig the US elections||Israel attempts to rig the US elections?||Saudi Arabia attempts to rig the US elections||The Iron Law of Oligarchy||Wiretaps of Trump and his associates during Presidential elections2016||Obama administration participation in the intelligence services putsch against Trump||Neocon foreign policy is a disaster for the USA||Amorality and criminality of neoliberal elite||NeoMcCartyism|
|Elite Theory And the Revolt of the Elite||Militarism and reckless jingoism of the US neoliberal elite||DNC and Podesta emails leak: blaming Vladimir Putin||FBI Mayberry Machiavellians and CIA connected democrats||Mueller invokes ghosts of GRU operatives to help his and Brennan case||Hypocrisy and Pseudo-democracy||Rosenstein role in the "Appointment of the special prosecutor gambit"||Audacious Oligarchy and "Democracy for Winners"||National Security State|
|US and British media are servants of security apparatus||Corporate Media: Journalism In the Service of the Powerful Few||New American Militarism||The Real War on Reality||The Deep State||Strzokgate||Steele dossier||Trump vs. Deep State||Brennan elections machinations|
|Media-Military-Industrial Complex||Skeptic Quotations||History of American False Flag Operations||Anti-Russian hysteria in connection emailgate and DNC leak||Cambridge Analytica data mining scandal||Media as a weapon of mass deception||Hypocrisy of British ruling elite||Politically Incorrect Humor||Etc|
Note: for the analysis of previous Presidential election see November 2016 as a referendum on neoliberal globalization
The USA neoliberal society after 2008 entered and prolong ideological crisis accompanied by economic stagnation. BTW the current system can be called "inverted totalitarism" and is not that far form neofascism in any case. So some authors predict evolution of the US political system toward neofascism, as far right nationalism is currently the only viable force that is able to tame or destroy the rule of neoliberal financial oligarchy.
The elections of 2020 are interesting in a sense that for the first time since 1970th two candidates openly challenge neoliberal dogma: Tulsi Gubbard and Elisabeth Warren. It is also the first election in the USA history which is run during a color revolution against sitting president launched by War party and intelligence agencies in 2016
This is also the first election in which the issue of the foreign influence on the US election (especially British and Israeli) became prominent (mostly along the lines of "Russiagate" witch hunt). But blowback from Russiagate reveled dirty dialing of British government and makes the work of British government and Zionist Lobby in influencing the US elections somewhat more difficult, although Israeli lobby continue to possess formidable financial resources for directly and indirectly bribing US politicians. MI6 has the ability to intercept all important US communications and as such can use this information to influence the US election, like they did in 2016 with Wiretapping Trump tower, Steele dossier operation and George Papadopoulos entrapment.
The immune system of the US state is weakened by decades of neoliberalism.
Generally we have three main types of candidates in 2020
t’s a framing that’s been everywhere over the past two years: the Resistance v Donald Trump. By some definitions that “resistance” even includes people like Mitt Romney and George W Bush. By almost all definitions it encompasses mainstream Democrats, such as the likely presidential hopefuls Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand.
In their rhetoric and policy advocacy, this trio has been steadily moving to the left to keep pace with a leftward-moving Democratic party. Booker, Harris and Gillibrand know that voters demand action and are more supportive than ever of Medicare for All and universal childcare.
Gillibrand, long considered a moderate, has even gone as far as to endorse abolishing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) and, along with Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders’ single-payer healthcare bill. Harris has also backed universal healthcare and free college tuition for most Americans.
But outward appearances aren’t everything. Booker, Harris and Gillibrand have been making a very different pitch of late – on Wall Street. According to CNBC, all three potential candidates have been reaching out to financial executives lately, including Blackstone’s Jonathan Gray, Robert Wolf from 32 Advisors and the Centerbridge Partners founder Mark Gallogly.
Wall Street, after all, played an important role getting the senators where they are today. During his 2014 Senate run, in which just 7% of his contributions came from small donors, Booker raised $2.2m from the securities and investment industry. Harris and Gillibrand weren’t far behind in 2018, and even the progressive Democrat Sherrod Brown has solicited donations from Gallogly and other powerful executives.
When CNBC’s story about Gillibrand personally working the phones to woo Wall Street executives came out, her team responded defensively, noting her support for financial regulation and promising that if she did run she would take “no corporate Pac money”.
But what’s most telling isn’t that Gillibrand and others want Wall Street’s money, it’s that they want the blessings of financial CEOs. Even if she doesn’t take their contributions, she’s signaling that she’s just playing politics with populist rhetoric. That will allow capitalists to focus their attention on candidates such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who have shown a real willingness to abandon the traditional coziness of the Democratic party with the finance, insurance and real estate industries.
Gillibrand and others are behaving perfectly rationally. The last presidential election cost $6.6bn – advertising, staff and conventions are expensive. But even more important than that, they know that while leftwing stances might help win Democratic primaries, the path of least resistance in the general election is capitulation to the big forces of capital that run this country. Those elites might allow some progressive tinkering on the margins, but nothing that challenges the inequities that keep them wealthy and their victims weak.
Big business is likely to bet heavily on the Democratic party in 2020, maybe even more so than it did in 2016. In normal circumstances, the Democratic party is the second-favorite party of capital; with an erratic Trump around, it is often the first.
The American ruling class has a nice hustle going with elections. We don’t have a labor-backed social democratic party that could create barriers to avoid capture by monied interests. It’s telling that when asked about the former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper’s recent chats with Wall Street political financiers, a staff member told CNBC: “We meet with a wide range of donors with shared values across sectors.”
Plenty of Democratic leaders believe in the neoliberal growth model. Many have gotten personally wealthy off of it. Others think there is no alternative to allying with finance and then trying to create progressive social policy on the margins. But with sentiments like that, it doesn’t take fake news to convince working-class Americans that Democrats don’t really have their interests at heart.
Of course, the Democratic party isn’t a monolith. But the insurgency waged by newly elected representatives such as the democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ro Khanna and others is still in its infancy. At this stage, it isn’t going to scare capital away from the Democratic party, it’s going to make Wall Street invest more heavily to maintain its stake in it.
Men like Mark Gallogly know who their real enemy is: more than anyone else, the establishment is wary of Bernie Sanders. It seems likely that he will run for president, but he’s been dismissed as a 2020 frontrunner despite his high favorability rates, name recognition, small-donor fundraising ability, appeal to independent voters, and his team’s experience running a competitive national campaign. As 2019 goes on, that dismissal will morph into all-out war.
Wall Street isn’t afraid of corporate Democrats gaining power. It’s afraid of the Democrats who will take them on – and those, unfortunately, are few and far between.
Neocon NY Times columnist Bari Weiss smeared Tulsi Gabbard (who bravely opposed regime change and US support for Salafi-jihadist contras) as an “Assad toady,” then couldn’t spell/define toady or offer any evidence to prove her smear. Embarrassingly funnypic.twitter.com/m0MLaHFPiX
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 22, 2019
Rogan informs Weiss that a Toady is a “sycophant,” and then asks her what qualifies Gabbard as a “sycophant”? To which Weiss replies: “I don’t remember the details.”
She probably will be labeled "Putin agent" very soon and this way or the other eliminated from the race. Apparently now in best neo-McCarthyism traditions of Mueller witch hunt anyone who doesn’t conform to pro-war narratives of neoliberal/neocon establishment is a Russian stooge. Expect the dirt of her from the US intelligence agencies.
If Trump runs of the defense of neoliberalism platform he will lose. But Trump proved to be a weak, uneducated, superficial and impulsive politician, He also proved to be a neoliberal at heart, who lied to his electorate: Republican Obama so to speak. Like Obama he is a puppet of MIC. but in addtiona to that he positioned himslef as a puppet of Israel.
His tax cuts had shown that he is a regular "trickle down" neoliberal. So he attraction to voters is down substantially. Now Trump has zero, or less, street credibility.
Polling is unambiguous here. If you define the “center” as a position somewhere between those of the two parties, when it comes to economic issues the public is overwhelmingly left of center; if anything, it’s to the left of the Democrats. Tax cuts for the rich are the G.O.P.’s defining policy, but two-thirds of voters believe that taxes on the rich are actually too low, while only 7 percent believe that they’re too high. Voters support Elizabeth Warren’s proposed tax on large fortunes by a three-to-one majority. Only a small minority want to see cuts in Medicaid, even though such cuts have been central to every G.O.P. health care proposal in recent years.
The result is that to be an economic conservative in America means advocating policies that, on their merits, only appeal to a small elite. Basically nobody wants these policies on their own; they only sell if they’re packaged with far right nationalism
But forty years of stagnating wages, rising living costs, and intermittent chaos caused by neoliberalism remade the world — slowly, and then all at once
Looks like Democratic Party is so corrupted by Wall Street and MIC that it can't overcome its fiasco in 2016. DNC will probably prevent any non-establishment candidate from taking that nomination. And establishment candidate has low chances to win against Trump, becuase Trump now will run as an establisment candidate .
Attempt to offload the blame of Hillary Clinton's fiasco in 2016 to Russia's manipulation of election not only failed, they backfired destroying credibility of neoliberal MSM such as NBC, CNN and MSNBC, which are not called "fake news." So now "DemoRats" (Clinton wing of Democratic Party, or Establishment Democrats) have much less tools for influencing public opinion.
Russiagate witch hunt also revealed that the real manipulator of the USA 2016 election were British intelligence services and a pro-Obama faction within CIA (you may call it Brennan faction) and FBI (you may call it Comey faction) positioning Obama and his weasels (Brennan, Clapper, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, etc) as chief conspirators again democratic election guilty of politicizing counterintelligence division of FBI for their own benefits (see Steele dossier and Strzok-gate ). That limits their freedom of maneuver in 2020.
Talking about far right, Trump supporters and his supporters are to heavily infected with neoliberal ideology and are pretty far in social demands of German National Socialist Program program of 1920 which advocated using brute power of state and repressions against financial oligarchy ("usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race. "). So they might lose considerable part of working class voters, who after 40 year os neoliberalism now openly tilt toward national socialism idea.
Paradoxically those demands now position the US neofascists to the left of the Clinton wing Democratic Party (soft neoliberals or DemoRats) , which is in the pocket of financial oligarchy and is ready to privatize Social Security and Medicare to please its Wall Street sponsors. To say nothing about Republican Party which is essentially the party of big capital. Let me remind the key point of NSDAP program of 1920:
The 25-point Program of the NSDAP
… … …
7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.
8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.
9.All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
10.The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently, we demand:
11.Abolition of unearned (work and labor) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
12.In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13.We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14.We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
15.We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
16.We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
17.We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
18.We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
… … …
21.The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
22. We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
Here is Henry Giroux take on the current situation in the USA (Truthdig, Aug 02, 2018) which I think contain some interesting (albeit controversial) thought as for the direction of the USA society might take after Presidential elections of 2020:
Since the 1970s, American society has lived with the curse of neoliberalism, or what can be called the latest and most extreme stage of predatory capitalism. As part of a broader comprehensive design, neoliberalism’s overriding goal is to consolidate power in the hands of the financial elite. As a mode of rationality, it functions pedagogically in multiple cultural sites to ensure no alternatives to its mode of governance can be imagined or constructed.
Central to its philosophy is the assumption the market drives not just the economy but all of social life. It construes profit-making as the essence of democracy and consuming as the only operable form of agency. It redefines identities, desires and values through a market logic that favors self-interest, a survival-of-the-fittest ethos and unchecked individualism. Under neoliberalism, life-draining and unending competition is a central concept for defining human freedom.
As an economic policy, it creates an all-encompassing market guided by the principles of privatization, deregulation, commodification and the free flow of capital. Advancing these agendas, it weakens unions, radically downsizes the welfare state and wages an assault on public goods. As the state is hollowed out, big corporations take on the functions of government, imposing severe austerity measures, redistributing wealth upward to the rich and powerful and reinforcing a notion of society as one of winners and losers. Put simply, neoliberalism gives free rein to finance capital and seeks to liberate the market from any restraints imposed by the state. At present, governments exist preeminently to maximize the profits, resources and the power of the wealthy.
As a political policy, it empties governance of any substance and denounces any viable notion of the social contract. Moreover, neoliberalism produces widespread misery and suffering as it weakens any vestige of democracy that interferes with its vision of a self-regulating market.
Theoretically, neoliberalism is often associated with the work of Friedrich August von Hayek and the Mont Pelerin Society, Milton Friedman and the Chicago school of economics, and most famously with the politics of Augusto Pinochet in Chile, President Ronald Reagan in the United States and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom. Politically, it is supported by various right-wing think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and by billionaires such as the Koch brothers.
Neoliberalism’s hatred of democracy, the common good and the social contract has unleashed generic elements of a fascist past in which white supremacy, ultra-nationalism, rabid misogyny and immigrant fervor come together in a toxic mix of militarism, state violence and the politics of disposability. Modes of fascist expression adapt variously to different political historical contexts assuring racial apartheid-like forms in the postbellum U.S. and overt encampments and extermination in Nazi Germany. Fascism -- with its unquestioning belief in obedience to a powerful strongman, violence as a form of political purification, hatred as an act of patriotism, racial and ethnic cleansing, and the superiority of a select ethnic or national group -- has resurfaced in the United States. In this mix of economic barbarism, political nihilism, racial purity, economic orthodoxy and ethical somnambulance, a distinctive economic-political formation has been produced that I term neoliberal fascism.
Neoliberalism as the New Fascism
The war against liberal democracy has become a global phenomenon. Authoritarian regimes have spread from Turkey, Poland, Hungary and India to the United States and a number of other countries. Right-wing populist movements are on the march, spewing forth a poisonous mix of ultra-nationalism, white supremacy, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and xenophobia. The language of national decline, humiliation and demonization fuels dangerous proposals and policies aimed at racial purification and social sorting while hyping a masculinization of agency and a militarism reminiscent of past dictatorships. Under current circumstances, the forces that have produced the histories of mass violence, torture, genocide and fascism have not been left behind. Consequently, it has been more difficult to argue that the legacy of fascism has nothing to teach us regarding how “the question of fascism and power clearly belongs to the present.”1
Fascism has multiple histories, most connected to the failed democracies in Italy and Germany in the 1930s and the overthrow of democratic governments by the military such as in Argentina and Chile in the 1970s. Moreover, the history between fascism and populism involves a complex mix of relations over time.2 What is distinctive about this millennial fascism is its history of “a violent totalitarian order that led to radical forms of political violence and genocide” has been softened by attempts to recalibrate its postwar legacy to a less liberal democratic register.3 For instance, in Hungary, Turkey, Poland and a number of other emerging fascist states, the term “illiberal democracy” is used as code to allegedly replace a “supposedly outmoded form of liberal democracy.”4 In actuality, the term is used to justify a form of populist authoritarianism whose goal is to attack the very foundations of democracy. These fascist underpinnings are also expanding in the United States. In President Donald Trump’s bombastic playbook, the notion of “the people” has become a rhetorical tool to legitimize a right-wing mass movement in support of a return to the good old days of American Apartheid.5
As the ideas, values and institutions crucial to a democracy have withered under a savage neoliberalism that has been 50 years in the making, fascistic notions of racial superiority, social cleansing, apocalyptic populism, hyper-militarism and ultra-nationalism have gained in intensity, moving from the repressed recesses of U.S. history to the centers of state and corporate power.6 Decades of mass inequality, wage slavery, the collapse of the manufacturing sector, tax giveaways to the financial elite and savage austerity policies that drive a frontal attack on the welfare state have further strengthened fascistic discourses. They also have redirected populist anger against vulnerable populations and undocumented immigrants, Muslims, the racially oppressed, women, LBGTQ people, public servants, critical intellectuals and workers. Not only has neoliberalism undermined the basic elements of democracy by escalating the mutually reinforcing dynamics of economic inequality and political inequality -- accentuating the downhill spiral of social and economic mobility -- it has also created conditions that make fascist ideas and principles more attractive.
Under these accelerated circumstances, neoliberalism and fascism conjoin and advance in a comfortable and mutually compatible movement that connects the worst excesses of capitalism with authoritarian “strongman” ideals -- the veneration of war, a hatred of reason and truth; a celebration of ultra-nationalism and racial purity; the suppression of freedom and dissent; a culture that promotes lies, spectacles, scapegoating the other, a deteriorating discourse, brutal violence, and, ultimately, the eruption of state violence in heterogeneous forms. In the Trump administration, neoliberal fascism is on steroids and represents a fusion of the worst dimensions and excesses of gangster capitalism with the fascist ideals of white nationalism and racial supremacy associated with the horrors of the past. 7 Neoliberal structural transformation has undermined and refigured “the principles, practices, cultures, subjects and institution of democracy understood as rule by the people.”8 Since the earlier ’70s, the neoliberal project has mutated into a revolt against human rights and democracy and created a powerful narrative that refigures freedom and authority so as to legitimize and produce massive inequities in wealth and power.9 Its practices of offshoring, restructuring everything according to the dictates of profit margins, slashing progressive taxation, eliminating corporate regulations, allowing unchecked privatization and the ongoing commercializing of all social interactions “inflicts alienating misery” on a polity newly vulnerable to fascist ideals, rhetoric and politically extremist movements.10
Furthermore, the merging of neoliberalism and fascism has accelerated as civic culture is eroded, notions of shared citizenship and responsibility disappear, and reason and informed judgment are replaced by the forces of civic illiteracy. State-sanctioned attacks on the truth, facts and scientific reason in Trump’s America are camouflaged as one would expect when led by the first reality TV president -- by a corporate-controlled culture of vulgarity that merges celebrity culture with a nonstop spectacle of violence. Neoliberalism strips democracy of any substance by promoting an irrational belief in the ability of the market to solve all social problems and shape all aspects of society. This shift from a market economy to a market-driven society has been accompanied by a savage attack on equality, the social contract and social provisions as wages have been gutted, pensions destroyed, health care put out of reach for millions, job security undermined, and access to crucial public goods such as public and higher education considerably weakened for the lower and middle classes.
In the current historical moment, neoliberalism represents more than a form of hyper-capitalism, it also denotes the death of democracy if not politics itself. Anis Shivani’s articulation of the threat neoliberalism poses to democracy is worth quoting at length:
Neoliberalism believes that markets are self-sufficient unto themselves, that they do not need regulation, and that they are the best guarantors of human welfare. Everything that promotes the market, i.e., privatization, deregulation, mobility of finance and capital, abandonment of government-provided social welfare, and the reconception of human beings as human capital, needs to be encouraged, while everything that supposedly diminishes the market, i.e., government services, regulation, restrictions on finance and capital, and conceptualization of human beings in transcendent terms, is to be discouraged….One way to sum up neoliberalism is to say that everything -- everything -- is to be made over in the image of the market, including the state, civil society, and of course human beings. Democracy becomes reinterpreted as the market, and politics succumbs to neoliberal economic theory, so we are speaking of the end of democratic politics as we have known it for two and a half centuries.11
What is particularly distinctive about the conjuncture of neoliberalism and fascism is how the full-fledged liberation of capital now merges with an out-and-out attack on the racially oppressed and vulnerable populations considered disposable. Not only do the oppressive political, economic and financial structures of casino capitalism bear down on people’s lives, but there is also a frontal attack on the shared understandings and beliefs that hold a people together. One crucial and distinctive place in which neoliberalism and fascism converge is in the undermining of social bonds and moral boundaries. Displacement, disintegration, atomization, social isolation and deracination have a long history in the United States, which has been aggressively exploited by Trump, taking on a distinctively right-wing, 21st-century register. There is more at work here than the heavy neoliberal toll of social abandonment. There is also, under the incessant pedagogical propaganda of right-wing and corporate controlled media, a culture that has become cruel and cultivates an appetite for maliciousness that undermines the capacity for empathy, making people indifferent to the suffering of others or, even worse, willing participants in their violent exclusion.
Irish journalist Fintan O’Toole warns that fascism unravels the ethical imagination through a process in which individuals eventually “learn to think the unthinkable…” followed, he writes, “by a crucial next step, usually the trickiest of all”:
You have to undermine moral boundaries, inure people to the acceptance of acts of extreme cruelty. Like hounds, people have to be blooded. They have to be given the taste for savagery. Fascism does this by building up the sense of threat from a despised out-group. This allows the members of that group to be dehumanized. Once that has been achieved, you can gradually up the ante, working through the stages from breaking windows to extermination.12
What is often labeled as an economic crisis in American society is also a crisis of morality, sociality and community. Since the 1970s, increasing unregulated capitalism has hardened into a form of market fundamentalism that has accelerated the hollowing out of democracy through its capacity to reshape the commanding political, social and economic institutions of American society, making it vulnerable to the fascist solutions proposed by Trump. As an integrated system of structures, ideologies and values, neoliberalism economizes every aspect of life, separates economic activity from social costs, and depoliticizes the public through corporate-controlled disimagination machines that trade in post-truth narratives, enshrine the spectacle of violence, debase language and distort history.
Neoliberalism now wages a battle against any viable notion of the social contract, solidarity, the collective imagination, the public good and the institutions that support them. As the realm of the political is defined in strictly economic terms, the institutions, public goods, formative cultures and modes of identity essential to a democracy disappear, along with the informed citizens necessary to sustain them.
The Crisis of Reason and Fantasies of Freedom
As more and more power is concentrated in the hands of a corporate and financial elite, freedom is defined exclusively in market terms, inequality is cast as a virtue, and the logic of privatization heaps contempt upon civic compassion and the welfare state. The fatal after-effect is that neoliberalism has emerged as the new face of fascism.13 With the 50-year advance of neoliberalism, freedom has become its opposite. And democracy, once the arc of civic freedom, now becomes its enemy, because democratic governance no longer takes priority over the unchecked workings of the market. Neoliberalism undermines both the social and the public and in doing so weakens the idea of shared responsibilities and moral obligations. As Zygmunt Bauman argues “ethical tranquillization” is now normalized under the assumption that freedom is limited to the right to only advance one’s own interests and the interests of the markets. Freedom in the neoliberal playbook disavows any notion of responsibility outside of the responsibility to oneself.
As Wendy Brown argues, politics and democracy are now viewed as the enemy of markets and “politics is cast as the enemy to freedom, to order and to progress.”14 Politics now becomes a mix of regressive notions of freedom and authority whose purpose is to protect market-driven principles and practices. What disappears in this all-encompassing reach of capital is the notion of civic freedom, which is replaced by securitization organized to protect the lawless workings of the profit motive and the savagery of neoliberal austerity policies. Moreover, as freedom becomes privatized, it feeds a lack of interest in politics and breeds moral indifference. As a consequence, neoliberalism unleashes the passions of a fascist past in which the terrain of politics, agency and social relations begin to resemble a war zone, a blood sport and a form of cage fighting.
In this instance, the oppressed are not only cheated out of history, they are led to believe that under neoliberal fascism there are no alternatives and the future can only imitate the present. Not only does this position suppress any sense of responsibility and resistance, it produces what Timothy Snyder calls “a kind of sleepwalking, and has to end with a crash.”15 The latter is reinforced by a government that believes truth is dangerous and reality begins with a tweet that signals the legitimation of endless lies and forms of power that infantilize and depoliticize, because they leave no room for standards of language capable of holding power accountable. Even worse, Trump’s war on language and truth does more than limit freedom to competing fictions, it also erases the distinction between moral depravity and justice, good and evil. As I have said elsewhere, “Trump’s Ministry of Fake News works incessantly to set limits on what is thinkable, claiming that reason, evidence, consistency, and logic no longer serve the truth, because the latter are crooked ideological devices used by enemies of the state. ‘Thought crimes’ are now labeled as ‘fake news.’ ” 16
Timothy Snyder is right in arguing that “to abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle.”17 The post-truth society is a state-sponsored diversion and spectacle. Its purpose is to camouflage a moral and political crisis that has put into play a set of brutal neoliberal arrangements. Rather than view truth as the currency of democracy, Trump and his acolytes view it and democracy as the enemy of power. Such arrangements put democracy at risk and create an educational and political project receptive to the political currency of white supremacy. As a master of schlock performance, Trump tweets and speaks largely to his angry, resentful base, often using crude language in which the threat of violence and repression appears to function for his audience as a source of “romance, pleasure and fantasy.”18 These core supporters represent, at best, what Philip Roth once generously called the “uneducated and overburdened.” But they also cultivate what Erin Aubry Kaplan calls “the very worst American impulses, from xenophobia to know-nothingism to disdain for social necessities such as public education and clean water, [and their] signature quality is racism.”19
Restaging Fascism Within Democracy
Rather than disappear into the memory hole of history, fascism has reappeared in a different form in the United States, echoing Theodor Adorno’s warning, “I consider the survival of National Socialism within democracy to be potentially more menacing than the survival of fascist tendencies against democracy.”20 Theorists, novelists, historians and writers that include such luminaries as Hannah Arendt, Sinclair Lewis, Bertram Gross, Umberto Eco, Robert O. Paxton, Timothy Snyder, Susan Sontag and Sheldon Wolin have argued convincingly that fascism remains an ongoing danger and has the ability to become relevant under new conditions. After the fall of Nazi Germany, Arendt warned totalitarianism was far from a thing of the past because the conditions of extreme precarity and uncertainty that produce it were likely to crystallize into new forms.21
What Arendt thought was crucial for each generation to recognize was that the presence of the Nazi camps and the policy of extermination should be understood not only as the logical outcome of a totalitarian society or simply a return of the past, but also for what their histories suggest about forecasting a “possible model for the future.”22 The nightmare of fascism’s past cannot escape memory because it needs to be retold over and over again so as to recognize when it is happening again. Rather than fade into the past, mass poverty, unchecked homelessness, large-scale rootlessness, fearmongering, social atomization, state terrorism and the politics of elimination have provided the seeds for new forms of fascism to appear. Paxton, the renowned historian of fascism, argues in his “The Anatomy of Fascism” that the texture of American fascism would not mimic traditional European forms but would be rooted in the language, symbols and culture of everyday life:
No swastikas in an American fascism, but Stars and Stripes (or Stars and Bars) and Christian crosses. No fascist salute, but mass recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance. These symbols contain no whiff of fascism in themselves, of course, but an American fascism would transform them into obligatory litmus tests for detecting the internal enemy.23
Given the alarming signs that have come into play under the Trump administration, it is hard to look away and condone the suppression of the history and language of fascism and its relevance for understanding America’s flight from the promise and ideals of a substantive democracy. This is not to suggest the only template for addressing the legacy of fascism is to point to Nazi Germany, the most extreme of the fascist states, or, for that matter, to Mussolini’s brand of fascism. Not only does the comparison not work, but it tends to understand fascist ideals only against its most extreme expressions.
While it is true the U.S. may not be putting millions in gas chambers or promoting genocide, there remain reworked elements of the past in the present. For instance, there are already echoes of the past in existing and expanding infrastructures of punishment -- amounting to a carceral state -- that have grown exponentially in the past four decades. In fact, the United States has the largest prison system in the world, with more than 2.5 million people incarcerated. Astonishingly, this figure does not include immigrant detention centers and other forms of encampment around the U.S. border with Mexico. The visibility of this state-sanctioned punishing apparatus and its similarity to a fascist history was on display recently with the caging of young immigrant children who were forcibly separated from their parents at the southern border for months at a time. Needless to say, such institutions and actions resonate with deeply disturbing events of a dark past for which the violent separation of families was a hallmark feature of fascist brutality.
Reports of widespread abuse of imprisoned unaccompanied migrant children separated from their parents are increasingly being reported in the press. Detained under inhumane and cruel conditions, many of these children in government detention centers are allegedly being drugged, sexually abused, and subject to a range of inhumane actions. In Texas, a federal judge ordered a detention center to stop forcing children to take psychotropic drugs such as Clonazepam, Divalproex, Benztropine and Duloxetine in order to control their behavior. Needless to say, such actions, policies, and institutions resonate with deeply disturbing events of a dark past in which the violent separation of families was a hallmark feature of fascist cruelty, barbarism and brutality.
It is against this background that I believe the current debates that dismiss whether the U.S. under Trump is a fascist society are unproductive. The argument against this recognition generally proceeds by claiming either fascism is a relic of the past, fixed in a certain historical period with no relevance to the present, or that the differences between Trump’s policies and those of Hitler and Mussolini are enough so as to make any comparison irrelevant. Many commentators denounce any references to Trump and Nazis in the past as exaggerated, extreme or inapplicable. In this view, fascism is always somewhere else, relegated to a time and a place that suggests an accommodating distance, one that runs the risk of disconnecting historical memory and the horrors of another age from the possibility of fascism resurrected in a different form, newly attuned to its moment. We live in an age in which there is a terror on the part of critics to imagine the plasticity of fascism.
The Mobilizing Passions of Fascism
Fascism is neither a static nor fixed moment in history, and the forms it takes do not have to imitate earlier historical models. It is an authoritarian ideology and a form of political behavior defined by what Paxton calls a series of “mobilizing passions.” These include an open assault on democracy, the call for a strongman, a contempt for human weakness, an obsession with hyper-masculinity, an aggressive militarism, an appeal to national greatness, a disdain for the feminine, an investment in the language of cultural decline, the disparaging of human rights, the suppression of dissent, a propensity for violence, disdain for intellectuals, a hatred of reason, and fantasies of racial superiority and eliminationist policies aimed at social cleansing.24
The ghost of fascism has to be retrieved from history and restored to a “proper place in the discussions of the moral and political limits of what is acceptable,”25 especially at a moment when the crisis of democracy cannot be separated from the crisis of neoliberalism. As a heuristic tool to compare forms of state power, the legacy of fascism offers an opportunity to recognize when authoritarian signposts are on the horizon.
For example, under Trump, the spectacle reigns supreme, harking back to an earlier time in history when bravado, armed ignorance and theatrical performances provided a model of community that squelched memory, domesticated thought and opened the door for a strongman’s followers to disavow their role as critical agents in favor of becoming blind, if not willful, spectators. With regards to the present, it is crucial to recognize the ascendancy of Trump politically within rather than against the flow of history.
Fascism in the United States has arrived slowly by subversion from within. Its roots have been on display for decades and emerged most visibly with President George W. Bush’s and then President Barack Obama’s war on terror. Bush, in particular, embraced unapologetically a raw display of power that sanctioned torture, domestic spying, secret prisons, kill lists, laws sanctioning indefinite detention, warrantless searches and war crimes. Obama did little to correct these legal illegalities and Trump has only breathed new life into them. Instead of the sudden appearance on American streets of thugs, brown shirts, purges and massive state violence -- the state violence waged against African Americans notwithstanding -- fascism has been resurrected through the enabling force of casino capitalism, which has unleashed and mobilized a range of economic, political, religious and educational fundamentalisms.
This is most obvious in the subversion of power by the financial and corporate robber barons, the taming of dissent, the cultivation of tribal identities, the celebration of orbits of self-interests and hyper-individualism over the common good, the privatization and deregulation of public life and institutions, the legitimation of bigotry and intolerance, the transformation of elections into a battle among billionaires, and the production of a culture of greed and cruelty. But, as political theorist Wendy Brown makes clear, it is also obvious in a populist revolt generated by neoliberalism’s decimation of “livelihoods and neighborhoods,” “evacuating and delegitimizing democracy,” “devaluing knowledge apart from job training,” and the “eroding of national sovereignty.”26
Orthodoxy, especially under Trump, has transformed education into a workstation for ignorance in which harsh discipline is metered out to poor students and youths of color. Politics has been utterly corrupted by big money and morally deficient bankers, hedge fund managers and corporate moguls. And many evangelicals and other religious groups support, or are complicit with, a president who sides with white supremacists and trades in the language of viciousness and brutality.27
The corporate state, fueled by a market fundamentalism and a long legacy of racial apartheid, has imposed almost incomprehensible cruelty on poor and vulnerable black populations. The merging of neoliberalism and fascist elements of white supremacy and systemic racism is particularly evident in the environmental racism, dilapidated schools and air pollution that have come to light recently.28 The short list includes going so far as to sacrifice poor black children in Flint, Mich., to the perils of lead poisoning to increase profits, subject the population of Puerto Rico to unnecessary despair by refusing to provide adequate government services after Hurricane Maria,29 and creating conditions in which “America’s youngest children, some 47 percent” under the age of 5, “live in low-income or poor households.”30 W.E.B. Du Bois’ notion of a “racial dictatorship” in his classic “Black Reconstruction in America” has been resurrected under Trump.
As U.N. Special Rapporteur Philip Alston reported, amid a massive concentration of wealth among the upper 1 percent in the United States, 40 million people live in poverty and 18.5 million Americans live in extreme poverty. According to Alston, such neoliberal policies are “aggressively regressive” in their promoting of harsh work requirements for welfare recipients, cutting back programs to feed poor children, and the willingness to both incarcerate young children and separate them from their parents.31 All the while, the Trump administration has shifted massive resources to the wealthy as a result of a tax policy that shreds $1.5 trillion from the federal budget.
Since the 1970s, wages have stagnated, banks have cheated millions out of their homes through rigged mortgage policies, and the political power brokers have imposed financial ruin on minorities of class and race.32 The war against poverty initiated by President Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration had been transformed into a war on poverty by President Ronald Reagan and has accelerated and achieved its apotheosis under the Trump regime. With a pathological enthusiasm, Trump’s morally bereft Republican Congress has cut crucial benefits for the poor, such as the food stamp program, while also imposing harsh work requirements on Medicare recipients. There is more at work here than the self-serving and vindictive neoliberal belief that government is bad when it gets in the way of markets and does not serve the interest of the rich. There is also willfully savage support for massive degrees of inequality, human wretchedness, the criminalization of social problems, and a burgeoning culture of punishment, misery and suffering.
One consequence is a beleaguered American landscape marked by the growing opioid crisis, the criminalization of peaceful protests, race-based environmental poisoning, shorter longevity rates for middle-aged Americans, and an incarceration rate that ranks as the highest in the world. The war on democracy has also morphed into a war on youth as more and more children are homeless, subjected to mass school shootings, inhabit schools modeled after prisons, and increasingly ushered into the school-to-prison pipeline and disciplinary apparatuses that treats them as criminals.33 Under the long history of neoliberalism in the United States, there has developed a perverse investment in the degradation and punishment of the most vulnerable individuals, those considered other, and an increasing register of those considered disposable.34
Rethinking the Politics of Inverted Totalitarianism
What is crucial to understand is that neoliberalism is not only a more extreme element of capitalism, it has also enabled the emergence of a radical restructuring of power, the state and politics, and in doing so converges with a style of fascism suited to the American context. Political theorist Sheldon Wolin, in his book “Democracy Incorporated,” was one of the first to analyze the transformation of a capitalist democracy into what he called an inverted form of totalitarianism. According to Wolin, the political state was replaced by a corporate state that exploits all but the ruling classes, empties politics of any substance through rigged elections, uses the power of capital to define citizens largely as consumers of products, and applies the power of the corporate state as a battering ram to push through policies that strengthen the power of capital.
For Wolin, neoliberalism was the endpoint of a long process “to transform everything -- every object, every living thing, every fact on the planet -- in its image.”35 He believed that this new political formation and form of sovereignty in which economics dominated politics was hostile to both social spending and the welfare state. Wolin rightly argued that under neoliberalism, political sovereignty is largely replaced by economic sovereignty as corporate power takes over the reins of governance.
The dire consequence, as David Harvey points out, is that “raw money power wielded by the few undermines all semblances of democratic governance.”36 Policy is now fashioned by lobbyists representing big businesses such as the pharmaceutical and health insurance companies, going so far in the case of the drug companies to drive the opioid crisis to increase their profits.37
Under neoliberalism, the welfare state has been largely dismantled, while the power of a punishing apparatus of an emerging police state has been expanded, buttressed by a pervasive culture of fear that exempts itself from the legalities and constitutional obligations of a democracy, however neutered. Wolin was keenly aware of the ruthlessness of corporate culture in its willingness to produce striking inequalities in an epical war on the promise and ideals of a substantive democracy.
Wolin’s great contribution to theories of totalitarianism lies in his ability to lay bare the authoritarian economic tendencies in neoliberalism and its threat to democracy. What he did not do is associate neoliberalism and its enervating effects closely enough with certain legacies of fascism. In this absence, he was unable to predict the resurgence of strongman politics in the United States and the ascendant fascist investments in white supremacy, racial sorting, ultra-nationalism, a war on youth, women’s reproductive rights and a race-inspired, eliminationist politics of disposability. What he underemphasized was that neoliberalism impoverished not only society economically while serving the interests of the rich, but it also created a powerful narrative that normalizes political inaction as it shifted the weight and responsibility of all social problems onto the individual rather than the society.38
In the age of neoliberal myth-making, systemic deficiencies such as poverty, homelessness and precarious employment are now relegated to individual failures, character deficits and moral turpitude. Correspondingly, notions of the social, systemic and public disappear, serving to expand the base of those who feel voiceless and powerless, opening them up to the crude and simplistic emotional appeals of authoritarian figures such as Trump. In truly demagogic fashion, Trump promises a new world order that will be fashioned out of the rhetorical bombast of dehumanization, bigotry and a weaponized appeal to fear and hate. As the poor and discarded vanish from the political discourse of democracy, they become susceptible to a “volatility and the fury that [mutilates] contemporary politics that thrives on an appetite for authoritarian and fascistic impulses.”39
... ... ...
|Post election events (the first half of 2017)||US Presidential Elections of 2016 from primaries to election day||US Presidential Elections of 2016: Primaries||US Presidential Elections of 2016: 2015 part of the campaign||US Presidential Elections of 2012|
Feb 18, 2019 | www.youtube.com
Rick S 1 month ago
Wow, I absolutely love every point she made, what a breath of fresh air. Our less popular presidents that have lost their second term elections have lost them because.. their opponent was a breath of fresh air. She's going to win by an embarrassing margin, wish her the best!
Feb 18, 2019 | www.youtube.comLex Blazer 1 month ago (edited)haha! Funny...looks like THIS podcast is about to become nationally relevant. She's running for president! Watching in 2019!
Michael Pelak 3 weeks agoI'm a libertarian and love hearing Tulsi!! She's the antithesis of Hillary. Only dem I would support in 2020. Agree 100% with her foreign policy views.
Shinra Holdings, 1 month agoI'm not a Democrat. I would vote for this person. Just saying. Elizabeth Warren didn't even support Bernie while Tulsi resigned to support Bernie
Boi, 1 month agoThe left is eating their own. Already attacking this woman. This is the person the Dems needed in 2016.
Zachary Schulling 1 month agoI'm a Republican, but this woman has my vote in 2020
tim oreilly 1 month agoCombat vet, Currently serving in the Guard, rank of Major. Intellectually gifted. Well prepared. Emotionally stable. Able to change her ideas as life goes on, taking each issue as it comes. Vs a bunch of 70 year old maniacs who have never told the truth, never served, and have made deal with the devil to get where they are. Game over
B. Greene, 1 week ago
If the establishment weren't smearing her, I wouldn't trust her. They are, which means that she'll fight for working people, and against the neoconservative chickenhawks!
Howard Sexton, 2 months ago
Damn! I am republican but she has my vote 🗳! I have never heard a politician talk this long without blaming the opposing party. Just impressed
Zwart Poezeke, 1 week ago
Man she's smart, critical and actually comes off as honest. She really would be an inspiring leader. Guys I'm from Belgium, so I can't vote, but do me a favor and vote for her
a_g60, 2 weeks ago
Tulsi Gabbard is the ultimate woman. That's why the DNC is colluding against her.
she's articulate and highly educated
she's extremely attractive
she was a combat medic
she has a great family
she gets all the attention of men
This is what a candidate looks like. Take notes!
Matthew Mauldon, 1 month ago
She is amazing and I would vote for her as president. It is very disturbing how she sheds light on how Saudi Arabia uses our us military and how Saudi Arabia murdered many innocents and we said nothing and continue to support them. Also the level of corruption of our politicians and how they mis use our troops without a care in the world. We need to wake up folks this is not right
The Scapegoat Mechanism, 1 month ago
Obama was the thesis. Trump was the antithesis. Gabbard will be the synthesis.
Chris Jones, 5 months ago
I absolutely adore this woman. She gave up her Vice chair position in the DNC when she saw they were stealing the nomination from Bernie. That's integrity.
Paul Peart-Smith, 1 week ago
Tulsi is the General Smedley Butler of today, someone who knows how war works and is brave enough to tell the truth. Please read his short book "War Is A Racket". Even though it was written in the 30's, as long as things are this way, it'll never go out of style.
algo, 5 days ago
See Joe, this woman has INTEGRITY, unlike that zionist warmongering shill Bari Weiss regurgitating her fed opinions which she didn't even know the meaning of!
savita purohit, 2 months ago
this is what 1st female president of US should be like, not Clinton or that virtue signaling Warren, not Nikki either
Ryan Hamilton, 1 day ago (edited)
I'm a conservative, Republican, combat vet. I would follow her into combat. I would vote for her because she's a pragmatist, puts America first, is skeptical of US foreign policy, and stands up for the little guy. There is some remarkable overlap between the anti establishment populist left and anti establishment populist right.
Loro sono umano, 2 days ago
Don't forget to change party to Democrat to vote her in the primaries if you're Green, libertarian, independent, or conservative, even if its temporary. Let's put our egos aside and work together as citizens! Tell your friends to do the same to overthrow corporate establishment Kamala. Dont let the establishment get their way
Chico Christe Pace, 1 week ago
damn, I never thot there is an American politician who thinks this way. she sees the whole picture and made sense to it. this lady is kick ass! :) you guys shd keep voting for her :) put her on the top seat, she can be the real hope for the US of A :)
bestrainingtechnique, 4 months ago
So let me get this straight I don't know much about this woman, but from what I've seen in this interview she seems to be very intelligent, rational, experienced, has military experience, extremely well spoken, and doesn't trust the mainstream media and realizes that there are elements of our government that are basically unhinged and looking for war?? And is there anyone on earth that wouldn't vote for her as president??? Would we really rather have an orange face reality star buffoon or a war mongering lunatic who has no real experience except being married to a former president?
I really hope she runs as an independent, I think she would win in a landslide, since I think it is the perfect time in our country where I think a non-Republican or Democrat can definitely win! The two party system needs to go!
Skemoo, 1 week ago
I came back after MSM and Jews started smearing her including Sam Harris. I cant sense any form of malevolence or evil in her words or body language.. she seems like a sweet empathetic lady.
Im fuking angry that these ppl are smearing her. Im not an american but you ppl better wake the fuk up and vote her into office i think she is fit to be the first female president. Hope Rogan doesnt do 180 and betray her . im surprized Sam harris hates her.
David Paley, 1 week ago
If they can keep everyone in need of working 3 jobs just to make ends meet, and make healthcare too expensive to afford proper care, the people will always be too busy, tired, and worn-out, to actively participate in the electoral process; the only thing that might change things for the better. The elites know exactly what they're doing, so now they see this woman as an existential threat, and the smear campaigns have already begun. I hope the sensible people in your country can support her as much as she is trying to support you. Good luck in 2020, both to Tulsi, and America.
Feb 18, 2019 | www.azquotes.com
- Every soldier knows this simple fact: If you don't know your enemy, you will not be able to defeat him. Tulsi Gabbard Simple , Soldier , Enemy "'Knives are out': Hawaii Dem faces backlash for taking on Obama over 'Islamist' extremism". Interview with Malia Zimmerman, www.foxnews.com. February 28, 2015.
Through my time in the military and my deployments, I have recognized the importance of having a Commander in Chief who will not only go after those who threaten the safety and security of the American people, but who will also exercise good judgment and foresight in stopping these failed interventionist wars of regime change that have cost our country so much in human lives, untold suffering, and trillions of dollars. Source: www.glamour.com
>The cost of war impacts all of us - both in the human cost and the cost that's being felt frankly in places like Flint, Michigan, where families and children are devastated and destroyed by completely failed infrastructure because of lack of investment. Source: www.glamour.com
In the military, I learned that 'leadership' means raising your hand and volunteering for the tough, important assignments. "Tulsi Gabbard, Hawaii Congresswoman-Elect, Applies For Daniel Inouye's Senate Seat" by B.J. Reyes, www.huffingtonpost.com. December 25, 2012.
Students are suffering under incredibly high tuitions and high student loan interest rates. They graduate from school, and they're having a very difficult time finding a job. They don't feel as though there are honest leaders who are listening to them, and who will be a part of the solution. Source: www.glamour.com
It makes no sense for us to consider going back there and getting involved in what truly is a religious civil war. What real difference would it make on the ground? And secondly, is it in the best interests of the United States to do that? I would say that those questions are not being answered in a compelling way that would cause me to support that. "Gabbard: Back to Iraq 'makes no sense'" by Jonathan Topaz, www.politico.com. June 13, 2014.
We cannot afford to walk down that dangerous path of government overstepping its boundaries into the most personal parts of our lives. "Iraq veteran would be first Hindu in Congress" by Kim Geiger, www.stripes.com. September 5, 2012.
Hawaii is a special place because we have a very diverse population there, who are very respectful and tolerant of those who have differing opinions and different views.
I chose to take the oath of office with my personal copy of the Bhagavad Gita because its teachings have inspired me to be a servant-leader, dedicating my life in the service of others and to my country. Oath Of Office "Tulsi Gabbard, First Hindu In Congress, Uses Bhagavad Gita At Swearing-In" By Jaweed Kaleem, www.huffingtonpost.com. January 4, 2013.
A military mindset is objectively analyzing a planned course of action and anticipating the likely consequences before you take that action. Source: www.glamour.com
It's easy to say, let's go in and get the bad guys. But you have a divided country of Sunnis and Shias. The United States goes and takes action there on behalf of the Iraqi government. You've got Iran coming in and saying we're going to stand with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, so now we're aligning ourselves with Iran, and if we do air strikes, becoming de facto air force for them. "The Lead with Jake Tapper", www.cnn.com. June 12, 2014.
It is clear that there needs to be a closer working relationship between the United States and India. How can we have a close relationship if decision-makers in Washington know very little, if anything, about the religious beliefs, values, and practices of India's 800 million Hindus? "Tulsi Gabbard, Hawaii Democrat, Poised To Be Elected First Hindu In Congress" by Omar Sacirbey, www.huffingtonpost.com. November 2, 2012.
When I started my campaign for Congress, I was one who people said, 'Tulsi, you have a bright future, but there's no way you can win. "CNN Newsroom" with Suzanne Malveaux, www.cnn.com. September 4, 2012.
I'm not a political pundit, and I don't follow these things probably as closely as others, but there are polls that have shown that Senator Bernie Sanders can beat Donald Trump and, I believe, some of the other Republican candidates as well. Source: www.glamour.com
As a soldier, I've served with the most brave people in an institution that's built on integrity, honor, and duty. This is why I'm working very hard to support Senator Bernie Sanders - not only to get through the Democratic primary, but also to win the presidency. He is the only candidate on both sides who understands the cost of war, who has that foresight to keep our country safe, and who will make sure that our military power is not being when and where it shouldn't be. Source: www.glamour.com
I volunteered to deploy to Iraq. I was one of the few soldiers who were not on the mandatory deployment roster - close to 3,000 Hawaii soldiers were.
Hopefully the presence in Congress of an American who happens to be Hindu will increase America's understanding of India as well as India's understanding of America.
Jan 12, 2019 | www.rt.com
Due to her antiwar stance in Syria, Gabbard was at one point rumored to be a potential candidate to head Trump's State Department, and even met with the president-elect at Trump Tower in November 2016, but nothing came of it.
In January 2017, she traveled to Syria on a fact-finding trip, outraging the Washington establishment. She has also proposed a bill to outlaw US weapons sales to terrorists.
Gabbard first sparked rumors of a 2020 run in December , when she toured Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two states to host nationwide party primary elections.
Inspired by the party's strong showing in the November midterms, a number of Democrats are eager to challenge Trump in the 2020 presidential election.
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) announced on New Year's Eve that she was forming a presidential exploratory committee. Julian Castro, former Housing and Urban Development secretary in the Obama administration, has also toured Iowa and is expected to announce his candidacy this weekend.
It is unclear whether Gabbard will get much traction among the establishment Democrats, who she has frequently disagreed with on foreign policy issues.
Ostensibly, Tulsi Gabbard checks all the correct "diversity boxes" that Democrats claim they want: young, female, minority. But weirdly, she won't benefit from satisfying these (fake) criteria, because she's hated for unrelated political reasons. So that should be fun.-- Michael Tracey (@mtracey) January 11, 2019
Tulsi Gabbard is a really next-level politician. Any amateur can be a traditional US racist politician, but it takes skill to succeed in America as a Hindu-nationalist racist / tankie Assad apologist.-- Dylan Matthews (@dylanmatt) January 11, 2019
Tulsi Gabbard doesn't have a base but she's someone people like the more they see her.
Don't sleep on this one.
Although if you follow Cernovich you remember I said over two years ago that she was the one to watch...-- Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) January 12, 2019
Say what you want about Tulsi Gabbard (I have my own criticisms) but this is probably an accurate prediction of how opposition to her campaign from other Democrats will play out https://t.co/xEhdD1ZmyN-- Alex Rubinstein (@RealAlexRubi) January 11, 2019
I'd pay close attention to the financing of this campaign. https://t.co/DMiABthwNY-- Michael Weiss (@michaeldweiss) January 11, 2019
Tired of Putin? Vote Assad 2020!!!!!!! https://t.co/aMMF71wz69-- Noah Shachtman (@NoahShachtman) January 11, 2019
So many entrenched bipartisan interests fear the foreign policy debate her presence on the campaign trail will provoke. Look for more obsessive attacks in Omidyar's the Interventionist, republished in his local Hawaii paper. Also, not sure what this means for a Bernie run. https://t.co/RD7pCRRkTW-- Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) January 12, 2019
Feb 18, 2019 | twitter.com
Tulsi Gabbard is a really next-level politician. Any amateur can be a traditional US racist politician, but it takes skill to succeed in America as a Hindu-nationalist racist / tankie Assad apologist.-- Dylan Matthews (@dylanmatt) January 11, 2019
Jan 14, 2019 | shadowproof.comDemocratic Representative Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii announced she will launch a presidential campaign for 2020. Her campaign is likely to distinguish itself from other Democratic campaigns by making wars and broader United States foreign policy a major issue.
Gabbard was elected to the Hawaii state legislature in 2002. She joined the Hawaii Army National Guard a year later and voluntarily deployed to Iraq, where she completed two tours of duty in 2004 and 2005.
She was elected to the House of Representatives in 2012, and according to her own website, she was "one of the first two female combat veterans to ever serve in the U.S. Congress, and also its first Hindu member."
During Senator Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign, Gabbard gained notoriety after she resigned from her position as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee so she could openly support Sanders. She spoke at Sanders campaign rallies to help him distinguish his foreign policy from the much more hawkish foreign policy of Hillary Clinton.
Gabbard was overwhelmingly re-elected in 2018. She won 83 percent of the vote in the Democratic primary election.
Most progressives are not as outspoken against U.S. military interventions or what she refers to as "regime change wars." She witnessed the impact of regime change on the people of Iraq, as well as U.S. troops, and that inspired her to talk more about the human cost of war and challenge the military industrial-complex.
Gabbard has persistently called attention to the war in Syria. She traveled to Aleppo and Damascus in January 2017 to see some of the devastation Syrians have endured since 2011. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad invited her to a meeting, and she accepted.
"Originally, I had no intention of meeting with Assad, but when given the opportunity, I felt it was important to take it. I think we should be ready to meet with anyone if there's a chance it can help bring about an end to this war, which is causing the Syrian people so much suffering," Gabbard declared .
Supporters of the Syrian war -- the same people who do not want President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. troops -- seized upon Gabbard's meeting with Assad to discredit her, and it has fueled the backlash among Western media pundits to her decision to run for president.
Yet, in spite of a smear campaign encouraged by the political establishment, Gabbard has not backed down from protesting U.S. support for terrorists in Syria. She sponsored legislation, the Stop Arming Terrorists Act.
During an interview for the Sanders Institute in September 2018, Gabbard said, "Since 2011, when the United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and these other countries started this slow drawn-out regime change war in Syria, it is terrorist groups like al Qaida, al Nusra, and Hayat Tahrir al Sham, these different groups that have morphed and taken on names but essentially are all linked to al Qaida or al Qaida themselves that have proven to be the most effective ground force against the government in trying to overthrow the Syrian government."
Gabbard opposes what she calls a "genocidal war" in Yemen, and she is one of the few representatives, who has worked to pass a war powers resolution in the House to end U.S. military involvement since Congress never authorized the war.
"The United States is standing shoulder to shoulder supporting Saudi Arabia in this war as they commit these atrocities against Yemeni civilians," Gabbard said during the same Sanders Institute interview.
Another war Gabbard questions is the war in Libya. In an interview for "The Jimmy Dore Show" on September 11, 2018, she spoke about the devastating consequences of pursuing regime change without considering what would happen after Muammar Gaddafi was removed from power.
"After we led the war to topple Gaddafi, we have open human slave trading going on, in open market. In today's society, we have more terrorists in Libya today than there ever were before."
Gabbard is also one of the few elected politicians to oppose weapons sales, especially to Saudi Arabia. She recognizes the military industrial-complex benefits the most from Congress not exercising its authority over war-making by presidents, whether they are Republican or Democrat.
She spoke out against Secretary of State Mike Pompeo when he refused to revoke support for Saudi Arabia and the war in Yemen because it would jeopardize a $2 billion arms deal.
Not many Democrats are willing to be optimistic on North Korea, but Gabbard sees potential for peace and does not view Trump's meeting with Kim Jong-un as an act of treason.
Gabbard said during the Sanders Institute interview, "For years, I've been working in Congress and calling for direct engagement with North Korea with Kim Jong-un to be able to try to broker a peace agreement that will result in de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and and finally bring about an end to the Korean War."
"So I think that the recent engagement that we have seen -- both the historic meeting between a sitting U.S. president and the leader of North Korea -- is certainly a positive step in the right direction. We have to be willing to have these conversation to promote peace," Gabbard said. And, "I think the continued engagement between North Korea and South Korea is positive."
Gabbard acknowledged there are a lot of details that have to be worked out, but that does not make her hostile to the entire process, which is the attitude of many pundits and Democrats in the establishment.
Joe Rogan interviewed Gabbard in September 2018. He raised the issue of Russian troll farms and Facebook's failure to deal with them. She had a sober response to his concerns.
"The United States has been doing this for a very long time in countries around the world, both overtly and covertly, through these kinds of disinformation campaigns," Gabbard contended. "Not even counting like the regime change wars, like we're going to take you out."
She continued, "I think it is very hypocritical for us to be discussing this issue as a country without actually being honest about how this goes both ways. So, yes, we need to stop these other foreign countries -- and Russia's not the only one; there are others -- from trying to influence the American people and our elections. We also need to stop doing the same thing in other countries."
Such positions on war and U.S. foreign policy effectively make her a pariah to establishment media pundits and the political class. But her anti-establishment politics do not end there.
Gabbard has advocated against superdelegates, which are Democratic party insiders that have an outsized role in influencing the outcome of presidential primaries. She favors open primaries and same-day voter registration. She is outspoken against the influence of money in politics, and she is audacious enough to question members of her own political party.
"We have to dig a few layers deeper as people are running for office, say what do you actually stand for?" she said on "The Jimmy Dore Show." "What is your vision for this country? That's the debate that we will have to have in Congress should Democrats win over the House or win more seats in the Senate."
"Otherwise, it will be more of the same status quo, where you'll have lobbyists who have more of a seat at the table writing policies that affect healthcare and education and Wall Street and everything else rather than having a true and representative government by and for the people," she concluded.
She was also critical of self-described progressives, who are pro-war, while on "Jimmy Dore":
You have these individuals and groups of people who call themselves progressive but are some of the first to call for more war in the guise of humanitarianism. They look at these poor people suffering -- and there are people suffering in the other parts of the world. Let's go drop more bombs and try to take away their suffering. And when you look at example after example after example, our actions, U.S. policy, interventionist regime change war policy, [has] made the lives of people in these other countries far worse off than they ever were before or would have been if we had just stayed out of it.
Gabbard was much closer to an establishment politician prior to her resignation from the DNC. She accepted tens of thousands of dollars in contributions from political action committees (PACs).
The Center for Responsive Politics noted, "One of the largest contributing sectors was the defense industry. While Gabbard has gained a following for her anti-interventionist stances , yet, her 2016 campaign was given $63,500 from the defense sector . In fact, the campaign received donations of $10,000 from the Boeing Corporation PAC and from Lockheed Martin's PAC, two of the biggest names in the military-industrial complex."
In 2017, Gabbard announced she would no longer accept PAC money. She raised $37,000 from labor associations and trade unions.
Gabbard was "conflicted" over whether to support the Senate report on CIA torture. She said in 2014 that she thought there were "things missing or it was incomplete." She also endorsed the "ticking time bomb" scenario that officials use to justify torture, and it is unclear what her view would be now, if asked about the issue.
She has taken a position on Israeli occupation of Palestine that is common among Democrats. She supports a two-state solution and describes Israel as the U.S.' "strongest ally." But it may be shifting. In the last year, she condemned Israel for its violence against the people of Gaza, and she was reluctant to vote for a House resolution that condemned the UN Security Council for criticizing Israeli settlements.
Journalist Eoin Higgins questioned Gabbard's support from the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), which he described as right-wing. She has garnered criticism for her trip to India in 2014, when she met with India prime minister Narendra Modi, a Hindu nationalist.
But HAF believes this criticism of Gabbard is unfair because other members of Congress, like Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have attended gatherings with Modi. They also point to financial records and maintain they are a U.S. organization without ties to any organizations in India.
When she was much younger, Gabbard helped her father's organization mobilize against a same-sex marriage in Hawaii. The organization, Alliance for Traditional Marriage, backed conversion therapy
However, there is evidence to suggest that Gabbard has abandoned much of the bigotry that she probably learned from her father. She backed Edith Windsor when she challenged the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
"Let me say I regret the positions I took in the past, and the things I said. I'm grateful for those in the LGBTQ+ community who have shared their aloha with me throughout my personal journey," Gabbard stated, responding to media coverage of this aspect of her past.
She noted that she has since supported "the Equality Act, the repeal of DOMA, Restore Honor to Service members Act, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Safe Schools Improvement Act, and the Equality for All Resolution," and added, "Much work remains to ensure equality and civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ Americans, and if elected President, I will continue to fight for equal rights for all."
There are powerful forces in American politics that will seize upon her past opposition to LGBTQ rights and meeting with Assad to neutralize her presidential campaign before she even has an opportunity to tour the country and meet with potential supporters. They fear the impact she could have if voters gravitate to her campaign, which will likely promote her anti-imperialism.
Often Democrats do not bother to connect foreign policy to domestic issues. Gabbard is likely to run a rare campaign, where she makes the case that they are intertwined -- that in order to make investments in universal health care, education, infrastructure, etc, the massive investment in war must be severely curtailed.
Gabbard also aware of the disenchantment among voters, who do not believe either political party has the answers. She understands President Trump is a symptom of what ails the country.
As she said on "Jimmy Dore," "If we look at the lead-up to the 2016 election, and if we actually listen to and examine why people chose to vote the way they did, it points to much bigger problems, a much bigger disaffection that has been building for quite some time, that voters have against the establishment of Washington, the political establishment within both parties."
Feb 18, 2019 | www.youtube.com
Kimberley Murphy , 1 week agochadinem , 1 month ago
I actually trust her more than Bernie. Bernie endorsed HRC, Tulsi did not. She stuck to morals. I respect that.CAY7607 , 1 week ago
Tulsi Gabbard is scary to Republicans because a lot of us center-right folks would be tempted to support her.
Would love to see a Tulsi - Trump debate. She'd be a formidable opponent.
Feb 18, 2019 | www.unz.com
Well, as we all saw, the putatively "liberal" legacy Ziomedia hates Tulsi Gabbard with a passion. Maybe not as much as that legacy Ziomedia hates Trump or Putin, but still – the levels of hostility against her are truly amazing. This may seem bizarre until you realize that, just like Donald Trump, Tulsi Gabbard has said all the right things about Israel, but that this was not nearly "enough" to please the US Ziolobby. Check out the kind of discussions about Gabbard which can be found in the Israeli and pro-Israeli press:
- https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Democratic-presidential-contender-Gabbard-supports-and-criticizes-Israel-577149 https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Ex-KKK-head-David-Duke-praises-Tulsi-Gabbard-because-she-wont-put-Israel-first-579917
- https://www.jns.org/record-at-a-glance-hawaii-rep-tulsi-gabbard-on-the-middle-east-in-her-bid-for-president/ https://www.jta.org/quick-reads/rep-tulsi-gabbard-who-met-syrian-president-bashar-assad-announces-2020-presidential-bid
This is just a small sample of what I found with a quick search. It could be summed up "Gabbard is not pro-Israel enough". But is that really The Main Reason for such a hostility towards her? I don't think so. I believe that Gabbard's real "ultimate sin" is that she is against foreign wars of choice. That is really her Crime Of Crimes!
The AngloZionists wanted to tear Syria apart, break it up into small pieces, most of which would be run by Takfiri crazies and Tulsi Gabbard actually dared to go and speak to "animal Assad", the (latest) "New Hitler", who "gasses his own people". And this is an even worse crime, if such a thing can even be imagined! She dared to disobey her AngloZionist masters.
So, apparently, opposing illegal wars and daring to disobey the Neocons are crimes of such magnitude and evil that they deserve the hysterical Gabbard-bashing campaign which we have witnessed in recent times. And even being non-Christian, non-White, non-male and "liberal" does not in any way compensate for the heinous nature of "crimes".
What does this tell us about the real nature of the US society?
It is also interesting to note that the most vicious (and stupid) attacks against Gabbard did not come from "conservative" media outlets or journalists. Not at all! Most of the attacks, especially the more vicious ones, came from supposedly "liberal" sources, which tell us that in 2019 USA "liberals" do not refer to folks with liberal ideas, but to folks who are hell-bent on imperialism and war; folks who don't care one bit about any real "liberal" values and who use a pseudo-liberal rhetoric to advocate for war outside the USA and for a plutocratic dictatorship inside the USA.
Feb 06, 2019 | www.youtube.com
Stuart Griffin , 14 hours agoBill Zhang , 13 hours ago
The concerned look on everyone's face, acting like they are coming from a moral high ground because they support war. Corporate media is garbage! They will never cover her fairly so its up to us to do so!R. Lutece , 13 hours ago (edited)
Shame on MSNBC and the media!Mia Lovely , 11 hours ago
Tulsi is the only candidate who can reunite a fractured country- conservatives and progressives alike love her for different reasonsantithetical 1 , 14 hours ago
Tulsi looks so regal and elegant compared to all those neo-con/neo-lib war hawks. She is a Queen among peasants.Ken Texican , 14 hours ago (edited)
Saudi Arabia offered to pay for us to take down Syria. We are aiding Al Qaeda and their related groups, proxies for Saudi Arabia, in their war against Syria. It's about money and oil period. The 'humanitarian crisis' has nothing to do with this war and is just as likely to have been staged by Al Qaeda if not more likely.
Morning Joe presents the largest collective of Media Shills that think with one Corporate brain(trust). MSNBC and CNN commits the greatest threat to the dumbing down of America, and in the longterm, nothing impacts our American freedoms and World Peace than such lowly, deceptive, shills. Everybody has to make a buck, but come on MSNBC; you guys could stand some old school mothering and have those dirty little pie-holes washed out with soap.
Jan 15, 2019 | www.thedailybeast.com
When she ran for re-election in 2018, she had the backing of liberal groups including the AFL-CIO and Planned Parenthood, yet she was briefly considered as a potential member for Trump's cabinet, and cheered on his diplomatic overtures to North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.
Since announcing her bid for the presidency, Gabbard has faced a torrent of criticism for some of her more eccentric politics, zeroing in on her equivocations on Assad and her past homophobic comments .
And, in the process, she has earned one prominent defender: Tucker Carlson.
In a Monday evening segment, featuring anti-war leftist journalist Glenn Greenwald, the Fox News host argued that Gabbard had been unfairly maligned because of her deep skepticism about intervention in Syria and willingness to talk to Assad.
"There's something so stealthy and feline and dishonest about the way they're attacking her," Tucker said. "If you don't like her foreign policy views, let's just say so. But no one ever really wants to debate what our foreign policy should be. They just attack anyone who deviates from their own dumb ideas."
Gabbard first became an in-demand Fox News guest in 2015 after she criticized Barack Obama's unwillingness to use the label "radical Islamic terrorism." Her media tour explaining that position earned her positively-tilted coverage in right-wing outlets like Breitbart and The Daily Caller -- a trend that continued when she later expressed skepticism of Obama's Iran nuclear deal.
One person with direct knowledge told The Daily Beast that in the wake of her Obama criticism of Obama, Gabbard became an increasingly requested guest for Fox News hosts and producers to appear on-air. They weren't the only ones in television news who took notice: senior executives at Sinclair Broadcasting made appeals for Gabbard to appear on their networks after she rebuked Obama.
And her emergence as a left-wing Obama critic further put Gabbard on the map in conservative media.
In May 2015, the National Review implored readers to "Meet the Beautiful, Tough Young Democrat Who's Turning Heads by Challenging Obama's Foreign Policy." The conservative outlet touted Gabbard as having "endeared herself to right-wing hawks" by challenging Obama's "rudderless" foreign policy. "I like her thinking a lot," American Enterprise Institute president Arthur Brooks was quoted as saying.
Gabbard has also maintained friendly relationships with high-profile, right-leaning television personalities, including Carlson and Fox News colleague Neil Cavuto, a long-time anchor and Trump skeptic who leans conservative on business issues.
And earlier this month, after she accused her fellow Democratic senators of engaging in "religious bigotry" for asking questions about a Trump judicial nominee's faith, she received yet another round of Fox News praise. Todd Starnes, a Fox pundit with a long history of anti-gay comments, wrote in an op-ed that he found Gabbard's comments "encouraging."
Jan 12, 2019 | www.youtube.comcharley15z 1 month ago
The establishment left and blue checkmarks on Twitter are gonna go after her HARD. But I will support her, purely on her policies.
Mike Fagan 1 month ago
Gabbard IS everything Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, and Hillary Clinton isn't. Which is NOT BOUGHT. She got my vote. #Gabbard2020 #Sanders2020
Marcy Clay 1 month ago
She would get independents and some Republicans to cross over. She is already being attacked by the left, and right for some old remarks that were homophobic, and for meeting with Assad. I like her better than Warren or Harris by far..
Abu Hurairah 1 month ago she is anti war. so cnn and fox will hate her. just wait....
lrein077 1 month ago I had the opportunity to meet Tulsi in person and she was the most approachable & genuine person. Congratulations Tulsi.
Jimmy Russle 1 month ago
I'm a Trump supporter, but she certainly has a better resume than Trump. Her most important issue is peace among nations, I'm all on board. 27
Feb 17, 2019 | twitter.com
Tulsi Gabbard Verified account @ TulsiGabbard 7h 7 hours ago
Thank you to
@RepMcGovern @repmarkpocan & @IlhanMN for cosponsoring H.R. 1249, the INF Treaty Compliance Act, to prevent taxpayer dollars from being used for weapons that would breach the INF treaty. This is one step Congress can & must take now toward national security and peace
Feb 17, 2019 | www.tulsi2020.com
The Cost of War
The first day Tulsi arrived at her camp in Iraq, she saw a large sign at one of the gates that read, "Is today the day?" It was a blunt reminder that today may be the day that any of the soldiers would be called to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. It caused her to reflect on her own life and the reality that each of us could die at any moment.
While serving in a base in the Sunni Triangle at the height of the war, Tulsi had the heart-wrenching daily responsibility of going through the list of every injury and casualty in the entire theatre of operations, looking to see if any soldiers in her unit were on the list, so she could ensure they received the care they needed and their families were notified.
She was hit with the enduring pain and hardship of her brothers and sisters in uniform, and the stress and pressure on their families. She wondered if those who voted to send soldiers to Iraq really understood why they were there -- if lawmakers and the President reflected daily on each death, each injury, and the immeasurably high cost of war.
Having experienced first-hand the true cost of war, she made a personal vow to find a way to ensure that our country doesn't continue repeating the mistakes of the past, sending our troops into war without a clear mission, strategy, or purpose. In Congress
Serving over 6 years in Congress, and as a member of the Armed Services, Homeland Security, and Foreign Affairs Committees, Tulsi has been a leading voice fighting to end regime change wars and instead focus our military efforts on defeating the terrorist groups that attacked and declared war on the United States. She has approached every issue through the lens of what will best serve the American people, secure our country, and promote peace.
She is a champion for protecting our environment, ensuring clean water and air for generations to come, investing in infrastructure and a green energy economy, healthcare for all, civil liberties and privacy, support for small businesses, criminal justice reform, sustainable agriculture, breaking up the big banks and she needs your help!
Regime change wars are bankrupting our country and our moral authority. We need to redirect those resources into a renewable, sustainable economy that works for everyone and bring about an era of peace. We must put service above self and reclaim our great democracy from the forces of hatred and division.
Will you join us?
Feb 17, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com
Bill Herschel , 6 hours agoAs long as we're talking Hawaii, I have found my candidate for President: Tulsi Gabbard. I guess I'm late to the party, and she sure is hated by the intelligentsia, boy do they hate her, but she's really, really electable for President and she would, more than any other candidate, actually start to heal this country. Aloha.Jack -> Bill Herschel , 6 hours agoI don't believe the Democrats will nominate her. They'll use the electability canard to dismiss her candidacy, much like how Ron Paul was treated by the GOP.
However, she seems to have an agenda I would back.
Feb 17, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Sid , February 15, 2019 at 7:27 pmThe goal of any "peddler" is to move product. When perpetual war is the product, then any rationale that leads to more sales will do. Enemies become interchangeable. The only thing to apologize for is the lack of sales.
These two hucksters are not experts on the product itself, but rather experts at selling the product.
Pres. Eisenhower, a genuine "authority on armed conflict", warned us of such peddlers.
Feb 17, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Janwaar Bibi February 16, 2019 at 4:50 pmjohn , says: February 16, 2019 at 12:32 pmWhy Are These Professional War Peddlers Still Around? Pundits like Max Boot and Bill Kristol got everything after 9/11 wrong but are still considered "experts."
1. The goal of the neocons was to exploit 9/11 to destroy countries in the Middle East that posed a threat to Israel. As Wesley Clarke told us a long time ago, they were going to "do" Iraq first, and after that, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon and finally Iran. Most of this has been accomplished. We are now in the end game and Iran is in their cross-hairs.
From the perspective of the neocons, everything has gone their way.
2. The only people who got everything thing wrong were useful idiots like Rod Dreher, Tucker Carlson and Walter "Freedom Fries" Jones who were too dense to see what the neocons were really up to. You did not a PhD from Harvard to see that Bush and Blair had no evidence to back up their claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction or to figure out the true intentions of the neocons.
So why are Boot and Kristol still around? Because Iran is not yet reduced to an ash-heap, courtesy of USA!USA!USA! so they still have work to do.
Why have they paid no price? Let's all pretend like we don't know the answer to this. And don't forget to condemn Ilhan Omar for her tweets just to be on the safe side.It's difficult to live in a post-America America where American interests are subordinate to Israel and AIPAC and lunatics like Bolton and Pompeo, now have replaced the president in matters of foreign policy.Ksw , says: February 16, 2019 at 3:54 pm
Trump has done a 180 and given in completely.
I like Tulsi Gabbard and hope that she might have a chance of winning the Democratic nomination in spite of the fact that she now is being attacked by members of her own party, along with the representative from Minnesota who has the courage to talk of the power of the Israel lobby that functions solely in the interest of Israel. It seems the Democrats are not so tolerant of strong women after all. And its time for everyone to stop being intimidated by the charge of anti-Semitism. When Israeli interests are not those of America and Americans.Because DC is bought and paid for by the defense industry. Constant wars are good for the bottom line, so winning is not the right strategy. Loosing doesn't work either. A constant low level set of global conflicts is perfect.Sid , says: February 15, 2019 at 7:27 pmThe goal of any "peddler" is to move product. When perpetual war is the product, then any rationale that leads to more sales will do. Enemies become interchangeable. The only thing to apologize for is the lack of sales.Barry F Keane , says: February 15, 2019 at 7:11 pm
These two hucksters are not experts on the product itself, but rather experts at selling the product.
Pres. Eisenhower, a genuine "authority on armed conflict", warned us of such peddlers.Yes the neocons have a poor track record but they've succeeded at turning our republic into an empire. The mainstream media and elites of practically all western nations are unanimously pro-war. Neither political party has defined a comprehensive platform to rebuild our republic.
Even you, Tucker Carlson, mock the efforts of Ilhan Omar for criticizing AIPAC and Elliott Abrams.
I don't personally care for many of her opinions but that's not what matters: if we elect another neocon government we won't last another generation. Like the lady asked Ben Franklin "What kind of government have you bequeathed us?", and Franklin answered "A republic, madam, if you can keep it."
Feb 16, 2019 | www.unz.comMark Thomason , says: February 16, 2019 at 5:47 pm GMTEugene McCarthy never became President, but he changed national politics. Gabbard could have a big impact even if she does not win.
She could also become VP, and at her age that might well be a stepping stone.
Feb 16, 2019 | www.unz.com
HEL , says: February 16, 2019 at 6:26 pm GMTGabbard is going nowhere, and while it's true that the powers that be will try to bury her, they don't need to. The simple truth is this: the American public largely doesn't care about the wars and never has. There hasn't been an anti-war movement of any significance since Bush left office, and that was mostly a phony anti-war movement in the first place. It was primarily an anti-Bush movement, and the bulk of the people screaming 'no blood for oil' would've just been screaming some other anti-Bush slogan had our current path of destruction through the Mideast never occurred.KenH , says: February 16, 2019 at 6:26 pm GMT
Yes, there has always been a small, independent-minded minority on both the right and left who genuinely oppose American interventionism.
The vast majority of voters, though, don't care much, don't have strong opinions and will largely just follow their leaders. Rank and file Democrats now oppose drawing down from Syria and Afghanistan and want to 'contain' Russia.
This is solely because Trump has made noises in the opposite direction, even if he hasn't done much of anything. And a good portion of the Republicans who say they want out of these wars would support them if Jeb or Rubio were in the White House.
There is a fair bit more genuine antiwar sentiment on the right now than there was 15 years ago. But it's not a dominant issue for many people on the right who didn't always oppose the wars from the get-go. And the mainstream left, again, has totally abandoned the issue.
Only a tiny proportion of the American public considers the endless wars to be the most important issue facing America today.
You don't win campaigns focusing on issues that are regarded as unimportant and where most of the voters in your party oppose you on this point. There is no real antiwar movement. Another full-scale invasion of a previously stable country would generate some serious opposition, sure, but the current slow bleed of endless occupations and occasional opportunistic attacks on already destabilizing regimes can continue forever with little pushback from the public at large.
How anyone could live through the last 15 years of American politics and not realize this is beyond me.@Art
That one trick happens to the most important trick that America is facing.
No Art, that would be unchecked legal and illegal immigration and as far as I can tell Tulsi Gandhi is pretty dreadful on that subject. True, the likudniks in the diaspora don't like her because she would be bad for an expansionist Israel...
If elected Tulsi would probably become a Jew tool just like Trump has become. If not, then they'll have another special counsel ready to take her down. That's how the (((deep state))) operates.
Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard attacked Donald Trump for his tweet praising Saudi Arabia after the CIA report which found the country's crown prince was behind the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
Democratic Rep. Gabbard, a National Guard veteran who did two tours in the Middle East, branded the president 'Saudi Arabia's b**ch' after he announced the U.S. would stand by the nation.
'Hey @realdonaldtrump: being Saudi Arabia's bitch is not '"America First,'" Gabbard tweeted.
Feb 16, 2019 | www.unz.com
The lineup of Democrats who have already declared themselves as candidates for their party's presidential nomination in 2020 is remarkable, if only for the fact that so many wannabes have thrown their hats in the ring so early in the process. In terms of electability, however, one might well call the seekers after the highest office in the land the nine dwarfs. Four of the would-be candidates – Marianne Williamson a writer, Andrew Yang an entrepreneur, Julian Castro a former Obama official, Senator Amy Klobuchar and Congressman John Delaney – have no national profiles at all and few among the Democratic Party rank-and-file would be able to detail who they are, where they come from and what their positions on key issues might be.
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has a national following but she also has considerable baggage. The recent revelation that she falsely described herself as "American Indian" back in 1986 for purposes of career advancement, which comes on top of similar reports of more of the same as well as other resume-enhancements that surfaced when she first became involved in national politics, prompted Donald Trump to refer to her as "Pocahontas." Warren, who is largely progressive on social and domestic issues, has been confronted numerous times regarding her views on Israel/Palestine and beyond declaring that she favors a "two state solution" has been somewhat reticent. She should be described as pro-Israel for the usual reasons and is not reliably anti-war. She comes across as a rather more liberal version of Hillary Clinton.
And then there is New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, being touted as the "new Obama," presumably because he is both black and progressive. His record as Mayor of Newark New Jersey, which launched his career on the national stage, has both high and low points and it has to be questioned if America is ready for another smooth-talking black politician whose actual record of accomplishments is on the thin side. One unfortunately recalls the devious Obama's totally bogus Nobel Peace Prize and his Tuesday morning meetings with John Brennan to work on the list of Americans who were to be assassinated.
Booker has carefully cultivated the Jewish community in his political career, to include a close relationship with the stomach-churning "America's Rabbi" Shmuley Boteach, but has recently become more independent of those ties, supporting the Obama deal with Iran and voting against anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) legislation in the Senate. On the negative side, the New York Times likes Booker, which means that he will turn most other Americans off. He is also 49 years old and unmarried, which apparently bothers some in the punditry.
California Senator Kamala Harris is a formidable entrant into the crowded field due to her resume, nominally progressive on most issues, but with a work history that has attracted critics concerned by her hard-line law-and-order enforcement policies when she was District Attorney General for San Francisco and Attorney General for California. She has also spoken at AIPAC , is anti-BDS, and is considered to be reliably pro-Israel, which would rule her out for some, though she might be appealing to middle of the road Democrats like the Clintons and Nancy Pelosi who have increasingly become war advocates. She will have a tough time convincing the antiwar crowd that she is worth supporting and there are reports that she will likely split the black women's vote even though she is black herself, perhaps linked to her affair with California powerbroker Willie Brown when she was 29 and Brown was 61. Brown was married, though separated, to a black woman at the time. Harris is taking heat because she clearly used the relationship to advance her career while also acquiring several patronage sinecures on state commissions that netted her hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The most interesting candidate is undoubtedly Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who is a fourth term Congresswoman from Hawaii, where she was born and raised. She is also the real deal on national security, having been-there and done-it through service as an officer with the Hawaiian National Guard on a combat deployment in Iraq. Though in Congress full time, she still performs her Guard duty.
Tulsi's own military experience notwithstanding, she gives every indication of being honestly anti-war. In the speech announcing her candidacy she pledged "focus on the issue of war and peace" to "end the regime-change wars that have taken far too many lives and undermined our security by strengthening terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda." She referred to the danger posed by blundering into a possible nuclear war and indicated her dismay over what appears to be a re-emergence of the Cold War.
Not afraid of challenging establishment politics, she called for an end to the "illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government," also observing that "the war to overthrow Assad is counter-productive because it actually helps ISIS and other Islamic extremists achieve their goal of overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad and taking control of all of Syria – which will simply increase human suffering in the region, exacerbate the refugee crisis, and pose a greater threat to the world." She then backed up her words with action by secretly arranging for a personal trip to Damascus in 2017 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad, saying it was important to meet adversaries "if you are serious about pursuing peace." She made her own assessment of the situation in Syria and now favors pulling US troops out of the country as well as ending American interventions for "regime change" in the region.
In 2015, Gabbard supported President Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran and more recently has criticized President Donald Trump's withdrawal from the deal. Last May, she criticized Israel for shooting "unarmed protesters" in Gaza, but one presumes that, like nearly all American politicians, she also has to make sure that she does not have the Israel Lobby on her back. Gabbard has spoken at a conference of Christians United for Israel, which has defended Israel's settlement enterprise; has backed legislation that slashes funding to the Palestinians; and has cultivated ties with Boteach as well as with major GOP donor casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. She also attended the controversial address to Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in March 2015, which many progressive Democrats boycotted.
Nevertheless, Tulsi supported Bernie Sanders' antiwar candidacy in 2016 and appears to be completely onboard and fearless in promoting her antiwar sentiments. Yes, Americans have heard much of the same before, but Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years.
What Tulsi Gabbard is accomplishing might be measured by the enemies that are already gathering and are out to get her. Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept describes how NBC news published a widely distributed story on February 1 st , claiming that "experts who track websites and social media linked to Russia have seen stirrings of a possible campaign of support for Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard."
But the expert cited by NBC turned out to be a firm New Knowledge, which was exposed by no less than The New York Times for falsifying Russian troll accounts for the Democratic Party in the Alabama Senate race to suggest that the Kremlin was interfering in that election. According to Greenwald, the group ultimately behind this attack on Gabbard is The Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), which sponsors a tool called Hamilton 68 , a news "intelligence net checker" that claims to track Russian efforts to disseminate disinformation. The ASD website advises that "Securing Democracy is a Global Necessity."
ASD was set up in 2017 by the usual neocon crowd with funding from The Atlanticist and anti-Russian German Marshall Fund. It is loaded with a full complement of Zionists and interventionists/globalists, to include Michael Chertoff, Michael McFaul, Michael Morell, Kori Schake and Bill Kristol. It claims, innocently, to be a bipartisan transatlantic national security advocacy group that seeks to identify and counter efforts by Russia to undermine democracies in the United States and Europe but it is actually itself a major source of disinformation.
For the moment, Tulsi Gabbard seems to be the "real thing," a genuine anti-war candidate who is determined to run on that platform. It might just resonate with the majority of American who have grown tired of perpetual warfare to "spread democracy" and other related frauds perpetrated by the band of oligarchs and traitors that run the United States. We the people can always hope.
peterAUS , says: February 14, 2019 at 7:41 pm GMTSi1ver1ock , says: February 14, 2019 at 8:09 pm GMT
For the moment, Tulsi Gabbard seems to be the "real thing," a genuine anti-war candidate who is determined to run on that platform.
Be that as it may, what is conspicously missing from the article are some minor things:
1. What's her angle about immigration? This: https://votesmart.org/public-statement/1197137/rep-tulsi-gabbard-calls-on-congress-to-pass-the-dream-act#.XGXEplUza1s Not optimistic.
2. What's her angle about "outsourcing" jobs overseas? This: https://www.votetulsi.com/node/25011 Not bad, but, still ..
Just those two. We can leave the rest of "globo-homo" agenda off the table, for the moment. And, the last but not the least, that nagging angle about automation and (paid) work in general. Let's not get too ambitious here. Those two, only, should suffice at the moment.I like Tulsi. but she hasn't been tested in a presidential campaign yet. At least we will have someone who could put peace on the ballot. She should write a book pulling her policies together and use it to get some publicity.Adrian E. , says: February 14, 2019 at 9:14 pm GMTRegularly Americans vote for the less interventionist candidate. 2008, an important reason for Obama's victory against Hillary Clinton and John McCain was that he had been against the Iraq war. 2000, George W. Bush said he was against nation building. Then, after they are elected, the neocons remain in power. Something similar again with Donald Trump who campaigned against stupid wars in the Middle East and now has surrounded himself with some of the most extreme neocons.anonymous  Disclaimer , says: February 15, 2019 at 12:30 am GMT
Of course, it is impossible to predict whether it will be the same with Tulsi Gabbard, but unlike these other candidates in the past , she puts her rejection of neocons and regime change wars so much into the center of her campaign that it should be assumed that she is serious – otherwise it would be complete betrayal. However, if she is serious about this and is elected, she will be fought by the deep state and its allies in the media much more harshly than Trump, who isn't even consistently anti-neocons, just not reliably pro-neocon. What they would probably do to her would make spygate, the Russiagate conspiracy theory, and the Muller investigation look harmless. She might end like JFK (a VP who is just as anti-neocons might increase the chances of survival).
But despite all the risks, I think it is worth trying. If the US was a parliamentary democracy with proportional representation and the neocons had their own party, it would hardly have more than a handful of seats in Congress. Although they don't have, a significant base of their own, neocons have remained in power for a long time, whoever was elected. At the moment, Tulsi Gabbard is probably the best hope for ending their long reign.She'll be sabotaged by relentless smears and other dirty tricks. Only someone bought and owned will be allowed to be a candidate which means the MIC must continue being fed enormous amounts of money and war hysteria constantly being stoked. She won't have a chance. Besides, the Dem party has gotten radical and out of touch with the majority of Americans so who really wants them in? There's no cause for optimism anywhere one looks.Gg Mo , says: February 15, 2019 at 3:21 am GMT@the grand wazoojack daniels , says: February 15, 2019 at 3:48 am GMT
Has anyone discussed the possibility of Tulsi being "marketed" or long-game "branded" through intentional theatre as "anti-war" ? Greenwald himself has questionable backers and the WWF good guy/bad guy character creations (like Trump's pre-election talking points concerning illegal wars , now stuffed down the memory holes of many), all the FAKE and distracting "fights" etc etc
See Corbett/Sibel Edmonds on Greenwald@peterAUSBiff , says: February 15, 2019 at 4:04 am GMT
Any serious Democratic candidate, and to some extent any Republican, must fly through the flack of Deep State anti-populist guns. I am skeptical about Gabbard because her policy views are already too good to be true. She is "cruisin' for a bruisin'" and there is already a campaign to erase her from the debate in the manner in which Ron Paul was erased a few years back.
Gabbard is an attractive woman and on camera she comes across as aggressive and a quick-thinking, highly articulate debater. Like Trump her instinct is to meet force with counter-force rather than roll with the punches and I think that is her best chance. In that way she calls the bluff of her opponents: Just how confident are they that in the end the public will prefer war to peace? These points add up to a realistic chance of success but given the Deep State's stranglehold on the media she is definitely a long shot.De ja vu. I remember reading these very similar (not exactly but similar) sentiments about Barack Obama back in 2008. What a load of crap that turned out to be, but I do understand that not all politicians are cut from the same dung heap, so it is probably best to find out who is funding the little pricks while they are campaigning – for once they are elected, payback is due.animalogic , says: February 15, 2019 at 8:04 am GMT
In the case of Obama it was Robert Rubin( of Goldman Sachs) who bankrolled him, and of course, once elected it was bank bailout time. Then once Ghaddaffi's gold back Dinar became a monetary powerhouse, he committed another crime for the bankers.
"Is she the real deal?"
Elect her and you'll find out, and there lies the problem – you get to find out when it's too late. On the other hand, she could actually be honest and sincere, but that alone disqualifies her as a politician (the kind that Americans are used to anyway).
NTL, she's got people's attention and if for anything else – the people are anti-war, but the monied power brokers are definitely not which begs the question – will democracy actually happen?@Adrian E.LondonBob , says: February 15, 2019 at 11:26 am GMT
Don't know much about this lady. If she is "fair dinkum" in her anti war/anti-imperialism stance her only chance to get into power & then get things done will be to gain a massive, committed popular following.
She will need to use tactics from both the Sanders & Trump play-books. She will need to appeal to a good number in both the Sanders & Trump constituencies. Regardless, she will need an iron-will & tsunami of charisma .@Biff Obama was a creation of the Pritzker and Crowne families, although the puppet did decide he wanted to somewhat act on his own. Gabbard is certainly taking flak from the Israel firsters, and her debating Trump on foreign policy in a US Presidential election would be a real paradigm shift.RobinG , says: February 15, 2019 at 3:10 pm GMT@renfro Where do you get this "obsessive hatred of Muslims and Islam?"RobinG , says: February 15, 2019 at 3:35 pm GMT
She's been [insistent and consistent] using the term 'radical Islamic terrorists' which, unfortunately, is an accurate description of ISIS (the bane of the ummah). OTOH, last year Tulsi was a featured speaker at a Moslem conference in NJ, and she has been outspoken about freedom of religion and mutual respect. If you've got some evidence that she excludes Islam from that, please show it.@jack danielsForcible Overthrow time , says: February 15, 2019 at 5:41 pm GMT
[Gabbard's] policy views are already too good to be true.
Not really. Too good to be true would be if she understood Putin in the context of the US and oligarch rape of Russia in the 1990's and how he has restored the Russian economy and dignity; and if she recognized (openly) the US role in the Maidan coup and accepted the validity of the Crimean decision to return to Russia.
Unfortunately, even though she's taken a brave position on ending US regime-change war on Syria, in many other respects she remains quite conventional. She also promotes fear of DPRK, and who knows what she thinks about China.
she comes across as aggressive and a quick-thinking, highly articulate debater.
Aggressive? Composed, confident, yes. Aggressive, no. Calm under fire is more like it. Take a look at the whole interview on Morning Joe. She really outclasses those squirming bitches. BUT, notice her (short) responses on Putin and Assad ("adversary" and "no"), real Judas moments. Does she believe that, or is she clinging to the Overton Window?
https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/rep-gabbard-assad-is-not-an-enemy-of-the-us-1438093891865Tulsi's presidential timber but she's wasting her life with the Democrats. Their consulting apparatchiks are going to stuff a bunch of incoherent slogans up her butt. If she wants a real antiwar platform she should steal it wholesale from Stein and Ajamu Baraka. Baraka built a complete and consistent law-and-order platform. He's the only real antiwar candidate in this country.peterAUS , says: February 15, 2019 at 6:12 pm GMT
Of course the Democrat's CIA handlers will crush Tulsi if she starts to make sense, so she's going to have to take her supporters and jump to the Greens.
She will lose, but arbitrary forcible repression of the party will discredit bullshit US electoral pageantry once and for all. Then we move into the parallel government zone in conformity with world-standard human rights law and destroy the parasitic kleptocratic USA.@jack daniels You know .there IS one thing nobody wants, really, to talk about.anon  Disclaimer , says: February 15, 2019 at 6:31 pm GMT
.given the Deep State's stranglehold on the media she is definitely a long shot
Why, in this age, the "stronghold on the media" is so decisive? A person who gets the most of media exposure wins? That's how it works?
Or, do anyone reading and posting here gets his/her information from the "media"? I'd say not.
Isn't the bottom, the very heart of the matter NOT a Deep State, Dem Joos, Anglo-Saxons, Masons, Illuminati and .whatever but simple, eternal, laziness and stupidity of an average person?
Or, even worse: the real, true, needs and wants of an average person are simply "breads and circuses". Nothing more.
Combine those two and here we are.
I am aware that throws the spanner into works of those into Aryans, White supremacy, Western man and similar stuff, but, the conclusion seems inevitable.
That's the heart of the problem "we" face at the moment. How to fix it, or even is it possible, I don't know. Have some ideas, of course.@2stateshmustatenever-anonymous , says: February 15, 2019 at 6:54 pm GMT
If there was any justice in this country Mr. Chertoff would have long since been tried for treason for his involvement in the 911 attack.
The arc of something or other is long but tends toward justice er something like that:
Chertoff's business partner Mike Hayden had a stroke last November and is still "getting good care and working hard at therapy."
No doubt US taxpayers are paying to rebuild Scumbag Hayden's fried circuits.
Pity.CIA Giraldi probably has more Cherokee DNA than Warren. Another fact he failed to provide to the Government during the security clearance process. The troll has supported the republican establishment all his career, this distinguishes him from the trolls that support the democratic establishment all of their careers. The fact that people can debate the relative merits of political leaders from the dark lagoon reveals their complete lack of rational thought. No politician decides anything important.Tulip , says: February 15, 2019 at 7:39 pm GMT@Anonymous No, then she is toast in Hawaii politics, and she is probably running not because she plans on winning, but to raise her profile and perhaps open doors for herself on the national or state level, which won't happen if you shoot yourself in the foot at the same time.RobinG , says: February 15, 2019 at 8:19 pm GMT
Besides, leaving aside Krishna consciousness, she is too close to Sanders to get any traction among the Republicans. I suppose getting the bipartisan support of the Internet kook vote is something, but hard to translate into political office.@TulipDem Juche , says: February 16, 2019 at 12:25 am GMT
..getting the bipartisan support of the Internet kook vote is something, but hard to translate into political office.
Brilliant.You're never going to get anything worthwhile from a Democratic politician because they're indoctrinated worse that the brightest little Pioneer in Juche class. Take Ro Khana's meaningless pap.Rich , says: February 16, 2019 at 5:21 am GMT
What is this 'we should' crap? The law is perfectly clear. The right to self-defense is subject to necessity and proportionality tests, and invariably subject to UN Charter Chapter 7 in its entirety. See Article 51. Instead of this 'restraint' waffle, just say, the president must commit to faithfully execute the supreme law of the land, including UN Charter Chapter 7 and Article 2(4). That means refrain from use or threat of force. Period.
Second, national security is not a loophole in human rights. Khana uses the legally meaningless CIA magic word 'threat.' Under universal jurisdiction law, it is a war crime to declare abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. Domestic human rights are subject to ICCPR Article 4, HRC General Comment 29, and the Siracusa Principles. Instead of CIA's standard National Security get-out clause, state explicitly that US national security means respect, protection and fulfillment of all human rights. To enforce that, ratify the Rome Statute or GTFO.
Third, internationalism is OK as far as it goes, but Ro Khana doesn't deal with the underlying problem: CIA has infested State with focal points and dotted-line reports, and demolished the department's capacity for pacific resolution of disputes. You have to explicitly tie State's mission to UN Charter Chapter 6, and criminalize placement of domestic CIA agents in State.
Fourth, Congressional war-making powers are useless with Congress completely corrupted. Bring back the Ludlow Amendment, war by public referendum only, subject to Article 51.Tulsi is a far Left democrat. She supports raising taxes to pay for free college for people earning less than 125K and universal health care, she actually joined protesters against the Dakota Access Pipeline, has a 100% rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, supports homosexual marriage (changed her previous position in 2012), and has an F rating from the NRA. She's a Lefty. Not for me, anyway.Ilyana_Rozumova , says: February 16, 2019 at 5:25 am GMTIn any case she is less vulnerable. She can call any opposition a misogynist.Biff , says: February 16, 2019 at 5:30 am GMT@obwandiyag
I like the one on here who says the Democrat party has "gotten radical."
I assume this is sarcasm, but there is no denying the fact that the neocons(radical whack jobs) have jumped ship from the Republicans and attached themselves to the Democrats (although there are filtering back into the Trump administration – drunk with power they'll suck up to anyone)
The DNC NeverTrump crowd is all but calling for a nuclear exchange with Russia because they colluded with Trump to throw the election, and they pose a National Security threat to the United States(in their head). Hillary also went on to say that Russians Hacking the DNC is another 9/11. The radical Antifa crowd is made up of 99.999999% of Democratic voters.
Feb 14, 2019 | www.youtube.com
More on Tulsi Gabbard:
Grey Skeptic , 18 hours agoLakshya Sharma , 18 hours ago
Tulsi, I sincerely hope you go all the way. You embody what this country desperately needs. Keep fighting them against the smears.man , 16 hours ago
People need leaders like you who address the real needs.mattisava , 18 hours ago (edited)
Best thing about tulsi is that she stood for Bernie when Bernie didn't stood for himselfGabriel Arcari , 17 hours ago
#Tulsi2020 #TULSIrEVOLution #MakeAntiwarGreatAgain
Establishment NeoCons and Neolibs are going to erase Tulsi's candidacy by not mentioning her, not including her in polls, and not letting into debates. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich received this treatment in 2008/2012 ... because of their Antiwar stance.R R , 18 hours ago
Yes Tulsi!! That goes for corporate democrats as well...xXRAGING- DEATHXx , 18 hours ago
Make America honest again!!Trident , 18 hours ago
A True Leader, right there. #TULSI2020Keith Gilbertson , 14 hours ago
"America First" shoots missiles at Syria...Barney Google , 16 hours ago
You're being blacklisted like a third party candidate. Might as well form a new party, Tulsi. Aloha Party.Randy Hartono , 18 hours ago
America's worst enemies are in Washington and the MSM. LET'S TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK! NO MORE REGIME CHANGE WARS TULSI2020 FEEL THE ALOHA!passane74 , 15 hours ago (edited)
Wooooow it's true... Treated like a toolsBenjamin Henderson , 13 hours ago
Damn ! Short and powerful true. May God bless President Tulsi 2020 and America.Judicial78 , 11 hours ago
Michigan loves you TulsiJudith Schwartzbacker , 15 hours ago
I get goosebumps every time I listen to this lady speak, even without the dramatic music. Happy Valentines day to the heart of America, Tulsi Gabbard!!
I really don't think Bernie is going to run. and tulsi should announce early on that her pick for vp is bernie. bernie for domestic solutions and tulsi for foreign ones. That's the winning ticket.
If the dnc rigs the election again then i think the people should conduct our own regime change here with tulsi as our commander-in-chief of the peoples' army. this nonsense has to stop.
Feb 07, 2019 | www.youtube.com
Bob McDonnel , 1 week agoGary Purkeljc , 1 week ago (edited)
Lol the establishment is scared of her! Go Tulsi!GoogIe+ , 6 days ago (edited)
Assad is an "adversary" to the US because Assad isn't controlled by Israel and Saudi Arabia.Horatio Jones , 6 days ago
"What are Assad's interests?" - That's what I'd call, a knockout Tusi punch. Totally caught that reporter blind-sighted. Nice one Tulsi!Shane Baldwin , 6 days ago
I'm not American but after seeing how Tulsi Gabbard conducted herself in this (so called) interview I urge ALL thinking Americans to put all of their support behind her candidacy for the Presidency.Ana Suri , 1 week ago
Tulsi Gabbard is the populist Progressive we've been looking for.Jay Smathers , 6 days ago (edited)
I am a Syrian and I appreciate everything Tulsi Gabbard is trying to do to stop regime change. The US media is criminal and responsible for the blood shed in Syria and many other places. Assad was never an enemy to the US or other western countries.jim seko , 4 days ago
Gabbard is young, but her metal shows in this clip as she just smiles at the msnbc stupidity. She doesn't even take these jokers seriously, and that is going to allow her to go over their heads and connect directly with the public. This is actually awesome.Unlawful_Falafel , 1 week ago
If Russia was actually helping Tulsi Gabbard, Bernie Sanders, and Jill Stein etc, the Russians are the good guys.Dakota Walker , 6 days ago
you know what is sad? i trust RT more than MSM.C.M. Butler , 1 week ago
These smears only drive me to vote for her.linwood ellsworth , 3 days ago
I am a Trump supporter on the right but truly appreciate Jimmy Dore. I am hopeful that the left & right can unite against these pro-war establishment propagandists. Let's stop foreign wars, neocon/neolib policies & MSM deceit ... then we can debate progressive vs conservative issues.John Theos , 6 days ago (edited)
I'm a veteran and would agree 100% with Tulsi Gabbard. People are catching on. There are only 67 thumbs down. Great video.ArgentiumTea , 4 days ago
Putin actually said that, other than the cold war, Russia and the U.S. have always been allies, and that's what he wants. I have two recent videos where Putin is calling for peace and good relations with America. Do I really need to find the links and post them here? I'm a busy man. Let's all help Jimmy, Ron and Steph by doing some homework. Americans should stop smearing good people and start applying some critical thinking skills. "Putin-puppets"?
What about " military industrial complex puppets" who robotically repeat false Russian collusion accusations in order to silence honest dissent? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.Paula Laflamme , 2 days ago
It's funny Jimmy Dore, Secular Talk, The Humanist Report and others all support her but not The Young Turks "the home of the progressives"Karl Letcher , 1 week ago (edited)
Hey Jimmy, hey Jimmy! Have you seen the vid of Putin talking to the western press? I think it was 2015 or so. He's calmly talking about NATO and weapons being put on Russia's borders and how bad it would be if this goes ahead and Russia has to respond. He's practically pleading with them to let the American people know this doesn't have to happen. I saw him saying much the same thing in a Charlie Rose interview before Rose moved into the Big Bucks on network TV. Yet as things were heating up about Russia Rose never mentioned this as he sat at that morning show desk.je suis Informaticien , 6 days ago
Katie, who has never served, asks Tulsi, who has, to explain herself to the military. These people are as clueless as they are shameless.Tony Skwara , 6 days ago
america create their ennemies, all the wars just for isra hellLirrulewon , 6 days ago
I hate MSNBCKen Texican , 4 days ago
She is one hot veteran if i may add
MSNBC and especially the panel of Morning Joe are some of the most shameless tools in America. If DC is a sewer inhabited by big fat sewer rats; then Kasie (and her ilk), are the plague-infected fleas that take their blood-meals from those rats.
Feb 15, 2019 | The Jimmy Dore Show
Become a Patron/Premium Member: https://www.patreon.com/jimmydore & http://bit.ly/JDPremium
Schedule of Live Shows: http://bit.ly/2gRqoyL
Check out our Merch Store: http://bit.ly/tjdsmerch or http://bit.ly/shopTJDS
ScottTheAngel , 1 day agoUnlawful_Falafel , 1 day ago
This is a good reason to vote for her the only thing she represents is good and they want her gone it seems, she has the majority of America on her mind.kastlerock01 , 1 day ago
ok, it's official. i'm voting for tulsi gabbard, since clearly the corrupt establishment doesn't want me to and would rather i vote warren.Joe Gibbs , 1 day ago
They did the exact same thing to Ron Paul during his 2012 bid. There are so many videos showing how they cheated him it's almost comical.Laura LeDoux , 1 day ago
It looks like your political system is very broken. Corrupted by money and greed.Syncopator , 1 day ago (edited)
I was a huge Bernie fan in the last election, but I would love it if he holds a huge press conference to announce his plans and instead gives a HUGE endorsement to Tulsi. That would be a great way to stick it to the media and give her more coverage.Tony Quinn , 21 hours ago
They need to make sure Tulsi won't make it to any debates, because they can't allow the discussion that would ensue about expensive, illegal and useless military adventures that we need to stop. And in a debate, they can't simply interrupt her like they can in an interview. That's not a discussion they can allow because people could think they might actually have a choice in the matter. For war mongers, they sure are chicken-shits who obviously don't even have any confidence in their own arguments in favor of it.Sykes , 1 day ago
The media did they exact same thing to Ron Paul for the same reason. Bill O'Reilly hated Ron Paul.MsLuath , 1 day ago
Politics as usual. Voters always end up with two oligarch picks that have been groomed to mouth what they are told. MSM employees are not independent thinkers either. The two party system has been around for a long time, although in reality it is one party with a and b choices.
She is smart, honest and courageous. Of course they will do all they can to dismiss her.
Feb 14, 2019 | gabbard.house.govPress Release Washington, DC -- Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) joined a coalition of over 160 lawmakers in introducing legislation that would create a national paid family and medical leave program. The Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act, known as the FAMILY Act, would ensure that every American worker can take up to 12 weeks of paid leave for a pregnancy or the birth or adoption of a child, to recover from a serious illness, or to care for a seriously ill family member.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard said: "Across the country, people are working hard every day, living paycheck to paycheck, barely making enough to get by. When a crisis arises, like a parent who falls sick, a personal health crisis, or a newborn child, the demands of balancing a job and family needs can be too much. Without a national family leave policy, millions of Americans are forced to make an impossible choice between their family's health, and their financial security. Our legislation will provide the security our working families need to care for their loved ones, without risking their ability to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table."
Background: The FAMILY Act establishes a national family and medical leave insurance program. Receiving paid leave benefits allows workers to take time away from their jobs to address their most-pressing needs. Specifically, the legislation would provide eligible employees up to 12 weeks of partial income to address:
- A serious personal health condition, including pregnancy or childbirth,
- A family member with a serious health condition,
- A newborn, newly-adopted child, or a newly-placed foster child, or
- A service member injured due to deployment.
Follow Rep. Tulsi Gabbard on social media:
Feb 11, 2019 | www.unz.com
Maybe Donald Trump isn't as stupid as I thought. I'd hate to have to admit that publicly, but it does kind of seem like he has put one over on the liberal corporate media this time. Scanning the recent Trump-related news, I couldn't help but notice a significant decline in the number of references to Weimar, Germany, Adolf Hitler, and " the brink of fascism " that America has supposedly been teetering on since Hillary Clinton lost the election.
I googled around pretty well, I think, but I couldn't find a single editorial warning that Trump is about to summarily cancel the U.S. Constitution, dissolve Congress, and proclaim himself Führer . Nor did I see any mention of Auschwitz , or any other Nazi stuff which is weird, considering that the Hitler hysteria has been a standard feature of the official narrative we've been subjected to for the last two years.
So how did Trump finally get the liberal corporate media to stop calling him a fascist? He did that by acting like a fascist (i.e., like a "normal" president). Which is to say he did the bidding of the deep state goons and corporate mandarins that manage the global capitalist empire the smiley, happy, democracy-spreading, post-fascist version of fascism we live under.
I'm referring, of course, to Venezuela, which is one of a handful of uncooperative countries that are not playing ball with global capitalism and which haven't been "regime changed" yet. Trump green-lit the attempted coup purportedly being staged by the Venezuelan "opposition," but which is obviously a U.S. operation, or, rather, a global capitalist operation. As soon as he did, the corporate media immediately suspended calling him a fascist, and comparing him to Adolf Hitler, and so on, and started spewing out blatant propaganda supporting his effort to overthrow the elected government of a sovereign country.
Overthrowing the governments of sovereign countries, destroying their economies, stealing their gold, and otherwise bringing them into the fold of the global capitalist "international community" is not exactly what most folks thought Trump meant by "Make America Great Again." Many Americans have never been to Venezuela, or Syria, or anywhere else the global capitalist empire has been ruthlessly restructuring since shortly after the end of the Cold War. They have not been lying awake at night worrying about Venezuelan democracy, or Syrian democracy, or Ukrainian democracy.
This is not because Americans are a heartless people, or an ignorant or a selfish people. It is because, well, it is because they are Americans (or, rather, because they believe they are Americans), and thus are more interested in the problems of Americans than in the problems of people in faraway lands that have nothing whatsoever to do with America. Notwithstanding what the corporate media will tell you, Americans elected Donald Trump, a preposterous, self-aggrandizing ass clown, not because they were latent Nazis, or because they were brainwashed by Russian hackers, but, primarily, because they wanted to believe that he sincerely cared about America, and was going to try to "make it great again" (whatever that was supposed to mean, exactly).
Unfortunately, there is no America. There is nothing to make great again. "America" is a fiction, a fantasy, a nostalgia that hucksters like Donald Trump (and other, marginally less buffoonish hucksters) use to sell whatever they are selling themselves, wars, cars, whatever. What there is, in reality, instead of America, is a supranational global capitalist empire, a decentralized, interdependent network of global corporations, financial institutions, national governments, intelligence agencies, supranational governmental entities, military forces, media, and so on. If that sounds far-fetched or conspiratorial, look at what is going on in Venezuela.
The entire global capitalist empire is working in concert to force the elected president of the country out of office. The US, the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Spain, Austria, Denmark, Poland, the Netherlands, Israel, Brazil, Peru, Chile, and Argentina have officially recognized Juan Guaido as the legitimate president of Venezuela, in spite of the fact that no one elected him. Only the empire's official evil enemies (i.e., Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba, and other uncooperative countries) are objecting to this "democratic" coup. The global financial system (i.e., banks) has frozen (i.e., stolen) Venezuela's assets, and is attempting to transfer them to Guaido so he can buy the Venezuelan military. The corporate media are hammering out the official narrative like a Goebbelsian piano in an effort to convince the general public that all this has something to do with democracy. You would have to be a total moron or hopelessly brainwashed not to recognize what is happening.
What is happening has nothing to do with America the "America" that Americans believe they live in and that many of them want to "make great again." What is happening is exactly what has been happening around the world since the end of the Cold War, albeit most dramatically in the Middle East. The de facto global capitalist empire is restructuring the planet with virtual impunity. It is methodically eliminating any and all impediments to the hegemony of global capitalism, and the privatization and commodification of everything.
Venezuela is one of these impediments. Overthrowing its government has nothing to do with America, or the lives of actual Americans. "America" is not to going conquer Venezuela and plant an American flag on its soil. "America" is not going to steal its oil, ship it "home," and parcel it out to "Americans" in their pickups in the parking lot of Walmart.
What what about those American oil corporations? They want that Venezuelan oil, don't they? Well, sure they do, but here's the thing there are no "American" oil corporations. Corporations, especially multi-billion dollar transnational corporations (e.g., Chevron, ExxonMobil, et al.) have no nationalities, nor any real allegiances, other than to their major shareholders. Chevron, for example, whose major shareholders are asset management and mutual fund companies like Black Rock, The Vanguard Group, SSgA Funds Management, Geode Capital Management, Wellington Management, and other transnational, multi-trillion dollar outfits. Do you really believe that being nominally headquartered in Boston or New York makes these companies "American," or that Deutsche Bank is a "German" bank, or that BP is a "British" company?
And Venezuela is just the most recent blatant example of the empire in action. Ask yourself, honestly, what have the "American" regime change ops throughout the Greater Middle East done for any actual Americans, other than get a lot of them killed? Oh, and how about those bailouts for all those transnational "American" investment banks? Or the billions "America" provides to Israel? Someone please explain how enriching the shareholders of transnational corporations like Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin by selling billions in weapons to Saudi Arabian Islamists is benefiting "the American people." How much of that Saudi money are you seeing? And, wait, I've got another one for you. Call up your friendly 401K manager, ask how your Pfizer shares are doing, then compare that to what you're paying some "American" insurance corporation to not really cover you.
For the last two-hundred years or so, we have been conditioned to think of ourselves as the citizens of a collection of sovereign nation states, as "Americans," "Germans," "Greeks," and so on. There are no more sovereign nation states. Global capitalism has done away with them. Which is why we are experiencing a "neo-nationalist" backlash. Trump, Brexit, the so-called "new populism" these are the death throes of national sovereignty, like the thrashing of a suffocating fish before you whack it and drop it in the cooler. The battle is over, but the fish doesn't know that. It didn't even realize there was a battle until it suddenly got jerked up out of the water.
In any event, here we are, at the advent of the global capitalist empire. We are not going back to the 19th Century, nor even to the early 20th Century. Neither Donald Trump nor anyone else is going to "Make America Great Again." Global capitalism will continue to remake the world into one gigantic marketplace where we work ourselves to death at bullshit jobs in order to buy things we don't need, accumulating debts we can never pay back, the interest on which will further enrich the global capitalist ruling classes, who, as you may have noticed, are preparing for the future by purchasing luxury underground bunkers and post-apocalyptic compounds in New Zealand. That, and militarizing the police, who they will need to maintain "public order" you know, like they are doing in France at the moment, by beating, blinding, and hideously maiming those Gilets Jaunes (i.e., Yellow Vest) protesters that the corporate media are doing their best to demonize and/or render invisible.
Or, who knows, Americans (and other Western consumers) might take a page from those Yellow Vests, set aside their political differences (or at least ignore their hatred of each other long enough to actually try to achieve something), and focus their anger at the politicians and corporations that actually run the empire, as opposed to, you know, illegal immigrants and imaginary legions of Nazis and Russians. In the immortal words of General Buck Turgidson, "I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed," but, heck, it might be worth a try, especially since, the way things are going, we are probably going end up out there anyway.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Feb 13, 2019 | www.thenation.com
What a Midwestern Presidential Candidate Learned From Marxist Intellectuals | The NationThe really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes."
That's what Teddy Roosevelt proposed in his agenda-setting "New Nationalism" speech from 1910 , when he prodded the United States toward a fuller embrace of progressive reform. As a former president who was preparing to again bid for the position, Roosevelt opened a conversation about tax policy in order to frame a broader debate about at least some of the values that should guide American progress.
At the heart of Roosevelt's agenda was a specific form of taxation. While progressive taxation in a general sense was desirable and necessary, Roosevelt was particularly enthusiastic about "another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective -- a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."
Teddy Roosevelt, it should be noted, was a Republican who possessed considerable wealth of his own. He was a flawed figure who let down the progressive cause at many turns and never matched the courageous domestic and foreign policy vision advanced by his rival for leadership of the progressive movement, Wisconsin Senator Robert M. La Follette. But Roosevelt recognized that taxing inherited wealth not merely to collect revenues but to preserve and extend democracy."One of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege." -- Teddy Roosevelt, 1910
"The absence of effective state, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power," he explained. "The prime need to is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which it is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise."
Roosevelt's critics may have characterized him as a radical, but he was never as radical (or as right) as La Follette. Roosevelt was, however, conscious of the threats posed to the American experiment by the rapid consolidation wealth and power. And he knew that progressive taxation could be used to address those threats.
Bernie Sanders knows this, as well. That's why Sanders is proposing a progressive estate tax on the fortunes of the top 0.2 percent of Americans. The senator from Vermont's newly introduced "For the 99.8% Act" would collect $2.2 trillion from 588 billionaires.
"At a time of massive wealth and income inequality, when the three richest Americans own more wealth than 160 million Americans, it is literally beyond belief that the Republican leadership wants to provide hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the top 0.2 percent," argues Sanders. "Our bill does what the American people want by substantially increasing the estate tax on the wealthiest families in this country and dramatically reducing wealth inequality. From a moral, economic, and political perspective our nation will not thrive when so few have so much and so many have so little."
Sanders is widely expected to bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020. If he does so, Sanders will not be the only contender with a bold plan to tax the rich. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren , for instance, has a plan to levy a 2 percent tax on the assets of wealthy Americans with more than $50 million. From those with over $1 billion, she'd demand an additional 1 percent.
The Democrats who seek to dislodge Donald Trump in 2020 will all need to make tax policy a priority. Republicans have for so long practiced reverse Robin Hood politics -- take from the poor and give to the rich -- that the promised Democrats make will be unobtainable without the infusion of revenues that comes from taxing the wealthy. Changing tax policy also infuses governing with democracy, as it dials down the influence of specially interested billionaires (such as the Koch brothers) and their corporations.
What is notable about the Sanders plan is that, with his proposal to establish a 77 percent tax on the value of an estate above $1 billion, the senator is merely seeking "a return to the top rate from 1941 through 1976."
Sanders is proposing an approach that renews American values, as notes University of California–Berkeley economics professor Emmanuel Saez. "The estate tax was a key pillar of the progressive tax revolution that the United States ushered one century ago. It prevented self-made wealth from turning into inherited wealth and helped make America more equal," explains Saez. "However, the estate tax is dying of neglect, as tax avoidance schemes are multiplying and left unchallenged. As wealth concentration is surging in the United States, it is high time to revive the estate tax, plug the loopholes, and make it more progressive. Senator Sanders' bill is a bold and welcome leap forward in this direction."
Teddy Roosevelt understood this economic calculus, and this democratic imperative.
"In every wise struggle for human betterment one of the main objects, and often the only object, has been to achieve in large measure equality of opportunity. In the struggle for this great end, nations rise from barbarism to civilization, and through it people press forward from one stage of enlightenment to the next," the Republican president explained in 1910. "One of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege. The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows. That is what you fought for in the Civil War, and that is what we strive for now."
John Nichols is The Nation 's national-affairs correspondent. He is the author of Horsemen of the Trumpocalypse: A Field Guide to the Most Dangerous People in America , from Nation Books, and co-author, with Robert W. McChesney, of People Get Ready: The Fight Against a Jobless Economy and a Citizenless Democracy .
Feb 13, 2019 | consortiumnews.com
David G , February 12, 2019 at 11:26 am
The inimitable CN commenting system just ate my detailed reply to your question of who else besides Gabbard has spoken up, and won't let me repost it. But the short version is that
- Rep. Ilhan Omar came out with a decent statement, like Tulsi.
- Rep. Ro Khanna hedged his bets by insulting Maduro while criticizing the coup attempt.
- Saint Bernie came out with something that was two-thirds State Department talking points followed by limp disapproval of U.S. sponsored coups in general. Classic Sanders.
- Saint Alexandria doesn't want to talk about it.
As far as I know, everybody else is on board the regime-change express, enjoying the bar car.
Summary: Tulsi rocks.
KiwiAntz, February 12, 2019 at 7:04 am
Trump & his corrupt Administration with the Troika of morons such as Pompeo, Bolton & Abrams, are the most dangerous bunch of idiots ever to be in power?
Hopelessly inept & out of his depth, Trump doesn't have a clue about Foreign Policy & his stupid Regime change antics are going to blow up in his & his meddling Nations face!
This buffoonish Clown is really accelerating America's downfall & declining Hegemonic power & turning the World away from the corrupt US Dollar, Petrodollar system with other Countries, actively moving away from this tyranny?
... ... ...
Feb 12, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
For better or worse, Republican Senator and one-time presidential candidate Marco Rubio isn't about to let the Democrats own the fight to curtail one of the most flagrant examples of post-crisis corporate excess. And if he can carve out a niche for himself that might one day help him credibly pitch himself as a populist firebrand, much like the man who went on to claim the presidency after defeating him in the Republican primary, well, that sounds to us like a win-win.
To that end, the senator from Florida on Tuesday unveiled a proposal to limit corporate buybacks. Unlike a plan pitched by Bernie Sanders and Chuck Schumer earlier this month, Rubio's plan would seek to end preferential tax treatment of share buybacks, by decreeing that any money spent on buybacks would be considered - for tax purposes - a dividend paid to shareholders, even if individual investors didn't actually part with any stock.
According to CNBC , the plan calls for every shareholder to receive an imputed portion of the funds equivalent to the percentage of company stock they own, which, of course, isn't the same thing as directly handing capital to shareholders (it simply changes the tax rate that the company buying back the shares would pay).
Ultimately, Rubio hopes that these changes would discourage companies from buying back stock. Those companies that continued to buy back shares would help contribute to higher revenues by increasing the funds that can be taxed, while also raising the rate at which this money can be taxed. Any tax revenue generated by these changes could then be used to encourage more capital investment, Rubio said. As part of the proposal, Rubio would make a provision in the tax law that allows companies to deduct capital investment permanent (that provision is currently set to expire in 2022).
But before lawmakers take their next steps toward regulating how and when companies should return excess capital to shareholders, they might want to take a look at a column recently published by WSJ's "Intelligent Investor" that expounds a concept called "the bladder theory."
Overall, however, buybacks (and dividends) return excess capital to investors who are free to spend or reinvest it wherever it is most needed. By requiring companies to hang onto their capital instead of paying it out, Congress might - perhaps - encourage them to invest more in workers and communities.
But the law most likely to govern here is the Law of Unintended Consequences. The history of investment by corporate managers with oodles of cash on their hands isn't encouraging. Hugh Liedtke, the late chief executive of Pennzoil, reportedly liked to quip that he believed in "the bladder theory:" Companies should pay out as much cash as possible, so managers couldn't piss all the money away.
That companies bought back a record $1 trillion worth of stock last year while employers like GM slashed jobs and closed factories has stoked criticisms of the Trump tax cuts, but as the gulf between the rich and the poor grows ever more wide (a phenomenon for which we can thank the Federal Reserve and other large global central banks) it's worth wondering: facing a simmering backlash to one of the most persistent marginal bids in the market place, have investors already become too complacent about proposals like Rubio's?
We ask only because the Dow soared more than 350 points on Tuesday, suggesting that, even as Rubio added a bipartisan flavor to the nascent movement to curb buybacks, investors aren't taking these proposals too seriously - at least not yet.CelotexThis still doesn't address the insider trading aspect of stock buybacks, with insiders front-running the buyback.
No one's arguing that if a company's groaning with cash then buybacks make sense. But it's the other 95% of of them that are the problem. Compare the 20 year graphs of buybacks with corporate profits, corporate debt, corporate tax paid, corporate dividends paid.
They tell you what everyone in higher management knows - that they're a tax-free dividend mechanism pretending to be "capital rationalisation".
Worse, since they're largely funded by increased corporate debt (!) they amount to corporate strip-mining by senior management. This is disgraceful and dangerous. The debt will bust some corporations when the inevitable next downturn comes.
This buyback cancer, which has grown rapidly because of corrupt SEC thinking and perverse tax incentives, requires urgent treatment.
james diamond squid
Everyone is in on this ponzi. I'm expecting tax deductions for buying stocks/homes.
Feb 12, 2019 | www.nytimes.com
Concerned Citizen Feb. 5 Times PickTrajan The Real Heartland Feb. 5 Times Pick
I consider myself socially conservative and economically liberal and I very bitterly reject the idea that I am a "racist". The left has to stop tossing around the word "racist" to essentially mean "anything they dislike" and "anyone they disagree with". I am not a racist, and I defy anyone to prove I am. Dr. Krugman, if you are going to call 50% of the voters in the US "racists"....well, consider what happened when your pal Hillary called us "deplorables in a basket". How'd that work out for her?Allright New york Feb. 5 Times Pick
Democrats love to eat their own. We have one of the most racist presidents to ever hold office in modern times, yet some Democrats are going after Northam over some dumb stunt that happened decades ago. Is he a good leader NOW? Does he support good policies NOW? Is Northam's behavior really any worse (blackface versus sexual misconduct) than someone who just got a seat on the Supreme Court? Wow, this is like watching an episode of The Twilight Zone. Republicans have a strategic advantage because, while Democrats get all twisted up in identity politics, Republican leaders are only tightly focused on serving the rich and powerful at the expense of average Americans. No party disunity there. Democrats need to start focusing on the basic, kitchen table issues that average Americans care about, like affordable health care, affordable housing and affordable higher education. With that strong streak of self-destruction that runs through Democrats, Nancy Pelosi is needed more than ever in the people's House where badly needed legislation has to move forward.Patrick Wisconsin Feb. 5 Times Pick
A Democrat could beat Trump if he was pro-single payer, pro family, pro-union, anti-war, and for the aggressive taxing of ultra high wealth if he could just shut down the flagrant abuse of our immigration laws and border. That candidate can't win the primary though because not welcoming the infinite number of suffering illegal immigrants to share these expensive benefits or wanting law and order to immigration earns a label of "racist" in the Democratic Party. Trump will win in 2020 unless dems stop with the wild misuse of the word racist.Don B Massachusetts Feb. 5 Times Pick
"Racial hostility" is what I, a white male, feel from the Democrats. It's a common thread among the reluctant Trump supporters I know - they are disgusted by Trump, but they won't support the Democrats for that reason. My 66-year-old father recently said to me, for the first time, "well, you know, I'm a racist."
This man voted for Obama, but I wouldn't be surprised if he casts his vote for Trump in 2020 because the left has lost all credibility in his eyes. They call my dad a racist over and over, but he knows he's a fair person, so he's accepted that the "racist" label isn't that big of a deal.KBronson Louisiana Feb. 5 Times Pick
I have a hard time getting my head around the author's use of "racist". For example 'economically liberal, socially conservative politicians -- let's be blunt and just say "racist populists."' Where does he get that connection from? Certainly not from any dictionary I have seen. I realize that the left has adopted the habit of calling everyone they disagree with "racist", but this article seems to completely disconnect the word from its meaning. In fact, I have to wonder whether any of the labels he is using, "conservative", "liberal", "populist", etc. are anchored to their literal meanings. Making sense of what he is talking about is impossible if his words have no well defined meaning.Paul Virginia Feb. 5 Times Pick
This analysis is simple, elegant, and completely wrong. Libertarians are far from a majority, but far more than 4%. Probably about 20-25%. "Live and let live" isn't quite that dead. The two party kakistocracy gives people few opportunities to express it in elections. Sorry Professor, but there are plenty of us who don't care who you marry, make cakes for, dress up as, smoke, grow, say, write, spend your money on, put in your or in your body, just so long as you leave us alone. In a dim past it was called Liberalism. Before that it was called Liberty.54 RecommendSteve Sonora, CA Feb. 5 Times Pick
On economic issues, especially on social programs, the public is to the left of the Democrats but the numbers of the public who are racist populist are sizable enough for the Republicans to successfully exploit it every election cycle. That's why Trump carried the white working class voters and enough of the suburban and college educated white voters to win the electoral votes.
This is the dilemma of the Democrats for they cannot win elections without working class white support. Racism, and the history of it, is like a curse spelled upon the American political system and as long as there are politicians, mostly Republicans, and others who politically and financially benefit from appealing to racism, true democracy and racial harmony will never arrive in America.Allright New york Feb. 5 Times Pick
Dr. Krugman appears to bewail the demise of the "Rockefeller Republican." As should we all.49 Recommendgrantgreen west orange Feb. 5 Times Pick
The democrats really shot themselves in the foot when they decided to take the stand that those who want less immigration or legal immigration are "racists". That is the wedge the will drive off the most important block which is the working class midwestern men. If only there were a democrat or an outsider that could stomach being called a racist who was conservative on immigration but liberal on economics, pro-worker, families then he could beat Trump. Otherwise with Kamala or someone that does not appeal to rust-belt workers, there will be 4 more years of Trump. Mark my words.Jay Florida Feb. 5 Times Pick
I take issue with two ideas of Mr Krugman: the statement that Trump is not a true 'racist populist' ...what does that mean anyway? , and that Democrats are moving too left, endangering their prospects. The first idea is that Trump is not keeping a racist agenda is clearly false. His Muslim ban, immigration policies and mass detentions are all following thru on racist ideas. Why Krugman does not feel these are somehow playing to a racist base, and is faking begs credulity. The second idea that Dems are moving too far is not supported by polls that show a majority of people support Medicare for all and taxes on billionaires. The country's middle class has been beaten down for 30 years and now is the time to correct that!27 Recommend
"Voters want an economic move to the left -- it's just that some of them dislike Democratic support for civil rights, which the party can't drop without losing its soul." The Democratic Party lost its soul long ago Paul. It lost it when it championed free trade, unguarded borders, Nafta, destroyed defense budgets, tolerated the indecency of Bill Clinton, allowed unions to become corrupt, failed to fix Social Security and bankrupted every American downtown and small business for the pursuit of the mythological better jobs and better living through more imports of products from China as our factories closed and our industries moved offshore. The Democratic Party has betrayed America for the last 30 years and now you're lamenting the loss of Democratic Party members and conservative left wingers. The Democrats moved too far left many years ago. The issues Paul are jobs, industry, affordable housing and healthcare, education for our children, and retirement with dignity. Not to forget safety without sacrificing our right to self-defense. The Republicans and the Democrats equally and together polluted our Democratic institutions. They've corrupted our judicial processes and disenfranchised minorities. We don't need a coffee billionaire or any other billionaire. We need decent, hardworking, intelligent and socially responsible citizens who want legitimate government and institutions. Not corruption from Wall St. or Washington DC. Where are the legitimate candidates?
Feb 12, 2019 | therapyjoker.com
Kamala Harris may have just begun to see success in the realm of politics, but she's already aiming for the stars as she's planning to compete with current US president Donald Trump for the presidential seat in the 2020 election which isn't at all far at this point. Senator Kamala isn't too rich considering the huge businessmen that fill up the Congress, but according to the LA Times, she's still a financial success who needs to be recognized. The LA Times reported that Harris' net worth has been growing since she entered politics in 2014 and has now hit close to the $1 million dollar mark. Most of her wealth is from her retirement plans, although she has a large sum of savings, too. We're curious to see how she performs in 2020 – and if we've learned anything so far, it's that political experience doesn't matter as much as one would think.
Feb 12, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com
James Thomas , 21 hours agoTulsi was just on CNN talking about CIA funding of "terror-linked groups" in Syria:
Jan 29, 2019 | www.nbcnews.com
Versions of a "wealth tax" proposed by the 2020 hopeful have been put in place in a number of countries. Most have gotten rid of them. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has made a splash with her plan for a "wealth tax" on the super-rich, a major break from typical Democratic proposals that target income, investment gains and inheritances.
While wealth taxes aren't a new invention and a handful of developed nations currently have them in place, they are on the decline: The number nations that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development with a wealth tax dropped from 12 to four from 1990 to 2017, according to a report by the organization last year.
With inequality hitting new heights, though, Democrats running for president have made finding new ways to tax the rich and distribute the benefits downward a key part of their economic message. Wealth taxes are making a comeback in policy discussions abroad as well, led by French economist Thomas Piketty's call for a global tax on the rich.
Now economists are debating what other countries can tell us about the Warren Ultra-Millionaires Tax and whether it's useful to tie their experiences to the United States.Video Will Begin In... 3 Sen. Elizabeth Warren on her wealth tax proposal Jan. 24, 2019 16:00
One prominent case study is Switzerland, where a longstanding series of wealth taxes account for about 1 percent of GDP each year. That's a much higher share than in other countries with a wealth tax and it's similar to what Warren's advisers predict her own tax would raise.
"The comparison everyone is thinking of is Switzerland, because it's probably the best precedent for a reasonably effective wealth tax," Ari Glogower, a professor at Ohio State University who researches wealth taxes, told NBC News.
The country's wealth tax may offer some insight into one looming question over Warren's wealth tax, which is whether its targets would find ways to avoid paying it. It's an important debate, because Warren's counting on her tax to raise a lot of money for social programs: $2.75 trillion over 10 years, according to an estimate by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, two economists advising her campaign.
Under Warren's proposal, households with over $50 million in assets would pay a 2 percent tax on their net worth every year. The rate would rise to 3 percent on assets over $1 billion. Warren's plan would affect just 75,000 households total.
Taxes on wealth in Switzerland are not fixed, but set by 26 regional governments with rates that varied from 0.13 percent to 1 percent per year in 2016, according to the OECD report. They also are much broader, affecting not just millionaires, but many middle-class households as well .
A study of the country's tax system by Jonathan Gruber and several other economists found that for every 0.1 percent taxes on wealth went up in an area, the wealth taxpayers reported to the government dropped by 3.5 percent .
"When you tax people's wealth, they manage to somehow reduce their taxable wealth," Gruber told NBC News. "We don't know if it's by saving less or by hiding it. "
Critics point to these shifts as evidence that a wealth tax is an inefficient way to collect taxes. While the IRS can easily check the price of a publicly traded stock, it may be hard to value a privately held company or a rare art collection until it's sold, which is often a source of legal battles in calculating estate taxes. But unlike an estate, which is taxed once at death, the government would have to figure out the value every year.
"It's really difficult to enforce," said Alan Cole, a former adviser to House Republicans on tax policy. "That's why almost everyone goes the capital gains tax route and very few go the wealth tax route."
The OECD's report found that countries with wealth taxes have tended to collect relatively similar amounts of revenue over time even as the overall wealth in their countries increased at much faster rates. This suggests taxpayers either found new ways to get around them or that legislators and tax collectors weren't keeping pace with annual growth.
Anticipating this concern, Warren's plan includes a pledge to bolster the IRS, require a minimum number of audits, and use a variety of techniques to indirectly value more difficult to price assets.
While they expect the rich to succeed in shielding some of their assets, Warren advisers Saez and Zucman peg the number at 15 percent total based on a survey of existing research. In a letter to Warren, they wrote that Gruber's study was an "outlier" and that studies of wealth taxes in other countries like Sweden and Denmark showed less tax avoidance .
As Gruber noted, Switzerland's broad tax base makes it a less than exact comparison. But the tax rate in Warren's plan would also be much higher, giving its targets more motive to avoid it. They would also be more likely to have skilled accountants and lawyers to help them out.
"It doesn't mean it's a bad idea or it won't raise money," Gruber said. "Elizabeth Warren's tax would raise money, it's a question of how much."
At the same time, some argue recent changes in finance make it harder for the rich to hide assets from tax collectors.
Lily Batchelder, a professor at New York University and former economic adviser under President Barack Obama, pointed to The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, a 2010 U.S. law in coordination with other governments around the world that requires banks to report activity by American citizens.
"It's certainly not perfect and there's more work to be done, but compared to even five years ago, the landscape has really changed," she said. "So people who are looking at this from five or 10 or 20 years ago are missing that."
Gruber's study does cut against another top concern raised by critics of a wealth tax -- that it will cause taxpayers to pack up and move. Even with lower-tax options inside the same country, their research found little sign of people moving to avoid higher rates.
The fear that the ultra-rich will not just lowball their fortunes, but pack up and take them to a rival country, is a significant reason the wealth tax has declined. In France, President Emmanuel Macron replaced the country's decades-old wealth tax with a narrower tax on real estate partly in response to data suggesting 60,000 millionaires had left the country since 2000.
In one prominent case, famed actor Gérard Depardieu moved across the border to less-taxed Belgium while criticizing France's policies. It wasn't just the wealth tax -- the previous government also imposed a 75 percent tax rate on income for millionaires, a policy that bears similarities to a proposal by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.
Warren's plan would apply to Americans based on citizenship, not where they live or where their money is earned, so the ultra-rich couldn't easily move to avoid it. If they renounced their citizenship, they'd have to pay a one-time 40 percent "exit tax" on their net worth.
Feb 12, 2019 | www.nytimes.com
Bruce Rozenblit, Kansas City, MO Feb. 4
I don't think it's that complicated. Donald Trump is the Republican party. He has solidified his power in three basic ways. The first is that he gave a huge tax cut to corporate America. This greatly boosted profits and the stock market reacted in sync. This is all Wall Street and big business cares about. Nothing else matters to them and consequently they ignore everything else that Trump does, no matter how awful, how incompetent and how damaging it is to our republic.
Ronny Dublin, CA Feb. 4R. Law Texas Feb. 4
@R. Law "We can have extreme wealth concentrated in the hands of the few; or, we can have democracy, we can't have both." Judge Brandies was right. The Republicans have chosen extreme wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, the few who happen to donate to their campaigns specifically, rather than democracy. The Republicans have sold out the American people.
We agree with Dr. K.: " But maybe the gravitational attraction of big money -- which has completely captured the G.O.P., and has arguably kept Democrats from moving as far left as the electorate really wants -- is too great. " defines the issue, since 'voters' are not the actual consumers of politics being sold by the pols - those consumers are the pols' donors: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/15/government-wealthy-study_n_5154879.html
It's all thanks to the Roberts' SCOTUS's Citizens United decision, the McCutcheon decision, and egregious GOP'er gerrymandering of 2010. Vulture Capitalism and democracy cannot co-exist.
Feb 12, 2019 | therapyjoker.com
Elizabeth is super rich when compared to the average American citizen (who's worth is around $100,000), but keep in mind that Congress is virtually made up of some of the richest people in the country.
While a whole lot of Elizabeth's net worth is based around the investments she's made, she also has a huge house that's worth almost $2 million which isn't bad at all. The house is reportedly in Massachusetts.
CNN reported that Warren is worth between $3.7 million and $10 million dollars because of her combined net worth with her husband and ranked her the 76th wealthiest out of 541 senators and representatives.
It's quite interesting to know that Warren didn't start off rich – she was born to a middle-class family and rose to the top based on pure merit.
She earned a degree in bankruptcy law and began teaching in universities just like her husband. They were soon able to amass a huge amount together.
Feb 12, 2019 | angrybearblog.com
likbez, February 12, 2019 8:11 pm
For decades we have heard about the loss of industrial production throughout what is called the "Rust Belt". It's presented, even as recent as the prior presidential election as a relative regional problem that only began post-Reagan.
With all due respect, it looks like you forgot that at some point quantity turns into quality, so making simple extrapolations might well result in an oversimplification of the current situation.
You essentially ignore the current reality of rising popular anger, and the fact of breaking of the social contract by neoliberal (and first of all financial) oligarchy, which is as detached from "deplorable" as French aristocracy ("let them eat cakes" mentality.)
In 2019 it is clear that the USA completely and irreversibly moved from an economy based on high wages and reliable benefits to a system of low wages and cheap consumer prices, to the detriment of workers, which means that social contract was broken ( https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/12/the-past-and-future-of-americas-social-contract/282511/ ).
While less dangerous for the oligarchy then when the USSR used to exist, the level of social anger comes into play as never before. In 2016 became a material factor that decided the elections. I do not see that 2020 will be different.
The most detrimental effects from outsourcing and offshoring will come to the forefront probably in 10 years or so when the oil price might be well over $100 per barrel. But even now this huge social experiment on live people in redistribution of wealth up turn out to be detrimental for the unity of the country (and not only to the unity).
The current squabble between globalist, Clinton wing of Democratic Party allied with the corporatists with the Republican Party (with supporting intelligence agencies) and rag-tag forces of the opposition is a good indication of the power of this resentment.
Spearheaded by intelligence agencies (with material support from British government ) attack on Trump (aka Russiagate) is the attack on the idea of an alternative for neoliberal globalization, not so much on the personality or real or perceived Trump actions; the brutal, Soviet-style attack on the deviation from neoliberal status quo directed on the political elimination of the opposition by elimination of Trump from the political scene. Much like Show Trials were in the USSR (in this case people were charged to be British spies ;-)
There are two countries now co-existing within the USA borders. Which often speak different languages. One is the country of professionals, managers, and capital owners (let's say top 10%). The other is the country of common people (aka "deplorable", or those who are below median wage -- ~$30K in 2017; ratio of average and median wage is now around 65% ).
With the large part of the latter living as if they live in a third world country. That's definitely true for McDonald, Wall-mart (and all retail) employees (say, all less than $15 per hour employees, or around half of US workers).
I think the level of anger of "deplorable" will play the major role in 2020 elections and might propel Warren candidacy. That's why now some MSM are trying to derail her by exploiting the fact that she listed her heritage incorrectly on several applications.
But when the anger of "deplorable" is in play, then, as Donald Trump aptly quipped, one could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue, shoot somebody and do not lose any voters. I think this is now true for Warren too.
Here are some old, but still interesting, facts circa Nov 2011 ( https://www.businessinsider.com/sad-facts-deindustrialization-america-2011-11 ):
-- The United States has lost approximately 42,400 factories since 2001
-- The United States has lost a total of about 5.5 million manufacturing jobs since October 2000
-- From 1999 to 2008, employment at the foreign affiliates of US parent companies increased an astounding 30 percent to 10.1 million
-- In 1959, manufacturing represented 28 percent of U.S. economic output. In 2008, it represented 11.5 percent
-- As of the end of 2009, less than 12 million Americans worked in manufacturing. The last time less than 12 million Americans were employed in manufacturing was in 1941. The United States has lost a whopping 32 percent of its manufacturing jobs since the year 2000
-- As of 2010 consumption accounts for 70 percent of GDP. Of this 70 percent, over half is spent on services
-- In 2001, the United States ranked fourth in the world in per capita broadband Internet use. Today it ranks 15th
-- Asia produces 84% of printed circuit boards used worldwide.
-- In September 2011, the Census Bureau said 46.2 million Americans are now living in poverty, which is the highest number of poor Americans in the 52 years that records have been kept
NOTE: Programming jobs in the USA are expected to shrink in 2019 ( -21,300 ) so it is incorrect to look at IT industry as a potential compensating industry for manufacturing layoffs. ( https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/rankings/best-technology-jobs )
Feb 11, 2019 | www.bloomberg.com
President Bill Clinton claimed at a forum in 1998 that his grandmother was "one-quarter Cherokee." The assertion, from a politician with a not-always-sterling reputation for truthfulness, went unheralded.
Clinton's mother had earlier been described, in a 1992 article , as a "descendant of Irish farmers and Cherokee Indians." The genealogical receipts were never in evidence. But families have their stories; few seemed to care one way or another.
They do now.
Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren is one of the most talented politicians in the nation and one of the most important policy leaders in her party. She has superb communication skills, including the ability to distill complex class and economic dynamics into compelling, comprehensible rhetoric . She is extremely smart. She might make a fine nominee, even president.
She also can't seem to shake a political problem that posed no noticeable discomfort to Clinton.
The latest installment -- it seems there may be more -- was the unearthing of an apparently not-so-confidential Texas state bar form that Warren filled out three decades ago when she was a law professor at the University of Texas. On the form she wrote her race as "American Indian."
The discovery follows her recent release of a report she commissioned on her DNA that was occasioned by previous controversy about her claims to American Indian ancestry.
Many people find the storm over Warren ridiculous. And they have reason. At a time when the president of the United States makes regular and open appeals to bigotry, harping on Warren's minor identity foibles seems absurd. Warren is not calling Mexicans rapists. She's not caricaturing black neighborhoods as savage war zones where you can't walk down the street without being shot. She has sexually assaulted no one.
Nor did Warren dress in blackface at a time when anyone mindful of history, or even mildly conscious of contemporary American society outside the confines of a creepy college fraternity, understood it to be an act of social barbarism.
The Boston Globe reported that Warren gained no career benefit from her self-designation. "At every step of her remarkable rise in the legal profession, the people responsible for hiring her saw her as a white woman," the Globe reported.
Regarding the Texas bar form, Brian Beutler tweeted , "The fact that she made the claim on a form that was meant to be unlogged and confidential actually underscores her point that she identified as she did out of sincere belief."
Warren is 69. Over the years, she has surely mentioned her Indian affinity many times -- contributing recipes in the 1980s, for example, to "Pow Wow Chow: A Collection of Recipes from Families of the Five Civilized Tribes" -- without social awkwardness or professional consequence.
Warren also grew up in Oklahoma, a state created from Indian Territory. "I think what Warren has done in identifying as American Indian -- and particularly as a Cherokee -- is very Oklahoman," said Circe Sturm, author of " Becoming Indian: The Struggle over Cherokee Identity in the 21st Century. "
Blue-eyed Indians are too common to be political fodder in Oklahoma. "In Oklahoma, you have plenty of native people who look white but have native ancestry or tribal citizenship," Sturm said in a telephone interview.
There was a time when Elvis Presley could grab a piece of "race music" and exploit it for fame and fortune in the white mainstream. Three decades ago, Warren perhaps thought she was respectfully identifying with a brutalized minority, or just imagining herself as the person she thought she was, or wanted to be. You didn't need malicious intent, or a desire to game racial classifications, to want to stretch the bounds of whiteness.
But as nonwhite Americans have gained more political power, cultural appropriation, conscious or otherwise, has become increasingly fraught. Complicating matters, tribal identity is a political designation, and Cherokees are wary of granting inclusion to any Bill or Elizabeth who purports to have an ancestor somewhere.
Historically, whites generally had greater freedom to try on new identities, and explore new social arrangements. Racial minorities had their identities assigned, and "passing" beyond rigid definitions was a perilous exercise.
Now the rules are evolving. A once-free, or at least freer, range of white identity is gradually being fenced by consequences, just as consequences have bound racial minorities to identities for centuries. A white frontier is closing.
One of the chief institutions grappling with this transformation, and driving it, is the Democratic Party. As a woman, Warren has benefited from the party's new openness to female power. But she's being buffeted by crosswinds on race.
Republicans and much of the GOP-allied media, active or silent partners in the Trumpist campaign to sustain white political, social and economic power, are rarely as gleeful as when attacking liberals who struggle to conform to the emerging norms that conservatives subvert. (The case of GOP House leader Kevin McCarthy's family, which has cashed in on dubious claims of Indian heritage, is curiously less scrutinized than Warren's predicament.)
The mainstream news media, always eager to posit a Democratic counterpoint to the criminality and corruption swirling around Trump, may conclude that Warren's Indian issue is an offense so grave that it rivals substandard email protocol. The Democratic Party itself, testing its surroundings with multiracial sensors, may conclude that it has enough high-quality alternatives to Warren that it can afford to leave a star player on the bench.
That would be a shame. Warren is well worth hearing from. But it may also be the high price of progress. Democrats, after all, are the only game in town. Republicans, seated in the whites-only section of the bleachers, hurling insults at the players on the field, won't join in making social justice and empowerment a cause.
Being first movers into a multiracial, female-empowered century has given Democrats a strategic advantage and moral high ground. But the new terrain is often tough to navigate , as another quality politician, Senator Al Franken, discovered . The march forward can be unforgiving, leaving even good people behind.
profwatson Fish heads • 8 hours ago ,
"The march forward can be unforgiving, leaving even good people behind."
Concerning Warren, this silliness has gone on far too long. Everyone not firmly ensconced in the Trumpist base should just ignore it from this point forward. I'm originally from Oklahoma and can confirm that pretty much every family claimed some Native American heritage, usually in hushed, tittering tones. Certainly my family did, and I've told anyone who asked that I believe there's such DNA in my own ancestry. Is there? I don't know, and really don't care one way or the other. It's a family story, no more than that. Media - just let this story die, please. You've milked it long enough.
Concerning other more serious and offensive actions, such as offensive posts, blackface, and harassment, we need a reasonable balance, not pitchforks. Everyone does something stupid at one time or another, something offensive, something cruel. After all, we're only human. The hypocritical faux-outrage from the right should simply be ignored until they're willing to focus such outrage on their own. The equally passionate outrage on the left, however, needs to accept the inherent fallibility of human beings.
If Northam wore blackface 35 years ago, dressed up as Michael Jackson, did the moon walk, but has since acted to promote racial equality, what's the problem? Let the guy apologize and move on. If, on the other hand, he has a clear history and pattern of such behavior? Don't give him a pass. It all comes down to allowing people to outgrow their mistakes, to make up for them. If they fail to do so, then throw them out. But if we fire everyone who has ever made a mistake, we'll quickly run out of people to hire and fire.Mark Miller sirwhiskers • 17 hours ago ,
You can claim Indian heritage if you believe that you have Indian heritage. The EOC Dept can not require a DNA test from you because that would violate your right to privacy, according to the Supreme Court. Also, transgender self ID is recognized by the Supreme Court. Transgender, "I am a woman trapped in a man's body). There is also the transitory transgender.
On campus, we accept any self ID that a person states. It is all in the mind. If some months who feel Native American and other months Chinese, that is fine. You will get escorted off campus if you challenge that person's self identity by the SS(student security).
A British woman was arrested in front of her children and held in police custody for 7 hours after calling a transgender woman a man online.
Did they also use that (fake) heritage to milk affirmative action racial rent seeking?
I think I'll start checking "black" on the kids college applications as well. They can claim Aunt Lucy from Oldevai Gorge as our African ancestor. Yes, that famous Lucy. She got around ("she said her name was Lucy, but they all called her Loose").
Feb 10, 2019 | www.theguardian.com
Warren's official entry into the race has differed sharply from when she captured widespread liberal enthusiasm in her unlikely bid for the Senate seven years ago.
The two-term senator will join a crowded Democratic primary field with no clear frontrunner – and several contenders jockeying to claim the progressive mantle that she aspires to grasp. She has also found herself contending with a lingering controversy for previously identifying as Native American over the course of nearly two decades.
The question now is whether Warren, who moved early to build an expansive field operation in anticipation of her presidential run, can overcome early setbacks and reclaim her role as the Democratic party's top foil to Donald Trump.divider
Born to middle-class parents in Norman, Oklahoma , Warren has spoken candidly about how her family's livelihood was upended when her father's heart attack forced him out of work. Addressing crowds across the country, Warren often recalls how her late mother – determined not to lose the family's home – "pulled on her best dress" and got her first paying job at the department store Sears.
The job paid minimum wage and exposed Warren firsthand to the topics that would later define her career: the power of corporations and the effects of bankruptcy on the American consumer.
Her research in bankruptcy law – and the impact on the average person's medical bills, mortgage payments and other installments – led Warren to become a leading expert on the subject and rise in the academia world.
"These are the issues she still cares about," said Charles Fried, a professor at Harvard Law School who helped recruit Warren to its faculty.
"I think she is extraordinary for this reason, that she got into politics because she cared about some issues. She didn't get into politics because she wanted to be in office and then tried to figure out what issues she cared about."
Warren cultivated a profile as a populist firebrand against the backdrop of the Great Recession, earning the ire of Wall Street by spearheading the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – an agency established under the Obama administration as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill of 2010.
Upon being passed over to head the agency she helped create, Warren decided to continue the fight from within the government, embarking on a campaign to win back the late senator and liberal icon Ted Kennedy's seat from the Republican incumbent, Scott Brown, in the high-profile 2012 Massachusetts Senate race.
Roughly $70m was spent on the bitterly waged contest, which catapulted Warren to the national stage.Facebook Twitter Pinterest Elizabeth Warren speaks during day two of the Democratic national convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, on 5 September 2012. Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty Images
The race also saw Warren cement herself as a leader of the burgeoning progressive movement within the Democratic party; branding the choice before voters as "Wall Street versus you", Warren viewed the election as an opportunity to hand a major defeat to what she once dubbed as "the largest lobbying force ever assembled on the face of the earth".
Following her victory, Warren's profile grew so rapidly that speculation swiftly emerged over a potential White House run in 2016, despite the inevitability of Hillary Clinton's candidacy. A group of progressives even mounted a #DraftWarren campaign.
Warren, who had been sharply critical of Clinton in part over her ties to Wall Street, ultimately chose not to challenge her for the Democratic party's nomination and endorsed the former secretary of state's campaign. It was also during this time that Warren proved among the few capable of getting under then candidate Donald Trump's skin.
After Trump derided Clinton as a "nasty woman", Warren famously riffed: "Get this, Donald. Nasty women are tough, nasty women are smart and nasty women vote, and on November 8, we nasty women are going to march our nasty feet to cast our nasty votes to get you out of our lives forever."
The 2016 presidential election did not, however, produce the groundswell of unified opposition to Trump that Democrats had hoped for. Instead, it left the party in search of a clear leader to fill the void left by Obama's departure from the White House.
For Warren, it looked as though her moment had arrived.
In the early days of the Trump administration, Warren quickly emerged as the face of the Democratic opposition, matching the president's tweets with sharp ripostes of her own and holding his cabinet nominees to account when they appeared for consideration before congressional committees.
During the confirmation process for the former attorney general Jeff Sessions, Warren famously read a letter written 30 years prior by Coretta Scott King, in which the widow of Dr Martin Luther King Jr warned of Sessions' civil rights record from the time of his nomination for a federal judgeship.
Silenced by Republicans mid-speech on the Senate floor, Warren read the letter on Facebook Live. The hashtag #LetLizSpeak trended on Twitter and the phrase "Nevertheless, she persisted" was coined.
At the same time, Warren became a top target of conservatives and Trump himself. The president has repeatedly mocked Warren with the derisive nickname "Pocahontas" – including at an event intended to honor Native Americans.
Although Warren long ignored the president's taunts, she took the unusual step of addressing the issue head on in October by making public the results of a DNA test revealing that she did, in fact, have some Native American ancestry.
Rather than putting the topic to rest, Warren's move was rebuked by some tribal leaders, who felt it politicized their identity, and reignited the story.
Republicans first tried to push the notion that Warren used her Native American ancestry to further her career in the 2012 Senate race, homing in on a single questionnaire in which she claimed mixed ancestry.
An exhaustive investigation by the Boston Globe found no evidence that Warren benefited from doing so, and nearly every living Harvard law professor involved in her hiring has said it was not a factor in their votes to offer her a tenured position.
"When we brought her to Harvard, no one had a clue that she thought of herself as Native American," said Laurence Tribe, the school's professor of constitutional law.
"I think she's had an unfair rap," he added. "I don't think it's the case that she ever exploited her family's background or ancestry in a way that some people seem to think she did."
The Cherokee nation, one of the groups that was critical of Warren, said she privately apologized to to tribal leaders.
But the matter did not end there. The Washington Post published a story revealing Warren listed her race as "American Indian" while seeking a Texas bar registration card in 1986. Warren apologized once more, telling reporters: "I'm not a tribal citizen.
"My apology is an apology for not having been more sensitive about tribal citizenship and tribal sovereignty. I really want to underline the point, tribes and only tribes determine tribal citizenship."
Warren remains a popular figure in the Democratic party and was easily re-elected to a second Senate term in the 2018 midterm elections.
Even so, she received fewer votes in her home state than Charlie Baker, the Republican governor of Massachusetts, prompting Warren's hometown paper to urge the senator to reconsider a presidential bid.
"While Warren won re-election, her margin of victory in November suggests there's a ceiling on her popularity," the Boston Globe editorial board wrote. "Baker garnered more votes than she did in a state that is supposed to be a Democratic haven."
She's hard-edged, not personally, but ideologically. She takes very sharp and controversial positionsBarney Frank
"While Warren is an effective and impactful senator with an important voice nationally, she has become a divisive figure," the board added. "A unifying voice is what the country needs now after the polarizing politics of Donald Trump." Those close to Warren dismissed the editorial as having more to do with the personal biographies and inclinations of those who sit on the board. "She's hard-edged, not personally, but ideologically," said Frank. "She takes very sharp and controversial positions."
"So, yeah, they're going to be people who are unhappy with her."
More challenging for Warren, friends and former colleagues said, would be the task of distinguishing herself within a diverse field of Democratic candidates that includes at least three of her Senate colleagues and a record number of women seeking the party's nomination.
Warren's platform includes the single-payer healthcare system Medicare for All, debt-free college tuition and anti-corruption legislation designed to restore accountability in government. She is also poised to unveil a proposal that would impose a wealth tax on Americans worth over $50m.
Fried, who served as solicitor general under Ronald Reagan, said he disagreed with some of the more expansive economic policies touted by Warren. But her greatest asset as a candidate, he acknowledged, would be to approach the campaign with the same steely resolve to elevate the middle class that endeared her to voters seven years ago.
Although he is only occasionally in touch with Warren as she embarks on what will undoubtedly be a grueling campaign for America's highest office, Fried recalled recently sending Warren a lengthy article about capitalism and income inequality.
To his surprise, he received a response from Warren 10 days later. She had not only taken the time to read the article, but highlighted a portion that stood out to her. "How many presidential candidates would do that?" Fried asked. In her email, Warren also recounted to her old colleague how not very long ago they sat together on a flight discussing the prospects of a Clinton presidency. That day never came to fruition, Warren noted. "I don't know what lies ahead," she added. "But I know what I'm fighting for."
Feb 09, 2019 | -> www.theguardian.com
While controversy around her heritage lingers, voters call the Democrat's fight against economic injustice 'inspiring' On a cold, blustery January day in 1912, immigrant women walked out of the Everett Mill in the -> Massachusetts factory town of Lawrence demanding higher wages and better working conditions. Mill owners and city government responded in a swift and heavy-handed manner; local militias and police forces were called to the streets. Protesters died. Many more were arrested.
On a cold, blustery February day 117 years later, the Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren stood in front of Everett Mill -> to announce her candidacy for president of the United States , channeling the spirit of those women as she told her supporters that they were in a fight for their lives against a rigged system that favors the rich and powerful.
ss="rich-link"> Why women 2020 candidates face 'likability' question even as they make history Read more
"These workers – led by women – didn't have much. Not even a common language. Nevertheless, they persisted," she said. "The story of Lawrence is about how real change happens in America. It's a story about power – our power – when we fight together."
For Warren, who grew up in an economically struggling Oklahoma household and who first rose to mainstream prominence by handing out practical financial advice to American families, the word "fight" is central to her platform and political ethos – it was a word peppered throughout her speech.
But on Saturday, she made clear that hers was not just a fight against president Donald Trump, but against a system she described as one where the rich, privileged and powerful oppress the rest of the country.-> Facebook Twitter Pinterest Supporters in Lawrence, Massachusetts. Photograph: Brian Snyder/Reuters
"The man in the White House is not the cause of what is broken, he is just the latest – and most extreme – symptom of what's gone wrong in America, a product of a rigged system that props up the rich and the powerful and kicks dirt on everyone else," she said. "So once he's gone, we can't pretend that all of this never happened."
The backdrop of the mill, where the so-called Bread and Roses strikes originated, was symbolic. But so too was the choice of the modern day city of Lawrence, which is one of those places in America that has felt left behind in recent times. To many in New England, Lawrence is synonymous with crime, drugs and poverty. The Republican governors of Maine and New Hampshire have invoked the city's name when laying blame for the opioid crises in their states. As was the case at the time of the strikes, Lawrence is a working class city of immigrants, with a population that is about 80% Latino. It is a city where wealth is nearby, but out of reach for many.
Sebastian Brown, 31, moved to Lawrence five years ago. While he had yet to choose a candidate to support, he was excited by Warren's message and was happy Warren chose the town as the site of her announcement.
ass="inline-garnett-quote inline-icon ">
I think we need a woman president and I think it will be the fight of our livesVicki Ward, rally attendee
"This is a working class city. And I think her – and Bernie [Sanders] – are running on platforms that speak to the working class and how they're being screwed over by the rich and powerful," he said. "And I think she's a great messenger for it."
While there was optimism about Warren's candidacy at her rally, she enters an already crowded Democratic field amid -> r enewed controversy over her past identification as Native American.
For years now – since even before he was president – -> Trump has needled Warren on the issue , calling her "Pocahontas". He and others accuse Warren of falsely presenting herself as Native American to gain unfair advantages in life.
The controversy was re-ignited last week when the Washington Post -> published Warren's 1986 registration card for the Texas State Bar. In it, she listed "American Indian" as her race.
Warren has now apologised repeatedly for identifying as Native American, saying in recent days that she "should have been more mindful of the distinction with tribal citizenship and tribal sovereignty". She still maintains that Native American ancestry was part of her family's story passed down to her.-> Facebook Twitter Pinterest Elizabeth Warren called Donald Trump the 'most extreme' symptom of a broken system. Photograph: Cj Gunther/EPA
How damaging the controversy will be remains to be see. Warren enters a diverse Democratic field where other candidates belong to minority groups: New Jersey senator -> Cory Booker is African American ; -> California senator Kamala Harris was born to an Indian mother and a Jamaican father. -> Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is both the first Hindu and first Samoan-American member of Congress, and the former San Antonio mayor -> Julián Castro is Latino . When the Democratic race gets heated, Warren's portrayal of race could prove to be a point of attack.
Peter Devlin, a 56-year-old dentist from the nearby town of North Andover, said he was at the rally to hear what Warren had to say but said that the Native American controversy "is going to be a problem" for her campaign.
"I voted for her as senator, but I'm concerned about her electability," he said. "It's going to be a tough run. She's got a bit of baggage and she's so sort of cliche progressive liberal that I think there's a lot of America that's not up for that. But I want to hear what she's up to."
ss="rich-link"> Stacey Abrams on the ticket? Democrat's star turn fuels talk for 2020 Read more
However, other attendees, like 64-year-old Vicki Ward, who drove two hours to the event from Vermont, were ready to throw their support behind Warren on the first day of the senator's presidential campaign.
"I think she's got the qualities that we need," she said. "I think we need a woman president and I think it will be the fight of our lives."
Maryann Johnson, who came to Warren's announcement from New Hampshire, also said she was already sold on Warren.
"I basically agreed with everything she said. We need to have more equality, there needs to be less corruption in government," she said. "She's inspiring."Topics -> Elizabeth Warren -> US elections 2020 -> Massachusetts -> Democrats -> US politics analysis Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Feb 09, 2019 | politics.theonion.com
1. WHY DOES BOOKER WANT TO BE PRESIDENT?
Hopes it could finally be his ticket out of New Jersey.
... ... ...
Feb 06, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com
Christopher H. , February 06, 2019 at 01:36 PMhttps://jacobinmag.com/2019/02/trump-state-of-union-socialism
Trump Is Right to Be Afraid of Socialism... I think he's scared," said Ocasio-Cortez of Trump's socialism remarks. "He sees that everything is closing in on him. And he knows he's losing the battle of public opinion when it comes to the actual substantive proposals that we're advancing to the public." Given the remarkable popularity of proposals like Bernie's Medicare for All and tuition-free college and Ocasio-Cortez's 70 percent top marginal tax rate, she's probably onto something.
BY MEAGAN DAY
Insiders have suggested that Trump plans to explicitly run against socialism in 2020. In fact, in playing up the dangers of socialism, he may be positioning himself to run against Bernie Sanders in 2020. That would be a smart move, since Bernie is the most popular politician in America and could very well be Trump's direct contender in the general election, if he can successfully dodge attacks from the establishment wing of the Democratic Party in the primary.
Sanders's rebuttal to Trump's address gave us a preview of how he plans to respond to the mounting attacks on socialism from the Right. President Trump said tonight, quote, "We are born free, and we will stay free," end of quote. Well I say to President Trump, people are not truly free when they can't afford to go to the doctor when they are sick. People are not truly free when they cannot afford to buy the prescription drugs they desperately need. People are not truly free when they are unable to retire with dignity. People are not truly free when they are exhausted because they are working longer and longer hours for lower wages. People are not truly free when they cannot afford a decent place in which to live. People certainly are not free when they cannot afford to feed their families.
As Dr Martin Luther King Jr said in 1968, and I quote, "This country has socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism for the poor." What Dr. King said then was true, and it is true today, and it remains absolutely unacceptable.
In essence what we're seeing here is Bernie Sanders challenging the popular equation of capitalism with democracy and freedom. This is the same point Bernie has been making for decades. "People have been brainwashed into thinking socialism automatically means slave-labor camps, dictatorship and lack of freedom of speech," he said in 1976. This Cold War dogma swept the pervasive reality of capitalist unfreedom - from the bondage of poverty to the perversions of formal democracy under the pressure of a dominant economic class - under the rug. In a 1986 interview, Bernie elaborated:
All that socialism means to me, to be very frank with you, is democracy with a small "d." I believe in democracy, and by democracy I mean that, to as great an extent as possible, human beings have the right to control their own lives. And that means that you cannot separate the political structure from the economic structure. One has to be an idiot to believe that the average working person who's making $10,000 or $12,000 a year is equal in political power to somebody who is the head of a large bank or corporation. So, if you believe in political democracy, if you believe in equality, you have to believe in economic democracy as well.
For more than four decades, Bernie made these points to relatively small audiences. In 2016, everything changed, and he now makes them to an audience of millions.
The rise of neoliberalism and the fall of the Soviet Union relieved the capitalist state's elite of the need to keep shoring up the equation between capitalism and freedom. Capitalists and their ideology had triumphed, hegemony was theirs, and socialism was no real threat, a foggy memory of a distant era. But forty years of stagnating wages, rising living costs, and intermittent chaos caused by capitalist economic crisis remade the world - slowly, and then all at once. When Bernie Sanders finally took socialist class politics to the national stage three years ago, people were willing to listen.
Bernie has been so successful at changing the conversation that the President now feels obligated to regurgitate Cold War nostrums about socialism and unfreedom to a new generation.
Good, let him. Each apocalyptic admonition is an opportunity for Bernie, and the rest of us socialists, to articulate a different perspective, one in which freedom and democracy are elusive at present but achievable through a society-wide commitment to economic and social equality. We will only escape "coercion, domination, and control" when we structure society to prioritize the well-being of the many over the desires of the greedy few.
Mr. Bill said in reply to anne... February 06, 2019 at 03:29 PM
A lot of the opinion part of what Paul Krugman says, in this article, maybe, doesn't ring quite true, although I don't dispute the facts.
Poll after poll show that 75% of us agree on 80% of the issues, regardless of which political tribe we identify with.
I tend to think that the real problem is that neither the GOP, which represents the top 1% of the economically comfortable, nor the Democrats who represent the top 10%, are representative of the majority of Americans.
Frantically trying to slice and dice the electorate into questionably accurate tranches, ignores the elephant in the room, Paul.
Feb 06, 2019 | www.youtube.com
the op kingdom , 1 week ago (edited)FrozenWolf150 , 1 week ago
This woman had NO CLUE what she was talking about. She thought she was on a show that would just tow the party line and let her get away with wrong statements. She's just repeating what critics say with no idea of the truth. What a fool. As a woman, THIS IS WHY I WON'T JUST VOTE FOR ANY WOMAN. We are just as capable of being stupid as anyone else.Jeff Oloff , 1 week ago
Bari: "I think Tulsi Gabbard is an Assad toadie." Joe: "What do you mean by toadie?" Bari: "Oh, I don't know what that means." Joe: "Okay, I looked it up, and it's like a sycophant." Bari: "Then Tulsi is like an Assad sycophant." Joe: "So what do you mean by that?" Bari: "I'm not sure what sycophant means either." Joe: "I looked up the definition, it's like a suck-up." Bari: "All right, Tulsi is an Assad suck-up." Joe: "Could you explain that further?" Bari: "I don't know what suck means." Joe: "It's what you're doing right now."Joe Smith , 1 week ago
Bari Weiss is a tool of Zionist war mongers that promote perpetual war. She has no thoughts of her own.Nicholas Pniewski , 1 week ago
I hate Bari Weiss....I just don't why.Captain Obvious , 1 week ago
Tulsi also recently clarified her position of Assad and Syria on CNN, where she said she would have diplomacy rather than war
"Am I crazy?" -Bari Weiis Well Bari Weiis you're either crazy or you're a yet another worthless establishment shill whose job is spread deliberate misinformation about the most genuine anti-war candidate running at a time when the entire MSM, MIC, and the neoliberal rightwing establishment (including AIPAC) is deliberately smearing her to immediately kill her campaign. And you didn't come across as crazy so...
Feb 06, 2019 | sputniknews.comMonday to discuss current events, but things got embarrassing when she went in on Gabbard, a progressive Democrat whose foreign policy positions have turned more than a few heads.
Neocon NY Times columnist Bari Weiss smeared Tulsi Gabbard (who bravely opposed regime change and US support for Salafi-jihadist contras) as an "Assad toady," then couldn't spell/define toady or offer any evidence to prove her smear. Embarrassingly funny pic.twitter.com/m0MLaHFPiX-- Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 22, 2019
She has "monstrous ideas, she's an Assad toady," Weiss tells Rogan.© AFP 2018 / Timothy A. CLARY Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard Speaks the Truth on Syria, Gets Smeared by the Mainstream Media
When Rogan asks for clarification, she says, "I think that I used that word correctly." She then asks someone off camera to look up what toady means. "Like toeing the line," Rogan says, "is that what it means?" "No, I think it's like, uh " and Weiss drones off without an answer. She then attempts to spell it, and can't even do that. "T-O-A-D-I-E. I think it means what I think it means "
Rogan then reads the definition: "Toadies. The definition of toadies: A person who flatters or defers to others for self-serving reasons." "A sycophant. So I did use it right!" Weiss exclaims. "So she's an Assad sycophant? Is that what you're saying?" "Yeah, that's, proven -- known -- about her."
When Rogan asks what Gabbard has said that qualifies her as a sycophant, Weiss replies: "I don't remember the details."© AP Photo / Marco Garcia 'Assad's Mouthpiece in Washington': Controversial Dem. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard Announces 2020 Run
"We probably should say that before we say that about her -- we should probably read it, rather, right now, just so we know what she said," Rogan notes. "I think she's, like, the motherlode of bad ideas," Weiss then says. "I'm pretty positive about that, especially on Assad. But maybe I'm wrong. I don't think I'm wrong." It seems to us here at Sputnik that such claims should be made with a bit more confidence than this. So let's set the record straight.
Gabbard, who announced her presidential campaign on January 11, has drawn incredible amounts of ire from mainstream Democrats tripping over themselves for war with Syria because in January 2017, Gabbard met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and denounced the opposition rebels in the country's civil war as "terrorists."
She has also expressed skepticism about accusations that Assad's government has used chemical weapons during the conflict and spoken out against cruise missile attacks by the US and its allies against the country.© REUTERS / Omar Sanadiki US Lawmakers Call for Syria Strategy Where Assad Leaving Post, Russian Military Pulls Out
"Initially I hadn't planned on meeting him," Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran, told CNN's Jake Tapper following the meeting. "When the opportunity arose to meet with him, I did so, because I felt it's important that if we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their suffering, then we've got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a possibility that we could achieve peace. And that's exactly what we talked about."
"I have seen this cost of war firsthand, which is why I fight so hard for peace," Gabbard said. "And that's the reality of the situation that we're facing here. It's why I have urged and continue to urge [US President Donald] Trump to meet with people like Kim Jong Un in North Korea, because we understand what's at stake here. The only alternative to having these kinds of conversations is more war."
Moreover, in a March 2016 speech before Congress, Gabbard called Assad "a brutal dictator," noting that her opposition to what she called a "war bill" was over the legal ramifications that she feared would lead to the overthrow of Assad, which she opposes on anti-interventionist grounds.
"[T]oppling ruthless dictators in the Middle East creates even more human suffering and strengthens our enemy, groups like ISIS and other terrorist organizations, in those countries," Gabbard said at the time.© AP Photo/ J. Scott Applewhite House Democrats Will Expand Russiagate in 2019 to Push Trump Toward War
Gabbard has been thoroughly demonized for her pro-peace views by global liberal media, as Trump has been for his moves to end the war in Syria and avoid another on the Korean Peninsula. For example, The Daily Beast's article announcing her candidacy called Gabbard "Assad's Favorite Democrat" in its headline; a Haaretz headline from last week say she had "Tea With Assad," and the Washington Post has called her "Assad's Mouthpiece in Washington." The UK Independent called her a "defender of dictators."
It's not clear what Weiss had in mind when she called Gabbard a "sycophant" and a "toady," since the congresswoman's rhetoric about Assad has consisted of skepticism and opposition to intervention, and she hasn't hesitated to call the Syrian president a "brutal dictator." What Gabbard's treatment has demonstrated is that a Democrat who steps out of line from the party's pro-regime change agenda in Syria and who condemns Muslim extremists associated with Daesh and al-Qaeda should be prepared to suffer for it in the mainstream media.
Feb 06, 2019 | www.youtube.com
James Schuhs , 1 week ago
Amir Fahmi , 1 week ago
Tulsi is a threat to the status quo...watch the DNC torpedo her candidacy.
imnotmike , 1 week ago
Israel war strategy ~ Onwards American soldiers.
paul battenbough , 1 week ago
I trust Tulsi on foreign policy more than I trust just about anybody else. Some people don't like her because she won't just say that we should stop all military under any circumstances. She's been in the military. She understands the military. She understands that the military is not evil. Drones are not evil. They're just currently being misused. We need to cut military spending, but not eliminate it. We need to end offensive wars and withdraw from countries that aren't attacking us. But that doesn't mean we don't need a military and don't need to be ready to defend ourselves.
Troy Walker , 1 week ago
I'm from the Uk as soon as I heard Tulsi was running I got excited....a chance for real change and dismantling of the military industrial complex.....could it be?
The Centrist , 1 week ago
thats the military industrial complex's plan, to make enemies to keep them in business.
Limedick Andrew , 6 days ago
Why do you worship Bernie Sanders so much? What does he have that Tulsi Gabbard doesn't in terms of policy? May I note that Sanders is more pro-Israel and actually more for war than Gabbard is. It means something when it's coming from a vet who actually served and visited war-torn countries.
Daniel , 1 week ago
As a Trump supporter from 2016, this is probably the only Democratic candidate that I would seriously consider abandoning Trump over. The rest, I wouldn't give them the time of day - even Bernie.
That's nice. I always liked her, but I was worried about her military policy, good that she got rid of that doubt right away. Now we just need these people to actually follow through and not become another Obama with his "change" and "hope". Not that any of this is going to really make a difference or anything unless all the sycophants in the opposition suddenly dies, but it' still nice that someone seems to care.
Feb 06, 2019 | www.youtube.com
Tacet the Terror , 1 week agokamran5461 , 1 week ago
Sanders/Gabbard 2020 is the only non-"lesser of two evils" choice.Zero Divisor , 1 week ago
Now you see why the establishment really hates her.it's show buiness kiddo , 1 week ago
Tulsi Gabbard went to Standing Rock. She has my support.Voitan , 1 week ago
I wwant tulsi to defeat Kamala in the primaries. Kamala is a fake progressive and the establishment already coronated her. I can't trust her.malena garcia , 1 week ago
I'm voting Tulsi Gabbard. Uncompromising commitment to no more interventions and wars.Jurgen K , 1 week ago
I love Tulsi; her ad was great. She's the only dem I would vote for at this point. Kamala is an evil hypocrite. And Tulsi's right, love is the most powerful force in the planet.Jay Smathers , 1 week ago (edited)
Tulsi is hated by the establishment the most not Bernie , this is the reason I say Tulsi2020
FujiFire , 1 week ago
Wake up folks -Tulsi would not have run if Bernie was going run. Bernie will endorse her early on and she will have a much tougher fight than he did, because while Sanders caught the corporate establishment sleeping in 2016, they are now frightened and see Gabbard coming. They will use every dirty trick at their disposal to keep her from catching fire -and that begins with dividing progressives like us. Tulsi is not perfect because no one is perfect. But she is young, bright and fucking fearless compared to other politicians about putting the long term good of the American people above the moneyed interests who think they own our media and our government. This is why the establishment despises her more than even Sanders. 2020 will reveal weather or not we can retake ownership of our media and our government. That fight will require all of us - so Kyle get on the bus!D. Martin , 1 week ago (edited)
Tulsi is an amazing candidate in her own right, but IMO she would be a perfect VP pick for Bernie. She has the amazing foreign policy cred and would really shore up Bernie's weakest areas.rolled oats , 1 week ago
I remember Obama ripping interventionism too. And Trump.Wayne Chapman , 1 week ago
Tulsa Gabbard's ad doesn't mention the people who die in the countries we invade. That's 600k people in Iraq for example. A significant omission me thinks.madara uchiha , 1 week ago
The Aloha Spirit Law is a big deal in Hawaii. Government officials are required to approach dignitaries from other countries or states with the spirit of aloha. "Aloha" means mutual regard and affection and extends warmth in caring with no obligation in return. Aloha is the essence of relationships in which each person is important to every other person for collective existence. I think that's what we want in a President or a diplomat.David , 1 week ago (edited)
She's great and unique as she doesnt fall back to identity politics and sjwism as much as the standard left politicians. I hope she doesnt bend her ethics when the sjws come for her. I'm putting my trust in her. I hope she wins. And if she isn't in the race, i wont be voting.GoLookAtJohn PodestasEmails , 1 week ago
The question I would love her to address specifically is will her campaign focus on decreasing military spending like Bernie Sanders? She has a military background and the US loves war. This ad is good but it is tip toing around the MIC ( military industrial complex) She can be non interventionist but not decrease military spending is what worries meGeoff Daly , 1 week ago
This is why we need Gabbard on the debate stage. She will push the Overton window on revealing to the public what our military is actually doing overseas. She's also a staunch progressive. Bernie/Tulsi 2020. Their weakness match well with each other, and Tulsi was one of the first to jump ship on the sinking DNC ship when Hillary got caught cheating being the DNC. Keep small donations going into your favorite progressive candidates to hear their voice. It doesn't work any other way folks.
Tom Pashkov , 1 week ago
Intervention isn't only an issue about morality. As Dwight Eisenhower put it (even though he himself was far from an anti imperialist), you can't have an endless stream of money dedicated to military endeavors AND a sufficient investment in domestic public priorities. This easily explains why we have increasingly decrepit infrastructure, increasingly worse performing education, increasingly worse performing health care, absurdly insufficient regulation between government and business (although the pay to play system certainly is the top reason) and a generally decaying public atmosphere. Beyond the fact that getting involved everywhere creates humanitarian crises, countless dead people, hopelessly destroyed countries, and so much more, even if other countries haven't in return bombed our shores from sea to sea, even if generally speaking those who consider not only the US but Americans the "enemies" haven't overwhelmed with non stop attacks, this non stop and ever growing appetite for more money for more war priorities has created the very decline we see in our country today. Until there is a change in priorities in general, these problems in the US will only continue to get worse.Jacob Serrano , 1 week ago
Gabbard for Sec. of Defense in the Sanders/Warren administration.Ny3 43 , 1 week ago
Man, Tulsi made me tear up. She's my girl. This message reminds me more of the message of Jesus than many of the fundamentalists. She's not even Christian, yet represents Christ very well. I love this woman.Gem Girlla , 1 day ago (edited)
Prepare for BAE, Systems, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and other weapons corporations and their bum lickers to launch a viscous smear campaign against her suggesting she's somehow a Neo Nazi communist anti Semitic islamophobic islamist.GiantOctopus0101 , 1 day ago
Tulsi 2020 she's saying some of the same things Trump said in his 2016 campaign. Unfortunately, he didn't deliver. Per the corporate Democrates, making America better is a bad thing.
Tulsi can actually beat Trump...if she gets the nomination. The wars are the elephant in the room, and whoever is willing to take that on full force, can win.
Feb 06, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com
im1dc -> im1dc... , January 29, 2019 at 11:14 AMLink to the above storyPlp -> im1dc... , January 29, 2019 at 11:14 AM
http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/news/see-the-question-that-brought-kamala-harris-to-her-feet/vi-BBSSy8BShe's perhaps just an updated Obama...
Feb 06, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
"Fauxcahontas " is never going to live this one down.
In a report published Tuesday night, just before President Trump started his State of the Union, the Washington Post revealed that it had discovered a document where 2020 Democratic presidential contender Elizabeth Warren, who was exposed by a DNA test that backfired late last year for having a negligible amount of Native American heritage, listed her race as "American Indian" on a registration card for the Texas State Bar in the mid-1980s.
The card lists Warren's name, gender and the address for the University of Texas law school in Austin, where she was working at the time. On the line for "race," Warren wrote: "American Indian." Meanwhile, lines for "National Origin" and "Physical handicap" were left blank.
As WaPo explains, "the card is significant" because, for the first time, it shows that Warren "directly claimed the identity."
One spokeswoman said Warren was sorry for "not more mindful of this" (presumably referring to the risks that this would all blow up in her face later in life), when she was younger, and for falsely identifying as a Native American for more than two decades.
"I can't go back," Warren told WaPo.
According to WaPo, the card, dated April 1986, is the first document to surface showing Warren claiming Native American heritage in her own handwriting. Her office didn't deny the authenticity of the document.
WaPo explained that it found the card through an open-records request.
Using an open records request during a general inquiry, for example, The Post obtained Warren's registration card for the State Bar of Texas, providing a previously undisclosed example of Warren identifying as an "American Indian."
The card was filled out by Warren after she was admitted to the Texas bar. Her reasons for joining the bar are unclear: Though, at the time, she was doing legal work on the side, the work wasn't anything that required her to be admitted to the bar. The date on the card coincided with her fist self-identified listing as a "minority" by the Association of American Law Schools, where she reported herself as a minority in the directory every year beginning in 1986 (the year the Association started listing minority law professors). Her name dropped off that list in 1995.
Warren also famously had her ethnicity changed to Native American from "White" in December, 1989 while working at UPenn, two years after she was hired. She also listed her ethnicity as Native American when she started working at Harvard Law School in 1995.
In a sign that Warren's listing herself as Native American may have been more an act of self-delusion than an attempt to give herself a leg up in the world of academia, the card explicitly states that "the following information is for statistical purposes only and will not be disclosed to any person or organization without the express written consent of the attorney."
Back in October, Warren's decision to release her DNA test results revealed that she had a negligible level of Native American heritage (possibly as little as 1/1,024 Native) while the stunt - which backfired spectacularly - angered leaders of the Cherokee nation, who, as WaPo explained, typically exercise tight control over the process of connecting individuals with the tribe. Warren's apology for that incident hasn't been uniformly accepted, and there are still some who want to see a more thorough apology from Warren.
Whether this is enough to sink her primary bid remains to be seen. But one thing is for sure: We imagine President Trump will be weighing in with some more prospective campaign materials.
PrideOfMammon , 28 seconds ago linkAugust , 7 minutes ago link
Warren is an insane carpetbagger. But that is practically the definition of an American.Dr Anon , 10 minutes ago link
An apology for being stupid isn't really required.charlie_don't_surf , 12 minutes ago link
How funny: on the 2020 ballot she identifies as the village idiot.chrsn , 19 minutes ago link
Now let's see obama's college applications that show he listed himself as a foreign student from kenya.Hugh G. Rection , 56 minutes ago link
I'm not that mad at her.
When you overemphasize and exaggerate identity politics beyond all reason, you're bound to get plenty of people playing these angles. She's already benefited from it, so too ******* bad.Insurrector , 26 minutes ago link
Hmmmm, makes me wonder again just why Obama sealed all his college records.....
Maybe he was embarrassed about that D- in Constitutional law, or maybe he claimed foreign citizenship
Obama graduated from Columbia University in 1983 with a degree in political science and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1991.
Trump graduated from the undergraduate school of finance and commerce at Penn (Wharton school), but he did not graduate at the top of his class or with honors. He did NOT graduate at the top of his class at Wharton undergrad or grad, as the Liar in Chief has frequently quipped. It is believed he was in the bottom third of the undergraduate class.
It is illegal under federal law to release any former student's records to reporters or members of the public without that person's specific, written permission. Obama hasn't released them, but neither have other presidential candidates released their college records.
Trump has not released his records from Penn either. But of course he is your Orange Geezus, so this is an inconvenient truth for you
Feb 06, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
istt , 3 minutes ago linkistt , 8 minutes ago link
This is one of the things I find so disingenuous about the Jews. On the one hand, they claim they are always the victims. On the other, they claim they are superior intellectually. They are a money cult and they promote one another shamelessly. And yet they have the balls to talk about white privilege. Talk about a red herring. My God.
But I digress...
And to think this woman writes for one of the most prestigious papers in the world. Or at least it was... What a total crap the NYT has become.
Feb 05, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.comJohnH, January 29, 2019 at 12:04 PMJohnH -> kurt... , January 31, 2019 at 07:34 AM
Litmus test for Democrats:
- Warren wealth tax
- AOC Green New Deal
- AOC 70% Tax
Polls show that Democrats overwhelmingly favor the two AOC proposals and probably the Warren proposal as well.
Problem is that the corrupt, sclerotic and comatose Democratic establishment (Pelosi, Schumer) would rather squelch such proposals, preferring to lose elections to endorsing and enacting them.
We already saw this with minimum wage proposals, where minimum wages were raised by voter initiative, while Democratic candidates refuse to endorse them and lost.
Democrats' mantra--'no, we can't.'Green New Deal, wealth tax, and 70% income tax are campaign issue made in heaven for Pelosi, Schumer, and party leaders...but they are nowhere to be found. They regard the proposals as politically unfeasible, because their handlers are staunchly opposed.JohnH -> kurt... , February 01, 2019 at 01:17 PM
Yet kurt insists that we shouldn't be critical of the corrupt and comatose Democratic leadership, even though they clearly don't represent the vast majority of Democrats. I mean, what's democracy for, if not to follow corrupt leaders in lock step?Fact free assertion: "Pelosi is supportive of a much higher marginal rate." LOL!!!Christopher H. said in reply to kurt... , February 01, 2019 at 02:34 PM
If the Democratic elite is so enamored of taxing the wealthy, why is it that the DCCC never manages to stand candidates who share that view?
kurt (as usual) is delusional...or is gullible enough to believe their words and ignore their action."Oh - Pelosi is supportive of a much higher marginal rate and welcomes AOC and has said so repeatedly so there's that."
Stop you're lying.
"You and your bretheren should double check your thoughts about Pelosi and Schumer - recognize the difference between political posturing and reality - and then check to see if what you believe has a real basis in reality or if it is just the bothsidism of the press providing you with the BS position of the right."
Follow your own advice. You lie constantly and are full of it.
JohnH -> kurt... , February 01, 2019 at 02:02 PMDemocratic perfidy on taxes dates back to JFK, when Kennedy (a plutocrat) starting cutting them on the his class. After that Tip O'Neill exacerbated the Democratic sell-out by embracing Reagan's tax cuts.Gerald -> JohnH... , January 31, 2019 at 07:55 AM
Pelosi is following a long tradition of Democrats who pander to the wealthy...behaving like Republicans but trying to make-believe that they represent we, the people.There are serious objections on the left to the Warren plan, one of which appeared yesterday: http://time.com/5516903/elizabeth-warren-wealth-tax-income-assets/ Tons of objections on the right, of course, to everything on your litmus test. :)JohnH -> Gerald... , January 31, 2019 at 02:11 PMSure, we should fix the income tax...but that largely leaves out established wealth...plutocrats who largely live off their rents.Mr. Bill -> JohnH... , January 31, 2019 at 07:47 PM
I pay at a rate of almost 2% on my house...France had a wealth tax...it can be done. Sweeping it under the rug, as Democrats love to do, only guarantees that it will be buried, the implicit Democratic position.
In any case, the income tax and wealth tax proposals are ideal for Democrats...if they want to win elections rather than simply pander to their wealthy donors.It is time for America to live up to it's hyperbole. There are two parties in America. The GOP represents the top 1 %. The Clinton Democrats represent the top 10 %.Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , January 31, 2019 at 08:14 PM
The unrepresented 90 %, pay the bills, fight the wars, and suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune.
Time for equality is long past due.A 50% reduction in the military budget would serve two masters. Firstly, it may force, a long overdue, economic efficiency on an out of control, wasteful monopolist, that has lost it's way. I'm pretty sure they can provide, at the least, the lame defense they have been providing, at half the cost. Secondly, with the savings, we can provide our citizens with health care, including dental.Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , January 31, 2019 at 08:19 PMOur military will scream loudly, like the despots they idolize. Luckily, we have a cadre of true American soldiers that can replace the corrupt dogs of war, currently in control.
Feb 05, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com
Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , January 31, 2019 at 08:22 PMIs anyone else tired of the longest, least productive waste of war in American history ? What have we achieved, where are we going with this ? More war.Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , January 31, 2019 at 08:31 PMWe are being fed a fairy tale of war about what men, long dead, did. And the reason they did it. America is being strangled by the burden of belief that now is like then.Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , January 31, 2019 at 08:46 PMBy the patrician men and women administrators, posturing as soldiers like the WW2 army, lie for self profit. Why does anyone believe them ? Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, each an economic decision, rather than a security issue.Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , January 31, 2019 at 08:48 PMAmerica is dying on the same sword as Rome, for the same reason.Plp -> JF... , January 31, 2019 at 07:28 AMCapitalists need their options regulated and their markets ripped from their control by the state. Profits must be subject to use it to a social purpose or heavily taxed. Dividends executive comp and interest payments includedJulio -> mulp ... , January 31, 2019 at 08:58 AMWell done! Much clearer than your usual. There are several distinct motivations for taxes. We have been far enough from fairness to workers, for so long, that we need to use the tax system to redistribute the accumulated wealth of the plutocrats.Gerald -> Julio ... , January 31, 2019 at 04:14 PM
So I would say high marginal rates are a priority, which matches both objectives. Wealth tax is needed until we reverse the massive inequality supported by the policies of the last 40 years.
Carbon tax and the like are a different thing, use of the tax code to promote a particular policy and reduce damage to the commons."...we need to use the tax system to redistribute the accumulated wealth of the plutocrats. So I would say high marginal rates are a priority..."Julio -> Gerald... , January 31, 2019 at 06:22 PM
Forgive me, but high marginal rates (which I hugely favor) don't "redistribute the accumulated wealth" of the plutocrats. If such high marginal rates are ever enacted, they'll apply only to the current income of such plutocrats.You merged paragraphs, and elided the next one. The way I see it, high rates are a prerequisite to prevent the reaccumulation of obscene wealth, and its diversion into financial gambling.Gerald -> Julio ... , February 01, 2019 at 04:48 AM
But yes that would be a very slow way to redistribute what has already accumulated.Didn't mean to misinterpret what you were saying, sorry. High rates are not only "a prerequisite to prevent the reaccumulation of obscene wealth," they are also a reimposition of fair taxation on current income (if it ever happens, of course).Global Groundhog -> Julio ... , February 02, 2019 at 01:39 PMWealth tax is needed until we reverse the massive inequality supported by the policies of the last 40 years. Carbon tax and the like are a different thing, use of the tax code to promote a particular policy and reduce damage to the commons.JF -> Global Groundhog... , February 04, 2019 at 05:42 AM
more wisdom as usual!
Although wealth tax will be unlikely, it could be a stopgap; could also be a guideline to other taxes as well. for example, Elizabeth points out that billionaires pay about 3% of their net worth into their annual tax bill whereas workers pay about 7% of their net worth into their annual tax bill. Do you see how that works?
it doesn't? this Warren argument gives us a guideline. it shows us where other taxes should be adjusted to even out this percentage of net worth that people are taxed for. Ceu, during the last meltdown 10 years or so ago, We were collecting more tax from the payroll than we were from the income tax. this phenomenon was a heavy burden on those of low net worth. All this needs be resorted. we've got to sort this out.
and the carbon tax? may never be; but it indicates to us what needs to be done to make this country more efficient. for example some folks, are spending half a million dollars on the Maybach automobile, about the same amount on a Ferrari or a Alfa Romeo Julia quadrifoglio, but the roads are built for a mere 40 miles an hour, full of potholes.
What good is it to own a fast car like that when you can't drive but 40 -- 50 miles an hour? and full of traffic jams. something is wrong with taxation incentives. we need to get a better grid-work of roads that will get people there faster.
Meanwhile most of those sports cars just sitting in the garage. we need a comprehensive integrated grid-work of one way streets, roads, highways, and interstates with no traffic lights, no stop signs; merely freeflow ramp-off overpass interchanges.
thanks, Julio! thanks
.!Wonderful to see the discussion about public finance shifting to use net worth proportions as the focus and metric.Mr. Bill -> anne... , February 03, 2019 at 08:15 PM
Wonderful. Let us see if press/media stories and opinion pieces use this same way of talking about the financing of self-government.Jesus Christ said, in so many words, that a man's worth will be judged by his generosity and his avarice.
" 24And the disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus said to them again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 26They were even more astonished and said to one another, "Who then can be saved?"
Feb 04, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Tulsi Gabbard Slams "Neocon/Neolib Warmongers" After NBC Propaganda Exposed
by Tyler Durden Mon, 02/04/2019 - 11:31 525 SHARES
Tulsi Gabbard lashed out at "neocon" and "neolib warmongers" after NBC News was exposed trying to smear her as a Kremlin stooge. The network was called out over the weekend for relying on a Democrat-run firm that created fake Russian twitter bots to stage a "false flag" campaign against Republic Roy Moore in the 2017 Alabama special election - New Knowledge.
To justify its claim that Tulsi Gabbard is the Kremlin's candidate, NBC writes:
"analysts at New Knowledge, the company the Senate Intelligence Committee used to track Russian activities in the 2016 election, told NBC News they've spotted 'chatter' related to Gabbard in anonymous online message boards, including those known for fomenting right-wing troll campaigns."
Only to be called out hard by journalist Glenn Greenwald:
After Greenwald fingered NBC for relying on New Knowledge - run by Jonathan Morgan (who also developed the technology behind "Hamilton 68" Russian bot-tracking propaganda website that refuses to disclose its methods) - Gabbard chimed in, tweeting:
"@ggreenwald exposes that @NBC used journalistic fraud to discredit our campaign. But more important is their motive: "to smear any adversary of the establishment wing of the Democratic Party – whether on the left or the right – as a stooge or asset of the Kremlin.""
She later added:
"As commander-in-chief, I will work to end the new cold war, nuclear arms race and slide into nuclear war. That is why the neocon/neolib warmongers will do anything to stop me .
Disturbingly, the Senate Intelligence Committee has relied on a report by New Knowledge on Russian social media election interference, while the firm has created a "Hamilton 68" offshoot, "Disinfo2018" referenced in the NBC article, which claims that three of the top URLs propagated throughout social media by Kremlin bots were about Gabbard.
In short; NBC relied on a known propagandist who created a Russian bot "false flag" to meddle in an election, who claims to track pro-Kremlin Twitter activity, in order to smear Tulsi Gabbard as a Putin puppet.
It's uncanny what lengths the establishment will go to in order to eliminate threats. For example, take a look at this Vanity Fair hit piece from Jan 30, which uses perhaps the most unflattering photo Gabbard has ever taken and starts off (emphasis not ours):
The presidential campaign of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, the renegade Democrat known as much for her chummy relationship with Bashar al-Assad as for supporting Bernie Sanders , is beginning to resemble the candidate herself: confusing, disorganized, and, according to Politico , falling apart. - Vanity Fair
One question remains; will Gabbard become a Democrat puppet like Bernie Sanders if the DNC colludes with their chosen candidate to cheat against her?
DFGTC , 1 minute ago linkfightapathy , 3 minutes ago link
Obey or die ... that's the ethos of the U.S. elite, these days ... Tulsi can't fight that.
https://soundcloud.com/daniel-sullivan-505714723/little-saigon-report-16-obey-or-die?in=daniel-sullivan-505714723/sets/little-saigon-reportfightapathy , 5 minutes ago link
I wonder if Ron Paul feels jealous that Tulsi is getting all the hate he used to get when HE ran for president on the peace platform?napper , 11 minutes ago link
I thought Social Security was "the third rail of politics" but obviously it is now "perpetual war". Anyone daring to touch it is going to be zapped by the corporate media, whose owners are likely majority stockholders of the military industrial complex.Omega_Man , 12 minutes ago link
Tulsi Gabbard for 2020 is not enough. You will also need a group of truly knowledgeable, experienced and courageous reformers to fill the cabinet. People who dare to take on the CIA, the MIC, and the pro-Israel lobby. People like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange ...Radical Marijuana , 14 minutes ago link
Orange wants to run against some crazy like Hitlery... easy pickings ... he can't win against a sensible person... mericans are tiring of orange... he may be one term if he doesn't deliver on ****.. just get some wall... cheap wall, any wall... move onmendigo , 15 minutes ago link
The term "neoliberal warmongers" is thus born ...
Yes, good to add that term to "neoconservative warmongers" because of the degree to which almost all successful politicians have become puppets of the best organized gangsters (due to the long history of the vicious feedback loops of the funding of all aspects of the political processes.) The false fundamental dichotomies and related impossible ideals associated with "liberal" versus conservative" are manifestations of the methods of divide and conquer, which methods are being pushed towards oblivion with their excessive indulgence in the demonization of Russia.
Welcome To The Wile E Coyote Phase Of American History:
- Alcohol Prohibition and the War on Drugs were insane &
- War on Terror was perhaps thousands of times more so,
- Demonizing Russia is thousands of times more insane.
All of those may be viewed as manifestations of "false flag attacks" whereby the ruling classes drive the people they rule over to fight against boogie men, in ways which therefore backfire badly, by causing the "blowbacks" which those "false flag" presentations of the "public enemies" were originally designed to cause!Rusticus2.0 , 24 minutes ago link
Running against the fake news is pretty effective. She's pretty effective at staying rational. She needs to establish a bipartisan core who will support her once elected. And some decent appointees. If she has family that she likes she'll need to get them in protective situation. And divest of any assets. I don't know why she would want this task - it's unwinnable.RKae , 16 minutes ago link
Tulsa Gabbard shares the same views on Israel that most of the world outside of the US hold ... that there really is zero difference between the apartheid South Africa regime of 3 decades ago and present day Israel.
With that said, there is fuckall chance of her ever getting either party's support.
Sad, because if America changed course on their blind support of Israel today, the backlash would be less extreme than what the future holds when Americans finally realize that they've been duped into supporting a pariah state.Rusticus2.0 , 8 minutes ago link
...there really is zero difference between the apartheid South Africa regime of 3 decades ago and present day Israel.
Yup. That would be the result when you're in the same region with a severely low IQ culture.
Now that the evil SA apartheid is ended, the natives are rising up and showing their sadism and hatred for all manner of civilization. They sing and chant about how much they want to "kill de white man!" But they have NO IDEA what to do once they've done that.
It's a failed state in the making, and it's happening FAST. If you wanted to horrify me by bringing up the wicked nasty apartheid of SA... Wow.Stuto , 24 minutes ago link
Ah, so they steal the land, put the indigenous people in "homelands" and then wonder why those same people are pissed ? I'm neither a black South African living under the Apartheid regime of yesteryear, or a Palestinian driven from his home; but I'm pretty certain that if I had been either; I would have been packing a AK47 and a limpet mine staking out the occupiers shopping malls.napper , 16 minutes ago link
Rabid dogs need to be put down.Omega_Man , 28 minutes ago link
Too bad, the rabid dogs are firmly in charge of the US government.Omega_Man , 24 minutes ago link
she could beat orange ... orange is afraid of her... so are the zio eliteTruthTeller360 , 25 minutes ago link
mericans voted for orange for certain reasons... health care, no more war... he is not delivering very well... too much time on the wall.. orange is sucked into the wall **** by dems...activisor , 28 minutes ago link
Japan has medicare for all. Doctors and nurses are paid by the government. You are sick.. you go to the hospital.. you get treated..and you go home. There is nothing wrong with that. If Japan can pay the doctors, if Germany, France, Nederland, Sweden, England, China, etc, can pay the doctor's salaries, why can't the USA?
Currently, they spent $50 billions a year destroying Syria. They spent trillion destroying Iraq. They spent billions a year maintaining a military base in Japan while Japanese foot the medical bills of its citizen. Don't you see there something wrong with this picture? If it's to deploy soldiers all around the world and kill people, we have the money. No one complains.
Yes, medicare for all. Every developed nations does it. And their citizens are not sicker than us. Some of the French, Japanese, German living here in the USA, go home to get treated when they have serious illnesses. They don't want the huge medical bills.
She appears to speak for a great many Americans who have simply had enough of war, poverty, and fake news.
Feb 04, 2019 | www.nytimes.com
America invented progressive taxation. And there was a time when leading American politicians were proud to proclaim their willingness to tax the wealthy, not just to raise revenue, but to limit excessive concentration of economic power.
"It is important," said Theodore Roosevelt in 1906, "to grapple with the problems connected with the amassing of enormous fortunes" -- some of them, he declared, "swollen beyond all healthy limits."
Today we are once again living in an era of extraordinary wealth concentrated in the hands of a few people, with the net worth of the wealthiest 0.1 percent of Americans almost equal to that of the bottom 90 percent combined. And this concentration of wealth is growing; as Thomas Piketty famously argued in his book "Capital in the 21st Century," we seem to be heading toward a society dominated by vast, often inherited fortunes.
So can today's politicians rise to the challenge? Well, Elizabeth Warren has released an impressive proposal for taxing extreme wealth. And whether or not she herself becomes the Democratic nominee for president, it says good things about her party that something this smart and daring is even part of the discussion. Advertisement
The Warren proposal would impose a 2 percent annual tax on an individual household's net worth in excess of $50 million, and an additional 1 percent on wealth in excess of $1 billion. The proposal was released along with an analysis by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman of Berkeley, two of the world's leading experts on inequality.
Saez and Zucman found that this tax would affect only a small number of very wealthy people -- around 75,000 households. But because these households are so wealthy, it would raise a lot of revenue, around $2.75 trillion over the next decade.
Make no mistake: This is a pretty radical plan.
I asked Saez how much it would raise the share of income (as opposed to wealth) that the economic elite pays in taxes. His estimate was that it would raise the average tax rate on the top 0.1 percent to 48 percent from 36 percent, and bring the average tax on the top 0.01 percent up to 57 percent. Those are high numbers, although they're roughly comparable to average tax rates in the 1950s.
Would such a plan be feasible? Wouldn't the rich just find ways around it? Saez and Zucman argue, based on evidence from Denmark and Sweden, both of which used to have significant wealth taxes, that it wouldn't lead to large-scale evasion if the tax applied to all assets and was adequately enforced.
Wouldn't it hurt incentives? Probably not much. Think about it: How much would entrepreneurs be deterred by the prospect that, if their big ideas pan out, they'd have to pay additional taxes on their second $50 million? Advertisement
It's true that the Warren plan would limit the ability of the already incredibly wealthy to make their fortunes even bigger, and pass them on to their heirs. But slowing or reversing our drift toward a society ruled by oligarchic dynasties is a feature, not a bug.
And I've been struck by the reactions of tax experts like Lily Batchelder and David Kamin ; while they don't necessarily endorse the Warren plan, they clearly see it as serious and worthy of consideration. It is, writes Kamin, "addressed at a real problem" and "goes big as it should." Warren, says The Times, has been " nerding out "; well, the nerds are impressed.
But do ideas this bold stand a chance in 21st-century American politics? The usual suspects are, of course, already comparing Warren to Nicolás Maduro or even Joseph Stalin, despite her actually being more like Teddy Roosevelt or, for that matter, Dwight Eisenhower. More important, my sense is that a lot of conventional political wisdom still assumes that proposals to sharply raise taxes on the wealthy are too left-wing for American voters.
But public opinion surveys show overwhelming support for raising taxes on the rich. One recent poll even found that 45 percent of self-identified Republicans support Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's suggestion of a top rate of 70 percent.
By the way, polls also show overwhelming public support for increasing, not cutting, spending on Medicare and Social Security . Strange to say, however, we rarely hear politicians who demand "entitlement reform" dismissed as too right-wing to be taken seriously.
And it's not just polls suggesting that a bold assault on economic inequality might be politically viable. Political scientists studying the behavior of billionaires find that while many of them push for lower taxes, they do so more or less in secret, presumably because they realize just how unpopular their position really is. This "stealth politics" is, by the way, one reason billionaires can seem much more liberal than they actually are -- only the handful of liberals among them speak out in public.
The bottom line is that there may be far more scope for a bold progressive agenda than is dreamed of in most political punditry. And Elizabeth Warren has just taken an important step on that agenda, pushing her party to go big. Let's hope her rivals -- some of whom are also quite impressive -- follow her lead.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram .
Yuri Asian Bay Area Jan. 29 Times Pick
Peter Wolf New York City Jan. 28
This isn't about taxing wealth. It's about taxing power, privilege and greed. This isn't about punishing oligarchy. This is about saving democracy. The concentration of wealth parallels the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it is economic climate change with consequences equally as dire as global warming on all lifeforms. The challenge will be no less difficult, replete with a powerful lobby of deniers and greed-mongers ready for war against all threats to their power and position. Their battle cry is apres moi, le deluge -- as if taxing wealth and privilege is barbarians at the gate and the demise of civilization rather than curbing cannibals driven not by hunger but voracious greed. Everywhere climate change deniers are being drowned out by a rational majority who now see the signs of global warming in every weather report and understand what this means for their children if we continue to emulate ostriches. Likewise, the same majority now sees the rising tide of inequality and social dysfunction and what that means for the future as a global caste system condemns nearly all of us -- but mainly our progeny -- to slavery in servitude to our one percent masters. Elizabeth Warren is no nerd. She's our Joan of Arc. And it's up to us to make sure she isn't burned alive by the dark lords as she rallies us to win back our country and our future.956 Recommend
Rich Berkeley CA Jan. 29 Times Pick
Warren's proposal- and her desire to try to actually explain these basic economic realities without dumbing them down- has put her at the top of my list for the Dems so far. I was/am a big Bernie fan, and Bernie is great with the big picture (it's Yuge). But Warren really knows the details and how to craft an economic policy. Trump will call her names (that's his specialty), and she will explain reality (her specialty).924 Recommend
DazedAndAmazed Oregon Jan. 28
@George, It's not scapegoating the wealthy. When I was born, the top marginal tax rate was 91%. This has shriveled, along with inheritance and cap gains taxes. This was not due to an act of nature: it was a series of conscious policy decisions and SCOTUS decisions that created the situation we face today. Great societal damage derives from wealth inequality -- think public schools, access to college, housing costs, and more recently, political influence. Those who have far more money than they need distort the economic and political landscape, to the detriment of the majority. Class warfare against the poor and middle classes must end. Reversing the policies that changed the US from having a growing middle-class of my childhood to the shrinking one my kid faces is simply correcting bad policy. It can't come soon enough.828 Recommend
R. Law Texas Jan. 28
I recently listened to a TED talk where Yuval Harari observed that capitalism beat out communism in the 20th century in large part due to the distributed decision making platform it provided that far out-performed what was available to the limited number of central planners in communist systems. It occurs to me that this same limiting dynamic of a restricted number of decision makers can occur in capitalist systems if wealth (and power) become concentrated. When just 2200 billionaires meet in Davos to choose the path forward for the rest of the 7.53 billion inhabitants of this planet (without their input) we can be assured that a series of sub-optimal decisions will have been made.787 Recommend
DBman Portland, OR Jan. 29 Times Pick
We'd add 1 more item to Warren's plan: Kill Wall Street's carried interest loophole.726 Recommend
JSH California Jan. 28
Elizabeth Warren is impressive. She has the passion of Bernie Sanders. Unlike Sanders, she has a deep understanding of the policy and mechanisms that can achieve that result. A plan to tax extreme wealth is brilliant and, at about $275 billion per year, will ease the budget deficit. As the Times noted, Warren also can talk expertly about subjects as diverse as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to net power metering. The political punditry is probably wrong about voters rejecting a too-intellectual candidate. (They seem to be wrong a lot lately.) Especially in contrast to Trump, voters hunger for someone who is passionate, smart, has their interests at heart, and is very well informed.661 Recommend
Anne-Marie Hislop Chicago Jan. 29 Times Pick
If amassing billions of dollars isn't a hoarding disease, nothing is. Who needs more than a few hundred millions dollars, anyway? Perhaps it would be less of a problem if the uber-wealthy didn't secretly try to get their taxes lowered. They also, like the Koch brothers, like to buy policy positions and elect politicians that hurt most of the rest of us. The Bill of Rights isn't meant to be a list of suggestions. A democratic republic isn't meant to be ruled by the wealthiest 0.01 percent of all Americans. When those with the money get to establish opinions as to what is and isn't too radical for this nation, all of the marching and demonstrating the rest of us do doesn't amount to much. Vote the Republicans out of office in the next election and keep voting them out until their number fit in the bathtub they would have liked to drown the government in. That's two or three, tops.597 Recommend
Bill Belle Harbour, New York Jan. 29 Times Pick
Yes. I remember a time when at least some of the rich viewed paying their taxes as "giving back" to the country which had been so good to them.570 Recommend
Mike Rowe Oakland Jan. 28
A small transaction tax on the sale of stocks and bonds that was proposed as a way to sure-up and expand social security and Medicare should be added to the list of higher taxes on earned income. Furthermore, the tax rates on salaries and wages should no longer be penalized with high rates so that the privileged who make their money from transactions can pay a favored tax rate that is much much lower than the rates paid by people who work. Please, Paul, write a column on what Teddy Roosevelt and FDR advocated. They were nearly a hundred years ahead of where Americans want us to be. Minimum wage, from the Roosevelts' perspective meant a wage that could support a family. It meant making enough for a family to take a vacation and put some money away to retire. They weren't contemplating a wage for teenagers when they talked about minimum wage. The Roosevelts wanted to see retirement security. They were advocates of legislation that prevented employers from ripping off the wages of their workers. Liz Warren isn't radical; neither is OCA, or Bernie Sanders. They are merely informed about our history and the trends around the world.554 Recommend
FunkyIrishman member of the resistance Jan. 28
We should use some (a pittance) of the $300 billion a year this proposal would raise on giving the IRS the resources it needs to actually enforce the laws already on the books, and to the prisons, to house tax-cheats like our "president".468 Recommend
Linda Oklahoma Jan. 28
''Make no mistake: This is a pretty radical plan.'' - Uhm No. A radical plan is not allowing any single person or family to even HAVE a billion dollars, let alone tax them @ a paltry 3%. A radical plan would be to do way with money altogether, and have all of us contribute proportionally and progressive into one single community, instead of having 26 people have the SAME wealth as HALF of the world's population. A radical plan would be to actually work together so that our species could actually survive, instead of destroying our planet, and us as an extension. I am really tired of people and pundit alike trying to box in people and ideas before they even get off the ground, because all it does is continue the status quo. Perhaps the point, I suppose...467 Recommend
Socrates Downtown Verona. NJ Jan. 28
I'm reading Susan Orlean's book, The Library Book. It's not just about the fire in Los Angeles but covers much of the history of libraries. If you love libraries, you probably know who Andrew Carnegie was. At one time, he was the richest person in the world. In middle-age, he decided to give his money away. He built 1,700 libraries for towns that couldn't afford them. I'm sure he had his problems and wasn't perfect. But, Carnegie realized you really can't take it with you and you can do much good while on earth. When I see rich people who only seem to care about showing up at premiers, jetting around the world, wearing different outfits every time they're photographed, and not seeming to care about all the pain on earth, it hurts. A certain billionaire bragged that not paying taxes made him smart. That means he's not paying to help the poor, the sick, the elderly, not paying for safe roads or safe water systems, not paying for the soldiers he claims to be so proud of. If these rich people were true Americans, they'd be proud to pay their fair share, proud to support the country that gave them so much. Happy to give away their money because they have more than they'll ever use. They won't be remembered for being rich. But look when you drive through small towns. More than 100 years after he gave his money away, you still see the name Carnegie on libraries across America.370 Recommend
Orthoducks Sacramento Jan. 29 Times Pick
Perhaps after being trickled on by Grand One Percent bladder fluid economics for 40 years, some of the Grand Old Peasants will towel off, turn over their Grand Old Plantation voter ID cards and give progressive taxation another chance in 2020. Perhaps after decades of slurping 'free-market' horse manure fed to them by Randian Republican sociopaths, GOP voters will stop buying a rigged right-wing rip-off that works hard to make them impoverished, sick and dead with no healthcare. Perhaps Republistan voters will concede that Bible study, an assault rifle, Hillary Hatred and forced pregnancies aren't worth a lifetime of minimum wages and an early funeral. The Grand Oligarchy Party has been pushing feudalism for 40 lousy years. All those American flags planted in front yards across the heartland have inadvertently voted for Moscow on the Potomac. Was that your Russian-Republican intention ? To be just like the Kremlin ? I don't think so. Turn off your FOX News Republistan-state-run TV. Turn off the hate radio. Learn how civilized countries like Canada, Japan, Western Europe and others take care of their citizens. They don't pamper their billionaires and multinational corporations with 0.1% welfare. They tax people more...and citizens get much more. No one in those countries goes bankrupt from medical bankruptcy; that's a uniquely Republican gift to the American people. Healthy taxes are the price of a healthy civilization, and Republicans can't stand civilization.355 Recommend
dajoebabe Hartford, ct Jan. 29 Times Pick
Let's be honest: there's a limit to how much wealth one person or even one clan can reasonably use, and it's way below $1 billion. The super-rich are not motivated by money. Many of them are motivated by power, and money is an important surrogate for power, but by no means the only We need to think about all the ways that the super-wealthy exercise power -- not just about money -- about which ones are harmful to society, and how they can be restrained or redirected.326 Recommend
Robert White Plains, NY Jan. 29 Times Pick
It's only a matter of time before the uber rich pay more in taxes. And when all the tired right-wing arguments about "penalizing people for being successful." and "socialism" get trotted out by the right-wing media echo chamber, there's a quick and decisive answer. The additional taxes (that have been there before and always should have been preserved) are the price of admission to a system that is the only one in the world where such vast sums can be accumulated with so little being required in return. Taxes pay for the roads, bridges, sewer systems, public protection, airports, seaports, armies, navies, court systems, research, health assistance, disaster relief, and future employee training and education of the society, to name just a few things. Having the middle class and poor pay for this disproportionately is absurd. And is unsustainable. People have to buy things, money has to circulate, or capitalism falls apart. Period.290 Recommend
BC New York City Jan. 29 Times Pick
Warren's approach could work, but persuading the public is another story. Every time Democrats want to raise taxes on the wealthy, Republicans claim Democrats are raising taxes on everybody. This has gone on for decades! Why can't Democrats get this point across without having it perennially hijacked?256 Recommend
Charlie Bronx Jan. 28
These potential changes in the tax law are important and, if enacted, will actually replicate what happened at the turn of the 20th century, when marginal tax rates started to rise dramatically, eventually landing in the 90% range in mid-century. That's when the middle class was truly allowed to come into existence. Accumulated wealth, it was learned more than 100 years ago, is not healthy for society in general. Personally, I would like to see a complete overhaul of the tax structure so that the earnings on the first 10K to 20K are not taxed at all. This would put much more money into the hands of people who, in the immortal words of Molly Ivins, would use it to go out and buy shoes for their babies.231 Recommend
Steve B Old Pueblo AZ Jan. 28
@Peter Wolf I know it's childish, but I'd love to see her start calling him Pinocchio.227 Recommend
ChristineMcM Massachusetts Jan. 28
Raising taxes on the super wealthy won't really hurt them. How about eliminating taxes on Social Security? That would be very popular with most senior citizens.223 Recommend
Gwen Vilen Minnesota Jan. 28
"And there was a time when leading American politicians were proud to proclaim their willingness to tax the wealthy, not just to raise revenue, but to limit excessive concentration of economic power." I believe it's only since the 1980s that taxing wealth became akin to killing one's newborn. That's when voo-doo economics started the mess we we're in, where every Republican administration then and since delivered tax cuts for the folks who needed it least. The latest abomination, the Trump tax heist, was, really the coup de grace. That the net worth of the 0.1% equal the bottom 90% of the entire nation is not only obscene, it bodes ill for our society. Of course, it's gotten even worse since Citizens United, because, greed feeds on itself, now that every wealthy family can buy some politicians. The fact that so many, even Republicans, aren't screaming their heads off makes me think that--like Medicare for All--a new wealth tax is not the anathema it once was. Maybe ordinary Americans are sick and tired of hearing corrupt cabinet members tell unpaid federal workers to just apply for a loan.209 Recommend
Fourteen Boston Jan. 28
Elizabeth Warren is my personal pick. Flashy she ain't. But experience, knowledge of government, the details of policy changes, and , most of all - integrity, she's got it in spades. Remember the kick back on Nancy Pelosi and how that proved totally unjustified? Same with Warren. This kind of experience, savy, and integrity is just what we need right now.202 Recommend
Mac Clark Tampa FL Jan. 28
What's so radical about having the ultra-rich pay back 2.75 trillion? They've stolen plenty more trillions than that.161 Recommend
Ray Zielinski Champaign, IL Jan. 28
Coming from Senator Warren, I find this is THE MOST EXCITING 2020 campaign proposal on the table. Senator Warren and her team of world class economists are serious and credible. It might take two years to understand some of these issues, but we are coming out of a four year soak in corruption and lies like we never knew. We need some all-American TLC. Senator Warren can help us recover our national mojo.158 Recommend
FunkyIrishman member of the resistance Jan. 28
@George The practical necessity is that we have crumbling infrastructure and are woefully behind the times in providing affordable medical care, secure retirements and quality public education. The alternative, is to take funds from the military - the other elephant in the room that remains strangely out of bounds in this discussion when cuts to "entitlement programs" are discussed. And further, what is the larger immoral situation: excessive wealth concentrated in the hands of a few or the inability of the richest country on the planet to provide a healthy, safe, well-functioning society for its citizens? And don't try the philanthropy non-starter - this reflects the priorities of the ultra rich, not the nation as a whole.140 Recommend
Truthinesx New York Jan. 28
@Yuri Indeed, and such a succinct comment. If we can wake up but a fraction of that 100,000,000 that sit on the sideline any given election, then we might have a chance. Keep the faith. (and vote)130 Recommend
Vink Michigan Jan. 28
I think Elizabeth Warren's time has come. Thank God. Trump has paved the way for smart, competent leader ship. And a woman no less.122 Recommend
stan continople brooklyn Jan. 28
The super wealthy should welcome a tax such as this. The alternative is pitchforks and torches which are actually a pretty good idea.118 Recommend
Bill Belle Harbour, New York Jan. 28
@Peter Wolf We have all these Democrats approaching the same issue from different directions, at different levels of sophistication, which is good. So long as they, with the kind cooperation of the media, are able to flesh out their case, the more people from varied backgrounds they will reach. It's great that we're already talking about such things relatively early in our interminable election cycle. In fact, any candidate who is not talking about tax policy, but instead is focused on "working across the aisle" should be immediately scratched off everyone's list. We've had enough of such pablum, where "bipartisan" is just a euphemism for being a good corporate stooge.108 Recommend
L'historien Northern california Jan. 28
@Steve B We can all thank Ronald Reagan for taxes on social security benefits. Taxing social security benefits was necessary to narrow the deficit he created with Trickle Down I. Trickle Down II (The Job Creators), and Trickle Down III (Ryan's Private Objectives) have followed with their own form of penalizing the little people.101 Recommend
Billy The woods are lovely, dark and deep. Jan. 28
Warren has excellent ideas that must be carefully explained to various groups of Americans who a very susceptible to Fox and other right wing pundits. She must stay on the offensive to be sure her ideas are not twisted by those who will be very upset with her message getting out. She will constantly need to inform and "teach" the underlying math to win over the group that will take the right wing click bait and Kool aid. It will be tough reaching this group but then again Warren is tough!94 Recommend
JK Central Florida Jan. 28
Fixing the consequences of ultra-concentrated wealth and power is going to take whatever it takes. It has to be done. When a cop arrests a person for resisting arrest, the person resisting doesn't really get much chance to plead that the world would be a better place for all if he were not in jail. It should not be left to the wealthiest among us to decide what tax they themselves pay. A tiny minority calls the shots as to the fundamental frameworks that underlie our problems. This has to change. Taxpayers bailed out the rich ten years ago. None of them went to jail. It's time to pay the taxpayers back.79 Recommend
Bill NW Outpost Jan. 29
@DazedAndAmazed Your comment makes me think of a book I found so interesting: Anand Giridharadas's book "Winners Take All -The Elite Charade of Changing the World". It has a ton of information, but the elevator description might be your last paragraph: "When just 2200 billionaires meet in Davos to choose the path forward for the rest of the 7.53 billion inhabitants of this planet (without their input) we can be assured that a series of sub-optimal decisions will have been made." Thanks for taking the time to post your perspective.78 Recommend
November 2018 has Come; 2020 is Coming Vallejo Jan. 28
@Bill -- The easiest. surest and fairest way to not only "shore up" Social Sec. is to do away with the cap on the SS tax so that everyone pays their fair share. Always thought that should be a simple fix-75 Recommend
Phyliss Dalmatian Wichita, Kansas Jan. 28
@Anne-Marie Hislop I agree, Anne - Marie. There was a time when being rich carried a responsibility to contribute more to the world than those with less; a responsibility to serve society overall, and one's country and community in particular. Also the rich were expected to have better manners and more discerning taste than those who worked because they had the free time to study and model grace and refinement. In addition, the wealthy were expected to be patrons of the arts, the sciences, and religion by contributing money and time to support practioners, research, and experimentation in these areas. Finally, the wealthy were expected to raise children who were role models, leaders, and volunteers who contributed emotionally and spiritually to their schools and communities. Compare Franklin D. and Eleanor Roosevelt to Paris Hilton or the tRump family.75 Recommend
Yabasta Portland, OR Jan. 28
Amen and hallelujah, and I'm an atheist. For those asleep or oblivious, we're in the new gilded age. But faux gold, as evidenced by the occupant sitting in the Oval Office. These " Job Creators " are creating Jobs only for shady attorneys and accountants specializing in creative mathematics, sham Corporations, Trusts and TAX avoidance. See: the Trump Family. What's the average, law abiding citizen to do ??? Absent actually eating the Rich, WE must overhaul the entire system. Warren is very nerdy, and very necessary. Unfortunately, the great majority of Men will not vote for any Woman, not yet. See: Trump. She would be a most excellent choice for VP, the back-up with a genius IQ and unstoppable work ethic. President ??? A modern day, working man's Teddy OR Franklin Roosevelt, and His name is Senator Sherrod Brown, Of the very great state of Ohio. MY native state. Think about it, it's the perfect pair.71 Recommend
Ellen San Diego Jan. 28
Good thing Bernie didn't propose this, because then PK would call it crazy on the merits, and impossible to get through Congress anyway.70 Recommend
Ray Zielinski Champaign, IL Jan. 28
@Steve B As a 70 plus woman, living in high tax California on a fixed income now, I dread tax time and always wonder why I pay taxes on Social Security, money I already paid taxes on once upon a time. Now I learn that this "gift" is thanks to Ronald Reagan, and of course am not surprised.66 Recommend
FunkyIrishman member of the resistance Jan. 28
@Peter Wolf I particularly like Elizabeth Warren's ability to talk policy. But as a career academic I also realize that she sounds to most like a law professor giving a lecture. Unfortunately, I don't think this is a winning formula but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.65 Recommend
Nana2roaw Albany NY Jan. 28
@Linda What an outstanding comment worthy of our pause. Thank you.58 Recommend
Gustav Durango Jan. 28
Yesterday a billionaire threatened the Democratic Party with certain defeat in the 2020 Presidential election if the Party chose a candidate not to his liking. Increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of a few will ultimately spell the end of our democracy.55 Recommend
michael lillich champaign, ill. Jan. 28
If there were ever a politician for our time, the second and more egregious gilded age, it should be Elizabeth Warren. She INVENTED the Consumer Financial Protection Burueau! She has studied the big banks and Wall Street for decades! She knows how they operate better than anyone on the planet. She is the Teddy Roosevelt of our time, but are we smart enough to elect her?53 Recommend
Ralph Philadelphia, PA Jan. 28
Good on ya, Liz! Yes. Big ideas. Bring 'em on, Dems. We're waiting.52 Recommend
George Minneapolis Jan. 29 Times Pick
My wife and I find Warren to be the most impressive candidate we've seen in a long time. She has the mastery of detail that can actually move our country to where it should be. No lazy demagoguery, either -- and she communicates well.51 Recommend
Bevan Davies Kennebunk, ME Jan. 28
The primary purpose of taxes should be to raise necessary revenues, not the confiscation of "excessive" wealth. Making the case for the moral and practical necessity to contribute more would be more effective than the tiresome scapegoating of the wealthy.51 Recommend
FunkyIrishman member of the resistance Jan. 28
Senator Warren's Plan is sensible and modest. Does that mean she is a radical socialist? Hardly. Just doing the work of the people.50 Recommend
andrewm L.I. NY Jan. 28
@RR I happen to live in one of those Scandinavian paradises. I, nor my family, have ever had a problem with ''care''. We also have higher education paid for through a moderately higher tax structure. (perhaps 10% average higher than the U.S.) I sleep like a baby and all is taken care of. (as well as 5 weeks vacation per year) You are welcome to visit anytime.49 Recommend
Joe Ryan Bloomington IN Jan. 28
@Shiv, the wealthiest 20% of Americans also have about 90% of the wealth (as of 2013, probably higher now). According to the Wall Street Journal, the top 20% in income paid about 87% of individual federal income taxes in 2018. But income tax is just a portion of tax. Personal income taxes were about 48% of federal revenues in 2017, payroll tax was 35%. Since payroll taxes are regressive, the top 20% of income tax payers pay a considerably lower percentage of total taxes than the percentage of the nation's wealth they control. Saying those paying more in taxes than they receive in direct benefits and services are 'paying all the taxes' is simplistic and deceptive. It isn't even accurate to say that they are completely funding the transfers and services to the bottom 50%, since the federal government operates at a deficit. The deficit is covered in large part by debt owed to the social security fund, which is funded through payroll taxes. When you include state and local taxes, it looks like the percentage of total taxes paid by each income quintile is not far off from the percentage of total income that they bring in. The tax system in the U.S. overall is 'barely progressive'. https://www.ctj.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2015 / https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/wealth.html https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-americans-will-pay-87-of-income-tax-152300700148 Recommend
Sclibrarian SC Jan. 28
We probably all remember the scene where Chinatown's detective, J. J. Gittes, asks the bad guy, Noah Cross, "How much are you worth?" And Cross says, "I've no idea." There are two take-aways from this. One is the low marginal utility of wealth at Mr. Cross's level. This is what makes the optimal progressivity of a wealth tax positive. But the second is the literal take-away: he really doesn't know. Nobody knows. So, as Prof. Piketty points out (pp. 518ff of his book), the value of even a nominal wealth tax in terms of transparency -- forcing the system to determine what the distribution of wealth actually is -- is substantial, aside from revenue generation. If we're going to give wealth a vote, via Citizens United etc., then wealth should at least have to register.48 Recommend
Ana Luisa Belgium Jan. 28
@Linda I wish I could "like" this x1000 times !47 Recommend
Fourteen Boston Jan. 28
@Robert As this op-ed shows, even a majority of Republicans ALREADY supports this idea. So the problem is not so much getting rid of the GOP's fake news, but having a voter turnout where the demographics of those who vote reflect the demographics of the entire population. In 2016, a whopping 50% of citizens eligible to vote, didn't vote. And the lack of political literacy among many progressives has certainly been a factor here. So what is needed is for ordinary citizens to start engaging in real, respectful debates with their family, friends, neighbors, colleagues etc. again, to make sure that everybody votes. Only then will we have more impact on what happens in DC than Big Money.46 Recommend
Umesh Patil Cupertino, CA Jan. 28
@Robert Here's how to simply and easily get the point across: a red hat with 70% on it.46 Recommend
roy brander vancouver Jan. 28
@DazedAndAmazed This is a superb insight you are providing....the 'critique' of Late Capitalism from the perspective of 'Systems Stability'. I work in the field of Distributed Systems Management though Cloud for Living. The way with Distributed Decision Making is, in a number of situations it is a lot more resilient and powerful. There are advantages of Command & Control decision making (war for example). But in Late Capitalism that concentration of Decision Making in hand of few has gone too far. To understand all this, to figure out the relevance of Distributed Decision Making, to articulate all this to masses and then to formulate sane policy proposals out of all that - that is not a simple task. So Sen. Warren, please continue the 'nerding'. I am Kamala Harris constituency, but the intellectual heft Warren is bringing to this campaign; I love that. She needs to bring her such big guns for a couple of marquee social issues as well as about America's Foreign Policy. Obviously, it cannot degenerate into 63 details policy papers like HRC. The trick is to make the campaign about few core issues and then there to 'have the house cleaned' - completely worked out theory, understanding, explanation and policy proposals. Hope E. Warren does that, she is capable no doubt. (Predictable election cycles - such a good thing with American System....for a while just to think and discuss things apart from the Orange Head in White House - it is so refreshing...)45 Recommend
Thomas New York Jan. 28
@Alice: It's new, in that this proposed wealth tax does not hit the $350 in the bank account of a waitress, as inflation does.43 Recommend
John B St Petersburg FL Jan. 28
J suspect that the notion that proposals to raise taxes sharply on the wealthy are too left-wing for American voters is wishful thinking or propaganda by the wealthy, on whom many pundits and analysts rely, one way or another, for their jobs. "It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." I don't know whether I agree with Warren on enough things to support her, but I hope this idea influences the Democratic platform and becomes reality.42 Recommend
Ellen San Diego Jan. 28
@Tom The current Republican Party is toxic – to democracy, truth, ethics, human health, human survival, equality, education, nature, love... most anything a decent person values. We can get rid of it and still have a two-party system of reasonable people who disagree on the best way to solve problems.42 Recommend
Rajiv California Jan. 29
@DazedAndAmazed I read somewhere that the Davos crowd was intent on speeding up the development of robots to do those jobs so they wouldn't have to deal with pesky humans who want an occasional break.42 Recommend
Bonnie Luternow Clarkston MI Jan. 29 Times Pick
As a person who has done fairly well, there is no end to your "needs" once your start getting wealthy. Let's take flying. First, you are happy to get a deal every now and then on a flight to Hawaii. After a while, you earn status, so now you want to be first in line, have baggage privileges and get into premium economy with an extra 5 inches of leg space. Then, it's enough status to "earn" business class upgrades. Next you have to have business class on every flight, so you pay up. There's first class, but now you can afford NetJets where you get fractional ownership of a jet to fly almost anytime you like. If you get even wealthier, you get your own jet with an on demand staff. It's "worth it" as your time is valuable. It goes on and on. Every time you get more, you can't live without it. You feel like you deserve it because you've worked so hard for that money. Knowing some of those super rich, they will complain about those fascist attacking their success. They "donate" a lot to candidates whose job it is to protect their wealth. While Warren's ideas via Piketty are really interesting, maybe we need to work on our culture and values so people understand what they are doing when they expect that jet with a staff that waits in them like royalty. Then let's invest in the IRS to stop the cheating that deprives our citizens of at least $200 billion/year. After that, let's look at closing loopholes and increasing taxes.41 Recommend
Peter Czipott San Diego Jan. 28
Until we get the money out of elections, the moneyed will control those elected. I'm not sure what our elected officials are more afraid of - meeting with their electorate and facing our anger, or voting against Grover Norquist et al.41 Recommend
R. Law Texas Jan. 28
During the primaries and the subsequent campaign, Democratic candidates should run explicitly and continually as new Teddy Roosevelts, using his words and images of him -- presenting the Democratic Party as the Roosevelt Republican alternative when it comes to taxation policy. It would reduce right-wing attempts to cast them as Maduros-in-waiting to pure late-night comic fodder: which is what they properly are. In fact, they should identify past Republican champions of as many of their policy proposals as possible and run as "Democrats: the Real Republicans."40 Recommend
Bruce Shigeura Berkeley, CA Jan. 28
@rtj - Indeed; but maybe Chuck will remember how Dem voters swarmed the polls last November, listen to AOC for a paragraph or two, and re-consider his knee-jerk opposition. Then again, these Are the dystopian post-Citizens United days, so Chuck's opposition is probably a given; maybe Auntie Maxine Waters could change his mind in a public debate ?39 Recommend
Thinker Upstate Jan. 28
Warren, Ocasio-Cortez, and Bernie have blown open up a discussion that had been locked down since Reagan -- tax the rich. Krugman is too timid. Time to radically redistribute wealth from the capitalist class to the people in the form of jobs and social benefits. Tax the banks and corporation to 40+% and end all tax incentives -- corporate welfare. Apple used its tax break to buy back stock to enrich investors. Facebook bought up competitors like Instagram and suppresses start-ups. A hedge fund bought Toys R Us, loaded it with debt, then bankrupted it. The right-wing turn of rural white Americans is largely due to economic anxiety resulting from the industrialization of agriculture and global commodification of grain -- all the profits leave farm communities for mega-corporations based in cities and Wall Street, as well as global capitalist de-industrialization. Americans on both the right and left believe the system is rigged, because it is. Warren's tax on personal assets is the first baby step. To win 2020, Democrats have to secure the vote of minorities, women, and Millennials, and peel off some white working-class voters. They have to fight for working people against the capitalists.34 Recommend
javierg Miami, Florida Jan. 28
@dajoebabe And we have to keep educating people, in large part at taxpayers expense, so they can continue to speak up as you have. The idea that everything, education, healthcare, prescriptions, housing, food, etc has to be on a max-out-profit basis is not sustainable for a decent society. If you look into the history of successful billionaire families who might profess that government should not be used to create equal financial opportunity, you may find that they have benefited from U.S. government policies themselves to get to where they are. So why prevent others from having the opportunity to join them ?33 Recommend
sdavidc9 Cornwall Bridge, Connecticut Jan. 29
@Linda A great comment reflective of those who in the past made this the great country it is. I only wish more were like Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren.33 Recommend
Glenn Ribotsky Queens Jan. 28
@Bill A small transaction tax on sales of stocks would not raise that much money. What it would do is much more useful -- put program trading and the arbitraging of tiny, tiny price differences on huge, huge trades out of business. The sort of liquidity they provide is not needed by the market and is not worth the price we pay for it.33 Recommend
White Buffalo SE PA Jan. 29
Absolutely agree with R. Law--the carried interest loophole has got to go. That's probably contributed more to the aggrandizement of oligarchical fortunes than just about anything else. But I'd also add two more modest suggestions: --Eliminate the cap on individual Social Security contributions. There's no reason it should fade to black at $132,900 gross annual income. It should be applicable to ALL earned (and unearned) income. --Institute a small stock trade/financial transactions tax; even a 0.1% rate here would raise significant revenue, and it also might curb a lot of wild equities speculation. But, of course, none of this is likely until we can get big money out of politics; it's impossible to get representatives to represent their actual constituents, rather than their oligarchic campaign funders, if the latter are the prime source of campaign money. So, as the risk of repeating myself: --Publicly funded elections, with low three digit limits on individual campaign contributions and NO corporate, organizational, church, or (yes, even) union contributions. No PAC's, 501's, or any other letter/number combinations. --Reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. --Legislative repeal of the Citizens United decision.32 Recommend
Roger California Jan. 29
@Tom "Wealthy people reinvest their money in economic ventures that grow their wealth, which generates greater productivity while creating jobs and wealth for the society." Like, for example, the investments that caused the 2008 Republican Great Recession for example? That plan hasn't worked since Reagan. And taxing 2%-3% of enormous wealth is hardly taking away "all the wealth of individuals!" We also need to roll back estate tax to pre-Reagan policies.32 Recommend
sdavidc9 Cornwall Bridge, Connecticut Jan. 29
@George The moral and practical necessity is that oligarchy is antithetical to democracy. I would think that was obvious.31 Recommend
Ed Kalispell, MT Jan. 28
@Tom So businessmen and financiers need checks and balances, and these checks and balances include high taxation and occasionally breaking a business into pieces because it is too big and powerful. We broke up Rockefeller's company. We should be thinking about Amazon, Google, Facebook, and even Microsoft. We are using Word and Excel because Microsoft owned the operating system they run under, not because they were better products. Now we are stuck with their strengths, weaknesses, and odd habits.31 Recommend
calhouri cost rica Jan. 28
By all means tax the rich-but spend/invest wisely. No wars, aircraft carriers, or walls. Give every social security card holder $1,000/mo. and watch the economy take off.30 Recommend
Schrodinger Northern California Jan. 28
Boy do I wish I could share Dr, Krugman's hopefulness. But after the Supreme Court decision equating money with speech and one of the two major political parties literally a "wholly owned subsidiary" of those very 0.01%, as the ancestral Scot in laments, "I hae me doots."30 Recommend
Ana Luisa Belgium Jan. 28
@Blair A Miller....Rewarded for hard work and talent? Well that is the myth. There is a case to be made that capitalism rewards greedy and unethical people who have a talent for working the system. There is also no question that it rewards monopolists and the fortunate.30 Recommend
K D P Sewickley, PA Jan. 29
@Kurt Heck It doesn't. That's precisely why we have to stop the GOP strategy to pass tax cut after tax cut for the wealthiest all while making life even more difficult for the other, very hard-working 99%. And if you believe that in order to be a billionaire today you must work hard, it's time to update your info. Most of them inherited a fortune already, together with the knowledge needed to engage in financial speculation, which in the 21st century is totally disconnected from the real economy - or rather, they PAY experts to engage in financial speculation, and that's it. It's time for the most industrious to at least be able to pay the bills, get the education and healthcare they want, and become represented in Congress again. THAT is why we need a tax increase for the extreme rich, all while increasing the minimum wage, and expanding Medicaid and Medicare. THAT is how we'll finally become an entirely civilized country too. Not by adding trillions and trillions to the debt just to make the extreme wealthy even wealthier, as the GOP just did again.29 Recommend
Souvient St. Louis, MO Jan. 29
The NYTimes reported in October, "Over the past decade, Jared Kushner's net worth has quintupled to almost $324 million. And yet, for several years running, Mr. Kushner paid almost no federal income taxes." Let's not get lost in the details of how we do it: taxing wealth, making income taxes more progressive, restoring the estate tax, or something else. Let's remember that Jared Kushner is the poster boy for our current (extremely unfair) tax system.29 Recommend
Matthew Carnicelli Brooklyn, NY Jan. 28
I care about taxes and wealth inequality, so I like that Warren is talking about them. I'm also a bit of a policy wonk, so I like the fact that Warren focuses on policy issues. As a classically trained economist, though, I know how quickly others' eyes glaze over when I get too excited about anything related to finance or economics. The vast majority of people lack the patience for it. Too many think they understand far more than they really do because they read a handful of articles and watched CNBC a couple times. And when people believe they already know something, they're unlikely to greet new ideas with an open mind. A wealth tax makes sense to me on a lot of levels. I just hope Senator Warren keeps the explanation as simple as possible. For every wonk she wins over, she risks pushing two rubes away if she makes it any more complicated. It's unfortunate that we live in the Twitter era of gadfly attention spans, but we do. Dems need to do a better job of distilling their platform to bumper stickers. If they do that, the polity might actually remember some of their talking points.29 Recommend
Dpm U.S. Jan. 29
Win or lose, Elizabeth Warren will bring the lion's share of ideas to this presidential season. It's one to say that you support a trendy concept, but it's quite another to have thought through the implications of your proposals - and be prepared to first defend, and then implement them. Warren is, and will be - from Day 1. We shouldn't settle for "hope and change" this time; we need a President in 2021 capable of thinking her way through a maze of societal problems, and unafraid to passionately, untiringly champion her preferred option. Paul, as an aside, do you think that we would have lost the House of Representatives in 2010 if someone had opted for that much larger stimulus package that you, Joe Stiglitz and Robert Reich were recommending (thus causing the economy to more quickly and fully rebound in time for the midterms)?28 Recommend
JW New York Jan. 29
Also, when the MTR was 91%, the rich were still rich. So we shouldn't need to worry about them.28 Recommend
Barry of Nambucca Australia Jan. 29
Plus she isn't screaming and flailing her arms all the time.28 Recommend
HL Arizona Jan. 29
@Tom A 2% tax on wealth from $50 million to $1000 million, will have minimal impact on the mega rich, with hopefully maximum benefit going to those who need government assistance.27 Recommend
Zelmira Boston Jan. 29
@George- The primary purpose of Citizens United was to allow the wealthy a back door into stealing our public institutions and public contracts along with reducing the taxes on passive income for their own personal expansion of wealth. While I agree this is a form of class warfare, the rich have won the war. Instead of thinking of this as confiscation, consider it insurance for keeping your head up.27 Recommend
Taz NYC Jan. 28
@Charlie Brilliant--thank you!27 Recommend
ruth goodsnyder sandy hook, ct. Jan. 29
I could say, Where was Dr. K. when Bernie was talking progressivism, but it's water under the bridge. Onward... The Dem's center of gravity has moved toward dynamic progressivism so dramatically, so quickly, Clinton could run on her 2016 platform as a moderate Republican. Go get 'em, Dems! Make the smart, fair economic case to the hurting middle classes and you'll run the table.26 Recommend
Mencken California Jan. 29 Times Pick
@Charlie Love "Pinocchio". It is perfect. He needs to be made fun of. I think that would drive him crazy.26 Recommend
Ashleigh Adams Colorado Jan. 29
As any basketball player will tell you, go big or don't go at all.26 Recommend
hen3ry Westchester, NY Jan. 28
As Yascha Mounk has been saying for years, democracy isn't about a firm belief in the power of the people, or a belief in personal liberty - above all, its support is determined by one thing: whether it is delivering results for the majority of the population. If it doesn't, it loses support; and unfortunately, for decades now, it hasn't been delivering results. Even Obama, the great liberal hope, stacked his cabinet and advisors with the likes of Geithner, Bernanke, and Sommers, appointing people to the FTC who were too soft to trust-bust or aggressively tackle mergers. I am of the belief that Trump was a warning. We got him because ordinary people have been losing faith that the government is working for them. If we want to regain that faith, we need a government (meaning both an Executive and a Legislature) that is prepared to go full FDR in 2021. Trust bust corporations that have decreased power of workers by consolidating labor market, and the power of consumers by monopolizing goods and services. Expand social security. Cut the red tape to build millions of desperately-needed housing units. Take away the excess wealth of the plutocrats, and their political power. Expand voting rights. Make unionization easier, and healthcare more affordable by socializing it. Without this, we run the risk of losing our democracy. 2020 is do or die. Warren has a record of fighting for this. She has my vote.25 Recommend
martha hulbert maine Jan. 28
If the people who make their fortunes in America because of Americans don't want to support the country that helped them perhaps they should consider this: our sweat, our hard work, and our tears were a vital part of their success. It doesn't matter how brilliant the idea is or smart the inventor is or how cleverly the product is marketed. If the public isn't ready for it, it won't sell and money won't be made. There is a lot of luck involved in making a fortune. Part of that luck depends upon us and our willingness to buy into what is being sold. Yes, the inventor or the creator has to have the drive to succeed. S/he has to accept failure, work very hard, and have faith that s/he will succeed. It's nonsense to claim that Bill Gates would not have created Windows if he knew he'd be taxed at very high rates. He didn't know if it would succeed as well as it did. The purpose of taxes is to support the country. It's to have a government that can fund basic research to help us, create nationwide rules to ensure that milk in New York is milk in North Dakota, and to regulate those little things like roads, bridges, water safety, and keep the country safe. Any exceedingly rich corporation or person who doesn't want to support that is not patriotic in the least. They are greedy.25 Recommend
Acajohn Chicago Jan. 28
A pragmatic and sensible way forward, not to mention humanistic.25 Recommend
Mary Lake Worth FL Jan. 29
@FunkyIrishman I've been saying this for years! $100 million personal wealth cap would be ideal. Beyond that is merely obscene wealth.25 Recommend
Mark Cheboygan Jan. 28
@DBman I have thought about a Warren-Biden ticket, or even Biden-Warren. Every time I look at the US of today, what screams out is the hollowing out of the middle class, the stagnation of our class system, and ultimately the failure of the American dream. Monopoly is increasingly the normal order of our business world. Extreme wealth and extremely the large population of most of us just scraping by. Let them eat cake is sounding more and more stale.24 Recommend
Tom New Jersey Jan. 28
Make America Great Again. Repeal the Bush and Trump tax cuts.24 Recommend
Jerome Stoll Newport Beach, CA Jan. 28
@JSH The American Revolution was a revolt of American born property holders, not of the peasants or the slaves. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are both very strong on property rights. The rights of an individual to own property free from seizure by the government is at the heart of Liberalism. We live in a two party state. If we truly eliminated the Republican party we'd be no different than China. America only gets better if the Republican party gets better. The Democratic party could use some improvement too. I support Warren's tax plan. It's a reasonable and sensible move, not just a bunch of poorly thought out hot air.24 Recommend
Peter J. New Zealand Jan. 28
There was also a small flat tax proposed on the sale of each share of stock. Special treatment for gain makes no sense to me at all. Would people stop buying stock if it was treated as ordinary income? I doubt it.24 Recommend
Ellis6 Sequim, WA Jan. 29
This is but one in a long line of cogent reasonable suggestions to tax mega rich a little more. Unfortunately while the economics makes sense, these schemes fail politically because enough of the vast majority of much poorer people in the middle class can be convinced that there is something unfair by singling out the successful. The Steve Jobs story, whereby a poor boy with a great idea should be able to make tons of money. The only way a change will come is if the middle class' eyes can be opened to the fact that for every Steve Jobs there are thousands of Jay Gatsbys who inherited their wealth and privilege and who now spend much of their time and money ensuring that the laws are written so that they can keep their wealth. The inequity of the present laws, via tax loopholes and corporate subsidies to favour the very rich should be highlighted, showing the middle class how they are constantly being ripped off in order to fund the rich.24 Recommend
Tom New Jersey Jan. 28
There are polls and then there is reality. In Alabama in 2003, a newly-elected conservative Republican governor proposed a constitutional amendment to raise taxes on the wealthiest Alabamans. The measure was defeated 67.5%-32.5% with low-income voters opposing it by a significant margin. In Washington in 2010, voters defeated a referendum to impose a modest income tax on the state's wealthiest residents. (There is no income tax in Washington.) It seems unlikely that in the state with the country's most regressive tax system that 65% of the voters are wealthy. Despite language in the referendum that guaranteed it could never be applied to lower incomes without a vote of the people and a provision to lower property taxes by 20%, paranoia, not reason, ruled the day. It lost 65%-35%. Polling is easy. But when concrete proposals go to the voters, the wealthy interests overwhelm voters with fear and lies, and the voters, complacent and ill-informed, can be easily manipulated. Conservative Alabama and liberal Washington State both defeated measures that would have helped their state finances significantly. The money raised was to be spent on education, health care for the elderly and other radical things some of which would have helped the poor, but lower income voters cast their votes as though, despite their current conditions, they'd be subject to the taxes tomorrow or next month or next year.24 Recommend
WK Green Brooklyn Jan. 29
@Acajohn "Why isn't there one billionaire or multi billion dollar company that actually takes pride in paying their fair share?" Like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, the two richest men in America, who have pledged to follow Carnegie's example, and taken actions to do so?23 Recommend
Rockets Austin Jan. 28
@DBman - The notion that Sanders has no deep understanding of the policies that he champions is a stroke of common wisdom that is not very wise, as anyone who ever bothered going to he web site would find. In 2016, at least, it was chalk full of issues and positions with a long section on how it could be paid for. Krugman seemed to shun him for reasons that were never clear to me, but Sanders' proposals had the ear of quite a few economists. Even Krugman's crush, Thomas Piketty was intrigued. I'm thrilled that both Warren and Sanders are in this, and if the primary were today I could probably toss a coin. But I find this constant picking at Bernie Sanders and his "flailing arms" to be grating and uninformed. It's akin to asking him to just smile more.23 Recommend
Bejay Williamsburg VA Jan. 29
Would Jeff Bezos' life change one iota if he had to pay a billion dollars this year?23 Recommend
Jerry in NH Hopkinton, NH Jan. 28
Not just Roosevelt. "The consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property... Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." - Thomas Jefferson, October 28, 1785. "An enormous proportion of property vested in a few individuals is dangerous to the rights, and destructive of the common happiness, of mankind; and therefore every free state hath a right by its laws to discourage the possession of such property." - Benjamin Franklin, July 29, 1776. "All property ... seems to me to be the creature of public convention. Hence the public has the right of regulating descents and all other conveyances of property, and even of limiting the quantity and the uses of it." - Benjamin Franklin, December 25, 1783.22 Recommend
aem Oregon Jan. 28
Bring back the inheritance tax on large estates and we have a winner!22 Recommend
Tom New Jersey Jan. 28
Senator Warren should consider a few adjustments to her plan. First, tax capital gains income at the same rate as earned income. Eliminate the carried interest deduction and close some other egregious loopholes (including the new "pass through" income loophole). Finally, give the wealth tax a nine year period after which it would have to be renewed. Call it a "Patriotism Tax". Pledge to use it for infrastructure improvements and debt reduction. I think that could be very popular.21 Recommend
Mary Lake Worth FL Jan. 29
@FunkyIrishman That is a radical plan, one tried many times before. It fails because humans are not perfect, and not perfectible. They try to accumulate wealth and power, are jealous of each other's possessions and mates, and try to create circumstances that favor their offspring over others of the next generation. The fields of human evolutionary biology and psychology tell us that your plan can not and will not work. Not only that, countless Utopians have tried this in the past. Most fail within months, even with a small group of people who all supposedly love one another. All societies founded on the belief that humans are perfectible have failed. Societies founded on the belief that humans will be venal, corrupt, and power-hungry tend to have the safeguards that allow them to survive. That's why the constitution is full of "checks and balances". Don't think you can replace them with a society of peace and love where we will all live in quiet harmony. You can only replace them with better checks and balances if you hope to succeed. John Lennon's "Imagine" is a lovely song. But it's just a wish list, not a manifesto.21 Recommend
Acajohn Chicago Jan. 28
@Yuri Asian So well said!! Please go forth and yell it from the hills, from editorial pages, from any local setting. It is time.21 Recommend
Alan J. Shaw Bayside, New York Jan. 28
@Linda Yes, what kind of person, especially one with obscene wealth, prefers to keep every penny rather than pay taxes that make our country function? Why isn't there one billionaire or multi billion dollar company that actually takes pride in paying their fair share?20 Recommend
Laurie USA Jan. 29
@Yabasta Sanders said little about taxation. In his debates with Clinton, he advocated scrapping the ACA and starting de novo, whereas Clinton suggested legislation to improve it. Thanks in part to Sanders' attacks on Clinton, both personally and on policy, Trump got elected and the Republicans have tried in every possible way to destroy it. On this issue, will Pelosi and Warren follow the so-called progressivism of Sanders?20 Recommend
Mark Thomason Clawson, MI Jan. 28
@John Homan I don't get your criticism of Rajiv either. Rajiv know what he is talking about. The rich can never have enough; more is not enough. We see it all the time. We need to eliminate the dynasties and equalize the democracy.20 Recommend
Stevenz Auckland Jan. 28
Existing wealth and annual income are two very different things. Both are now problems. Existing wealth disparity is the accumulation of all the last 40 years of income disparity, plus the "work the money did" to pile itself up higher. Our laws magnified the wealth disparity. That was deliberate and calculated. Our laws allow it to pile up without the former taxation at death to trim it back. We charge only half the tax rate on the "work" of the money itself, the special "capital gains" rate. It is specially privileged from taxes, which is entirely new over these last few Presidential Administrations. It was said that would encourage job growth. It never did. Nobody who knew anything about the subject ever really believed it would. What is now proposed by Warren is to fix what they so deliberately broke. This would not come up if they had not done that first. And if we hadn't done this, we'd have had the job growth this stifled, from the consumer purchasing power it took to pile up as wealth, much of it speculative and overseas.20 Recommend
Charlton Price Jan. 28
Conservative voters are against taxes because *if* they get rich they don't want to pay them. As a liberal I, on the other hand, would be *delighted* to have to pay this tax!20 Recommend
Thomas Washington DC Jan. 29
@George Tax policy also should strive to assess from each taxpayer according to the means of that tax payer. Note the source of that statement of principle.20 Recommend
Eitan Israel Jan. 29
By all means let's tax the rich. But what I find most alarming is Kamala Harris's call for yet ANOTHER tax cut for the middle class. Every since the days of Saint Ronnie, Americans have been misled into believing they deserve tax cut after tax cut. And the result for the commons (those goods and services that we share) has been disastrous. Americans already pay lower taxes than most of the developed world. Yet the candidates are also calling for more benefits: Medicare for All and free college. The defense establishment continues to clamor for more resources. What we need is to increase taxes on the rich along with a robust tax enforcement system, so that Americans see that EVERYONE is pulling their weight, according to their means.20 Recommend
PB USA Jan. 28
Redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation is as American as apple pie. In addition to taxing wealth, there should be a significant estate tax on the top 1%. Getting rich is for many the American Dream, but that does not entitle the rich to endless wealth forever. Others should have an opportunity to take their shot.20 Recommend
Harry Thorn Philadelphia, PA Jan. 29
A couple of points: at the turn of the 20th Century (about the time that Teddy Roosevelt was railing against the rich), John D Rockefeller had more lawyers on staff than the United States Government. Rockefeller's net worth at that point (they had not yet broken up Standard Oil at that point), was $1 billion, at a time when the total receipts of the US Government were $700 billion. Krugman also mentions Piketty and his book. A central theme in Piketty's book, not mentioned here, was that there is no countervailing force that naturally takes us back to a more equitable distribution of wealth. That only occurred because the world suffered through two world wars, and a depression, out of which came a determination by FDR to use government as a countervailing force. And so it is not an accident that the Republican Party is trying to kill government because that is the only large, countervailing force known to be effective. Do we really want a world where a Jeff Bezos has more lawyers on staff than the US Government? Don't laugh; something similar has happened in the past.19 Recommend
Susan Anderson Boston Jan. 29
@George Instead of debating the issues, it's a cheap personal attack to label it scapegoating.19 Recommend
lzolatrov Mass Jan. 28
Elizabeth Warren is the real deal. I hate that we are focusing on 2020, but I'm with her all the way. She has spent a lifetime doing her best for all of us.19 Recommend
Quinn New Providence, NJ Jan. 29
@Alan J. Shaw You can't be serious. She didn't bother taking the time to travel to Michigan and Wisconsin (which both ended up narrowly going for Trump). She was too busy in the Hamptons with her uber rich friends. Come on!18 Recommend
Rick Morris Montreal Jan. 29 Times Pick
@dajoebabe For the last 40 years, we have had the GOP tell us that government is the problem and lower tax rates will supercharge economic growth. Now we have a nation with a superpower's army, third rate infrastructure, a porous social safety net and a mediocre education system. Granted that government cannot solve all problems (nor should it try!), but the evidence is clear that the effects of our disinvestment in ourselves is now coming to the fore. If we are truly at the point where raising the marginal tax rate on a very small number of households will cause economic collapse, then our capitalist system has failed and should be replaced.18 Recommend
Daniel Salazar Naples FL Jan. 29
Interesting ideas, but to get Americans (read Republicans) to swallow this whole is doubtful. Perhaps some marketing is in order. Let's not call this a tax. Let's call it a gift. High value households would give to the government agency of their choice (Social Security, Veteran's Affairs, EPA etc..), garner a modest tax credit as in charity donations, and as a plus receive a full accounting of how their money was spent by an independent auditor. Their gifts could be publicized on social media, thus generating the kind of attention that could generate higher and higher donations. Just a thought.18 Recommend
rtj Massachusetts Jan. 28
We could also use Teddy Roosevelt's anti-corruption and environmental values as well. I think he is one Republican completely disowned by the current Republican Party. While I do not believe Elizabeth Warren has any chance to be President, her candidacy will certainly force intelligent debate on the Democratic Platform for 2020. She will make a tremendous Treasury Secretary and break the Goldman Sachs stranglehold on that position.18 Recommend
John Kell Victoria Jan. 28
@R. Law She's have to get it past Chuck.18 Recommend
Michael Skadden Houston, Texas Jan. 28
Let's not stop with progressive taxes on the income and wealth of corporations and individuals. We need to ban monopolies outright, and limit the market share of oligopolies to something like 20%. And we should even limit the fraction of a corporations' shares (e.g. 10%) that can be owned by any one entity (corporal or corporate), and make privately-held corporations go public once they reach a certain size. There's a lesson we can learn from Mother Nature: "Too big to fail" really means "Too big to exist"!17 Recommend
Nancy Rhodes Ohio Jan. 28
Maybe Piketty instead of Teddy Roosevelt -but the rates for the wealthy should be higher, especially for passive income, to force the rich if for no other to avoid taxation to invest their money in the economy.17 Recommend
Steven Roth New York Jan. 29
@Orthoducks Koch brothers and others behind A.L.E.C. legislation my nominees17 Recommend
Osama Jan. 29
I'm a fiscal conservative and I think it's a great idea. I would love to hear what Warren Buffet thinks.16 Recommend
Elin Minkoff Florida Jan. 28
@George. "Poverty exists not because we can't feed the poor, but because we can't satisfy the rich."16 Recommend
David Henan Jan. 29
@Linda: Your comment is just wonderful, and gets to the crux of what is right, fair, decent, moral. Some super wealthy people will always be superficial and greedy, and others will always be generous, and have profound character and depth. People who are remembered with the greatest respect, fondness, reverence, and joy, are not those who have amassed fortunes, but those who have done what they could with their fortunes, for those who would never have fortunes. Or people who sacrificed for others, if not with their fortunes, then by other means. It is not desirable to be remembered for being selfish, greedy, and financially predatory like trump and his ilk.16 Recommend
Thomas New York Jan. 28
Aside from the fact that a a massive concentration of wealth is inimical to a functioning democracy because it inevitably leads to a concentration of power, if the tax code is meant to give incentives to productive behavior, what is less of an incentive to being productive than inheriting hundreds of millions of dollars? I personally knew an heiress from one of the most famous wealthy families of the 20th century; the name would be familiar. She was a good person, but a drug addict. So was her brother. No one needs to start life with a hundred million dollars. It's not healthy.16 Recommend
Ellen San Diego Jan. 28
@Yabasta: with both houses controlled by the extreme right wing it was definitely impossible.15 Recommend
Jan Schreuder New York Jan. 29
@Far from home I've been posting about (and smarting from ) Krugman's comment about Bernie's proposal for universal healthcare being "rainbows and unicorns" for some time now. It seems as if the NYT has decided that, for the sake of the future of the nation, there has to be some give, some sharing, some sense of the common good. Hurrah for that.15 Recommend
Balance FL Jan. 29
@John Coctosin tax and spend is what a government is for. Spending it on infrastructure as opposed to increasing the already bloated pentagon budget and not on a wall, would be preferable. And reallocation, so that for instance teaching becomes a viable career choice again, would be a very useful government task. I don't know whether mr. Coctosin ever worked in the private industry but if he did he must have seen a lot of waste. Though willful blindness is of course "so expected from" the right.15 Recommend
John B St Petersburg FL Jan. 29
@George "Conficatory taxes on excessive wealth" is a sin tax-a tax on greed. There is only so much money on person can use in a lifetime if it is to be more than a competitive status and power symbol and is not given back as an investment to build society and the future. The numbers-$50 million are HUGE. Anyone, with that kind of money who could resent paying 1% toward the future and toward society is simply, selfishly and sinfully, GREEDY! It's about time the excessively wealthy, who do not allow their wealth to trickle down as wages, or even trickle through the economy as investments for the benefit of society, are taxed because it has become apparent that only taxes will force them to let go of their wealth.15 Recommend
Chris Michigan Jan. 28
@thewriterstuff Trump making his tax returns public has nothing to do with IRS staffing. And yes, a better staffed IRS does a better job of catching tax cheats. (No idea why they never nailed Trump's father, though.)14 Recommend
PATRICK G.O.P. is the Party of "Red" Jan. 29
@R. Law - We also need to get rid of the stepped-up basis loophole.14 Recommend
Ana Luisa Belgium Jan. 28
Senator Warren is a scholar from Harvard, the premier seat of policy education. There are few Americans with her depth of knowledge and education being she was a professor there. If Warren says we should adopt that tax policy, we should. Congresspeople might be good at writing legislation, but people like Warren provides an exceptional policy to be codified into law. American trends away from expert leadership is destructive.14 Recommend
Duane McPherson Groveland, NY Jan. 29
@Gwen Vilen We will only have a government for the people if it's a government BY the people. That means politicians who REALLY are just like you and me, not always very charismatic, not always your ideal best friend, or a "savior", or common sense spiritual leader such as Michelle Obama, but instead people who flaws, all while being decent citizens, with a very clear moral compass, AND the skills and intellectual capacity to know how to design new, science-based law projects and how to obtain political agreements in DC without even THINKING of starting to stop implementing already existing law (= shutting down the Executive branch of government).14 Recommend
DJS New York Jan. 29
@Peter Wolf, Warren would be an excellent Cabinet member. But people vote for President on an emotional level, and I don't think Warren has that emotional charisma. It's excellent that she is running and running early, because that way she can set some of the parameters of discussion, which is what she's doing now.14 Recommend
Ken Tillson, New York Jan. 29
@JSH "Who needs more than a few hundred millions dollars, anyway? I'd settle for enough money be able to afford to rent a decent apartment on Long Island.14 Recommend
Jim MA/New England Jan. 29
Just how much money does somebody really need? The Bezos divorce is going to result in two people having "only" 70 billion dollars each. 1 billion, 10 billion, 70 billion; at some point, how can you tell? At some point, doesn't it just become a number?13 Recommend
Lizmill Portland Jan. 29
@Yuri Asian Best comment I have read on this subject, Thank you. It should be understood that the wealthy just don't care and are very un- American. Wealth in our society will equal slavery for everyone else and it has already begun. See the republican tax plan if you have any doubts.13 Recommend
White Buffalo SE PA Jan. 29
Tyrants like FDR and Eisenhower? Sweden and Denmark?13 Recommend
Nancy Rhodes Ohio Jan. 28
@Tom Two points: If you add the compound interest forgone on the amount paid in SS taxes I wonder if the calculation changes. The wealth of the over 65 group is very differentially distributed, just like wealth in general. Think what the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, the Walmart heirs and Warren Buffet do to that distribution. Just because Ellen is 70 does not mean she is participating in the relative wealth growth of the over 65 cohort you note. I imagine with few exceptions most very wealthy people are over 65, but that does not mean the reverse is true, that most over 65 are wealthy or even comfortable. For a large number SS is their main source of support, and rampant ageism makes it very difficult for even healthy over 65 years to find a job to supplement it. Taxing SS is a form of double taxation. People with high incomes could still be taxed on their income after excluding SS. Or, since you are so concerned about the people collecting more in SS than they paid in, taxation could start on all benefits exceeding that figure. (And you seem totally unconcerned with all the people who collect nothing or much less than they paid in. If you are worried about one group not being in balance you should be equally worried about the other group not being in balance. I am ok with both because I consider SS to be an insurance program. I don't pay income taxes on my insurance proceeds paid for by premiums on which I did pay taxes.13 Recommend
Miriam NY Jan. 29
@Phyliss Dalmatian This Ohio gal would like to see Sherrod Brown as President, with E.W. at his side. My favorite combo at this point of the run up to 2020.13 Recommend
Doug Keller Virginia Jan. 29
Robin Hood revisited, 21st century-style. The people both want and need it, and the disproportionate upper crust can afford it. What could be a simpler or more effective solution to the economic plight that is stifling a robust middle class? As the criminals in and about the Whitehouse have their days in court, who could deny the rationale behind such a restructuring of our Internal Revenue Code?13 Recommend
Jane S Philadelphia Jan. 29
The shutdown taught a clear lesson: people squarely located in the middle class (in this case, federal workers) cannot afford to miss a single paycheck. Add that awareness to the cluelessness of the wealthy who, with the attention brought to them by their position in the trump administration, put that cluelessness on full display -- and add the awareness that the trump tax break benefitted the wealthy only while saddling the nation with debt -- put those together, and we will find positive support for what amounts to a relative pinprick of sacrifice from the ultra wealthy, as proposed by Warren and likeminded Congresswomen.13 Recommend
Quinn New Providence, NJ Jan. 29
@George American public policy is designed to concentrate wealth at the top and impoverish the bottom. Progressive taxation is but one measure to correct the economic structure that results in death and destitution, even among fully employed workers. Health care for all and living wages are additional measures. Extreme poverty in America is a result of public policy which further enriches the wealthy. Course correction is a moral imperative.13 Recommend
CarolinaJoe NC Jan. 28
@Tom It's a giant leap to say that a 2% tax or a higher marginal rate is the confiscation of wealth. It's also a giant leap imply that only the very wealthy reinvest their money. Where do you think the dividends and gains in your 401K account go? They are reinvested! The key point is that many of the very wealthy have used their wealth and influence to change the tax code and other laws to their benefit. There is zero evidence that a lower marginal tax rate on the wealthy has any correlation to job creation, but there is a very strong correlation between lower tax rates and income disparity.13 Recommend
PATRICK G.O.P. is the Party of "Red" Jan. 29
@Yabasta It is way too detailed for Bernie. His platform lacked on details (numbers).13 Recommend
Duffy Currently Baltimore Jan. 29
Taxes are the necessary fact of a thriving civilization. When confronted by the trained mindset of anti-tax rhetoric issuing from a clone of selfish leadership, I simply say; if it were not for taxes, we'd all be driving on rutted dirt roads and dying young. Tax the rich so they survive the slings and arrows of discontent they created. They will thank us for it later.13 Recommend
JimB NY Jan. 29
@George I'actually tired of the rich scapegoating the poor. Like Romney calling them takers. The wealthy will be fine, don't worry.13 Recommend
loveman0 sf Jan. 28
I like the idea, although it may be very difficult to value certain kinds of assets and how they may have appreciated. For example, if the Republican Congressman you bought as a freshman goes on to win a Senate seat, how much would his value have increased?13 Recommend
Duane McPherson Groveland, NY Jan. 28
With the exception of one principle house, apply capital gains taxes to inheritance over $5 million at death.12 Recommend
Clyde Pittsburgh Jan. 29
@GP, You already pay a wealth tax, if you own a home. It's called "property tax". Why should the very wealthy not pay a property tax, too? But in the present condition, they do not, and can easily hide their wealth from view, and pass it to their heirs without paying any tax. Which just adds and adds to the concentration of wealth among the few.12 Recommend
John Quixote NY Jan. 29
Of course it makes perfect sense. Which is why those uber-rich people will not allow this to happen. They'll do everything they can to shut down Ms. Warren. It's what they do.12 Recommend
JMM Worcester, MA Jan. 28
@Yuri Asian Language is power- and you've got it! I nominate you for her speechwriter!12 Recommend
Wendy Maland Chicago, IL Jan. 28
If I were doing tax policy from scratch, I'd include both the Warren wealth tax, a progressive income tax culminating with the AOC 70% marginal rate, treat capital gains as regular income, eliminate the carried interest loophole, and investigate the taxing of all "non-profits" including religious and political organizations. I would replace the standard deduction and personal exemption with a universal basic income. I would reduce the military budget and provide at least a buy-in to medicare. Anything less that than, I don't consider "radical."12 Recommend
Patrician New York Jan. 29
If the Democratic party continues to do nothing to address the problem of the top .1 percemt owning 90 percent of American wealth, we are destined to sit idly by as the heartbreaking inequities and divisions of this country deepen.... and this means, too, that we will be doing very little to address the deeper causes of a certain kind of American desperation and violence. It's time to address the radically warped system with sensible countermeasures. This is, in my view, a moderate position that moderate, sensible politicians will promote. Doing nothing to address this enormous problem is the most radical position of all.12 Recommend
Socrates Downtown Verona. NJ Jan. 29
@Phyliss Dalmatian "The great majority of men will not vote for any woman"... Oh for heaven's sake: this is what a self-fulfilling prophecy is all about. The number one rule of power is: no one gives up power, you've got to take it. There's no point waiting.They told Dr. King to wait. Thankfully, he didn't. Otherwise, we would still be waiting. I like Sherrod Brown. But, what are his ideas and proposals? All the ideas are from Warren and she should get behind Brown - only because he's a man?! I'm losing my mind. We need to fight for what's right. Warren - Brown (in that order on the ticket) Other than that... cheers to you! :)12 Recommend
Judy M Los Angeles Jan. 28
@hm1342 I work and pay taxes and have done so for 40 years. I'm happy to pay taxes, not because I'm dependent on them, but because I realize a few things that make you uncomfortable: 1. No one does it by themselves; we all rely on others at work, at home and in life; we're part of society; we are not solo warriors on some mystical heroic island 2. Not everyone is as fortunate as I; I'm glad the poor, the disabled, the unlucky, the elderly, the uneducated and the unskilled can get a modicum of government assistance when their chips are own 3. Canadians and Europeans and the Japanese do not suffer from 'dependency' syndrome; they're hardworking people with healthy market economies who have decent government that regulate healthcare extortion and corporate extortion to a minimum; it's a pretty humane arrangement 4. Corporations and CEO's have been redistributing upward for about fifty years; 20:1 CEO:worker pay was the 1960's norm....now a 350:1 ration is common. 5. Tax rates for the rich and corporations have collapsed from the 1950's to 2019; the right-wing pretends they're high, but they're not. 6. America has the greatest health-care rip-off in the world at 17% of GDP; it's an international 'free-market' disgrace that no foreign country would touch a 300-foot pole because it would bankrupt them, just as it bankrupts Americans. Keep living in a 1787 time tunnel and see where it gets you. Or buy a calendar...and evolve.12 Recommend
Far from home Phnom Penh, Cambodia Jan. 28
Equality is the basis of society; it has always been close to my heart. Thank you, Paul Krugman, for standing clearly for economic equality.12 Recommend
Gini Green Bay, Wi Jan. 29
@Yabasta Thanks for saying this. It was my first thought too. No mention of "rainbows and unicorns" this time. Maybe I can go back to reading PK through the next election.12 Recommend
Duane McPherson Groveland, NY Jan. 28
@George The purpose of taxes is not only to fund public necessities, but also to encourage society to behave in a manner which is good for all of society. Thus, in World War 2 income tax was set quite high, to discourage consumption of scarce resources. It is not scapegoating the wealthy to have them pay a proportional share of their wealth to fund the public good, and to, in a small way, discourage inherited wealth. It is through our society that they are able to accumulate their wealth, it follows that they should have incentive to preserve and further that society.12 Recommend
rtj Massachusetts Jan. 28
I agree completely with a progressive tax on net wealth. Piketty proposed this in "Capital in the Twenty-first Century" back in 2014. I'm happy to hear that Elizabeth Warren has picked up the idea. The elegance of it is that it does not prevent the wealth-motivated from seeking high incomes and accumulating a lot of wealth in their lifetime. But it reduces the incentive to earn an ever-higher income, and it prevents the wealthy from creating wealth dynasties. And consider this: even a 90% tax on inherited wealth would mean, for someone who accumulated a $10 billion estate, that their heirs would receive a $1 billion inheritance as a grubstake. Not a bad start in life, if I say so myself.12 Recommend
Marvin Raps New York Jan. 29
@Phyliss Dalmatian "Think about it, it's the perfect pair." Can't argue.12 Recommend
rtj Massachusetts Jan. 28
Almost any tax measure to re-distribute wealth is appropriate in a nation that values economic justice. However, answering the question of just how people accumulate billions, while so many others struggle so hard to remain in place. First, it is necessary to dispense with the fiction that the wealthy earned it so let them keep it. No one person or one family EARNS billions. The hard work necessary to create wealth belongs to many hard working and creative people and to numerous public institutions that make its creation possible. Both are entitled to a fair share of the wealth they help to create. It is the laws and even traditions that allow one individual to CAPTURE and keep so much wealth. And those laws and traditions need to be changed. Start with a Living Wage plus full benefits for all workers and salary scales that are reasonable, not the 1:300 that some CEO's currently enjoy. End golden parachutes for retiring or even fired executives and tax unearned income at the same rate as earned income. Equal opportunity cannot stand without economic justice.12 Recommend
John Griswold Salt Lake City Utah Jan. 29
@Fourteen Ok, that was funny.12 Recommend
ADM NH Jan. 29
@George No, part of the purpose of taxes should be to counteract the normal power of capital that causes the formation of massive personal fortunes which distort the economy relied on by all. It's not scapegoating to try to put our economy back in balance, to curtail its division into the Main St. economy, currently starved by that wealth division so heavily favoring the fabulously wealthy, and the shadow economy of Wall St. gambling, commodity market manipulation, and asset ownership.12 Recommend
Robert Seattle Jan. 28
@Bill If you have a chance to talk to any low-income Repubiclan voters, make sure to tell them about the cap on social security taxes. Most don't even know there is a cap. Remove the cap and social security is solvent in perpetuity. It's one of the greatest scams ever played on the American poor by the rich. And very few who make less than the cap know anything about it.12 Recommend
Dawne Touchings Glen Ridge, NJ Jan. 29
Paul, it would be great if you could compare the revenue effects of this Warren proposal with the actual tax policies that were in effect during the Eisenhower administration. It seems that the progressive taxation rates of that era, topping out at about 90% marginal rates, should and could be the "gold standard" for comparison with current plans. The neolib/libertarian campaign, stretching back to those years and even earlier, has been wildly successful in brainwashing Americans with regard to both public finance and the link with tax structures. And the removal of controls on money in politics has us in a truly toxic environment that in my view has already tipped us into an oligo-klepto-plutocracy. The ravaging of all three branches of government has reached critical mass, and we're teetering on the brink in a way that may not be reversible.11 Recommend
Bill from Honor Jan. 29
Any candidate who is promising health care for all and a substantial response to climate change and crumbling infrastructure, has to be talking taxation of the wealthy either by income tax or wealth tax or both. Otherwise, they are just blowing smoke. Elizabeth has that combination in her platform.11 Recommend
Tom Miller Oakland, California Jan. 29
@White Buffalo It is a tragic commentary on the American political system that FDR felt he had to make a compromise with the Devil in order to gain the passage of progressive legislation. The situation continues today with the institutions of the electoral college and especially the US Senate, where the population of several small easily manipulated states can hold equal power to representatives of states with many times more people. In our times the circumstances often result in gridlock when the Senators from progressive states refuse to compromise with these who represent minority viewpoints.11 Recommend
Jay Arthur New York City Jan. 29
Warren Buffett and other billionaires who are socially committed should endorse Senator Warren's proposal and her candidacy. Let Trump call her names; she knows what she's doing and is truly on our side.11 Recommend
Laurel McGuire Boise Idaho Jan. 29
The national debt as a % of GDP was higher after WWII than it is now. Then we had three decades of prosperity along with a steady decline in the debt. How? High marginal tax rates. Since Reagan's election the debt has steadily increased, so that now it's almost as high as it was in 1945. We solved this problem before, we can solve it again. Warren and AOC are right on.11 Recommend
Paul Rogers Montreal Jan. 29
I don't understand why people talk as if increasing the responsibility of the very wealthy and discouraging stockpiling of well is som3 untried idea that would plunge America into chaos....we've had it before. No chaos involved.11 Recommend
Paul Rogers Montreal Jan. 29
@Yuri Asian: the two issues, inequality of wealth and global warming, are related. The vast wealth of the Koch Brothers enables them to drown out rational debate with propaganda. Propaganda must be abolished.11 Recommend
PATRICK G.O.P. is the Party of "Red" Jan. 29
@carl bumba They are not as bad as we think??? They are worse! Read "It's Even Worse than It Looks" by Mann and Ornstein.11 Recommend
mrpoizun hot springs Jan. 28
There is a very simple logic to focus on; The corruption of Republicans from campaign donations to legislation as directed by wealthy's lobbyists enriching their wealthy benefactors, to gross wealth inequality as a result, is overwhelming justification to get that wealth back to the nation through progressive taxation. Tax the wealthy before they export America's wealth. It isn't trickling down as much as trickling Up and Out of the country.11 Recommend
ivisbohlen Durham, NC Jan. 29
The idea that a couple of extra percentage points of taxes on fifty million dollars could be considered to be outrageous shows how radical the right-wing has become in this country. Someone who has that much income- I was going to say "earned", but it's the lower-class working people who earn it for them- would not even miss that money. And how much money can you actually spend in a way that makes you happy, or happier, anyway?11 Recommend
Ana Luisa Belgium Jan. 28
@Linda Wonderful post, but reminds me that I get sick every time I have to pass the Koch courtyard or whatever it's called in front of the Met museum. They get their names out there as 'philanthropists'. The ultra-wealthy are happy to get their names out for PR purposes. I notice the Koch empire has even started television advertising about how their wonderful companies create jobs.11 Recommend
bill washington state Jan. 29
@Taz In real life, Obama already increased taxes for the extreme rich, and Hillary's campaign agenda included additional tax increases. So this is merely a logical continuation of what Democrats have always stood for.11 Recommend
SAF93 Boston, MA Jan. 29
I've noticed two things that have happened in my lifetime. Many Billionaires and near billionaires have proliferated while at the same time social security has become more precarious and homelessness has exploded. And of course our overall national debt has dramatically increased. Nobody needs a billion dollars or even ten percent of it for that matter. Not sure if Warren's plan is the best but it would generate a ton of money to improve the collective good and it still wouldn't dent the billionaires much.11 Recommend
JW New York Jan. 29
I for one, would be happy to pay the extra taxes that Senator Warren proposes, should I ever amass over $50million in wealth!11 Recommend
Yuri Asian Bay Area Jan. 29
The downside to this proposal is that my newest Bugatti Veyron I was planning to gold-plate may have to be silver-plated instead. Worse, my tenth beach house estate I was planning on building on the island I purchased off Fiji may have to be scaled back to a bungalow occasionally rented out to cover the utilities. Oh, the pain. And forget about me trying a hostile takeover of a major media outlet I will not name.11 Recommend
CarolinaJoe NC Jan. 28
@FunkyIrishman I think Trump intentionally or inadvertently has destroyed anything resembling the status quo. It's the political equivalent of Newton's Third Law of Motion: that for every action in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction. Trump is the ugly face of unbridled power and privilege, leavened only by vainglory ignorance. He's the equivalent of melting icecaps and stranded polar bears when it comes to the concentration of wealth and economic climate change. His utter failure will be the rational majority's success in plowing a better and more equitable path forward. There's been nothing more radical than Trump. He's made radical solutions compelling and necessary. And inevitable.11 Recommend
FunkyIrishman member of the resistance Jan. 28
Hmmm. Sounds like no brainer to me. Surprised it would generate that much new revenue. Imgine what we could make better and more affordable in this country, health care, education, infrastructure....11 Recommend
CH Indianapolis IN Jan. 29
@RR (x2) Well now that we are slinging around insults ... (I will take your points one by one) I have gone to the doctor many a time and been out in about the same, while we pay nothing. Nothing for co-pays and nothing for prescriptions. Tax rates being 10% more are not criminal. Most Americans are NOT happy with their health insurance - costs going up too fast and bankrupting. If you want to cite something, then please do. This is also taking into account that ALL should be covered. (and not covered by the least effective and most expensive way possible in an emergency room) Uhmm no. The American worker is not 30 - 40% more productive and you cannot compare GDP from one country to the next and extrapolate from that. Fancier cars and bigger houses are not the rate to which you judge a society. Finally, there is the tired argument by those on the right that there are ''free things'' - no we all contribute progressively into a system where all benefit, and not just a small amount. You many try again.11 Recommend
Sherrie California Jan. 29
Prof. Krugman, why do you give credit to Elizabeth Warren's party rather than to Elizabeth Warren herself? Her party will deserve credit if they can get beyond the corporatists and nominate her. Otherwise, no. Last night on Lawrence O'Donnell, Sen. Warren explained how the wealthy have manipulated the system for years to accumulate more and more wealth. Their lobbyists persistently ask Congress for small, subtle changes in the law that benefit them. Because the individual changes seem minor, Congress often goes along, but, over the years, they add up to major benefits allowing the wealthiest to accumulate more and more assets. Billionaire Howard Schultz's ability to self-fund a presidential campaign and the Koch political network's efforts to make its own preferred policies exemplify another reason for taxing the wealthiest. They can and do use their vast resources to cause significant harm to the country.11 Recommend
Meredith New York Jan. 29
Watched Sen. Warren on MSNBC last night and she did well to explain her plan to us "regular folks," rare for a politician. Just ask Paul Ryan. This plan can work if we don't let Republicans lie about its benefits. Nail the Fox crew to the wall in siding with their uber rich boss Murdoch, who loathes the plan (I wonder why). This plan can work if it still contains tax break goodies for the 90%---all levels. We all have to join together and we all have different economic concerns. That's a fact. This plan can work if the public realizes it prevents tapping into Social Security or Medicare or cutting benefits. This plan can work if we can hear over and over again how the money will be spent on climate change, healthcare, college tuition, infrastructure, cyber security, and poverty, to name a few. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. This plan will work if they point to the Republican tax debacle giveaway of 2018 did NOTHING to help any of those problems but was a major giveaway to the rich who did not reinvest into the economy but cashed in instead.11 Recommend
johnj san jose Jan. 28
The ripple effects of more fair, adequate, progressive tax rates are huge throughout the society. Low tax rates and tax havens for the rich and corporations lets mega donors keep increasing their donations (investments) in our politicians and elections, thus their dominance over lawmaking. This effectively subverts our professed ideals of equality and citizen influence. It subverts our constitution, bill of rights, and the safeguards of our 3 equal branches. Big money values infect our executive, legislative and judicial branches. The S. Court legalized unlimited donor money (investments) in our elections, pretending that any limits would subvert the 1st Amendment's Free Speech. We see the effects on tax laws and weak regulations giving huge advantage to the donor elites. In effect they are regulating our govt.11 Recommend
Gene S Hollis NH Jan. 28
@Mystery Lits You are wrong in every argument you make. You don't live in isolation, you live in an organized society that makes your wealth possible. There would be no wealth in the US if we didn't have a functioning society, and there would be no functioning society without taxation and government functions. And "the rich" didn't go anywhere in the fifties and sixties when the taxation was much higher than today. Also these 0.1 to 0.01% that Warren is proposing to tax don't pay vast majority of the taxes, it's the upper 10% that pays the majority.11 Recommend
Ralph Averill New Preston, Ct Jan. 28
I agree that the tax rates from the 1950's were economically, fiscally and socially sound. Were it not a violation of the constitutional ban on bills of attainder, I would propose a more rigorous tax be applied to the Kochs and the Adelsons. When it comes to spending more on Medicare (which I interpret to mean more than the current 17-18% of GDP), however, we should not. I recently had a health problem while traveling in Germany. I spent 4 days in a teaching hospital (University Clinic of Bonn--UKB). Not only did I receive excellent care, which my American doctor told me was as good as any care available here, but the bill came to around $4300 (€3700). That included three diagnostic procedures. The Medicare-approved payments for the same care would have been about $28,000. Throwing more money down the bottomless pit of U.S. medical practice is futile. The proceeds of such a capital levy as that proposed by Ms.Warren would be better spent on addressing hunger, on infrastructure and on retiring some of the national debt11 Recommend
Meredith New York Jan. 29
A tax on significant accumulated wealth is past due. The same for inherited wealth. Apparently the hated "Death Tax" doesn't go far enough. Many self-made millionaires promote the benefits of pulling one's self up by one's boot straps. Why are they so adamant about denying the opportunity to their children? When Warren Buffett turned over much of his wealth to charity through Bill Gates, he was asked if he wasn't giving away his children's inheritance. Buffett responded, (paraphrase,) "My children have enough to do whatever they want. They do not have enough to do nothing." In my perfect world, it would be difficult to be very rich or very poor, and no one would ever go without.10 Recommend
Jose C North Gotham Jan. 29
Nice headline---Eliz Warren does Teddy Roosevelt--- who broke up the trusts in the progressive era. And Bernie Sanders aimed to do Franklin Roosevelt. Sanders had the quixotic idea to restore the New Deal. But he was soundly bashed and trashed by Krugman and most NYT columnists/reporters. Even if he wasn't their ideal candidate, his proposals should have been given the respect of serious discussion, like we now are getting for Ocasio and Warren. Do a compare and contrast on policy---Warren and Sanders. Interesting to see what we can learn.10 Recommend
Blunt NY Jan. 28
Speaking of billionaires, I just heard Howard Schultz on NPR trashing Warren's wealth tax plan. So what does this say? Even a so-called progress wealthy person really doesn't want to give up a scintilla of coin. I think the counter-argument, that increasing the income of the 0.1% with tax breaks, does not lead to significant increases in prosperity for everybody - the "lifts all boats" ruse. A recent article in the NY Times shows that this is the case. That is, yachts are being lifted, dinghies are getting shredded by their propellers.10 Recommend
Phyliss Dalmatian Wichita, Kansas Jan. 28
Ignoring the irrelevance of the Teddy Roosevelt comparison (hardly has anything to do with the rest of his article anyway), this is pretty good from a guy who did all he could to kill Bernie against Hillary. Bernie would have said pretty much the same as Warren then and probably would agree with the proposals now. So Dr K, good to have you back in the midst of the progressives and assume you had a lapse of reason for the past 3 or 4 years. Saez, Piketty and Zucman are fantastic. I am delighted the first two are helping Warren. Ps. All three deserve the Nobel Prize. At least as much as you did.10 Recommend
Dave Mineapolis Jan. 29
@Schrodinger He's the real deal. NO fake hair, teeth or a scintilla of hypocrisy. I'm sold.10 Recommend
Jack Mahoney Brunswick, Maine Jan. 29
What ever happened to taxing dividend income the same as regular income?10 Recommend
Barbara Iowa Jan. 29
I was disappointed that she didn't run in 16. She knows that large swaths of our population are under-educated, superstitious, and under the impression that their little arsenals will make a dent should their conspiracy theories that heroically place them behind bushes at Lexington and Concord at odds with the US government somehow come to pass. As someone who has taught school, she appears to understand that trying to engage the back row not only fails to produce positive results but also annoys and appalls those who showed up in good faith. Similarly, she appears to know that the best way to enlighten is to lay out the facts as accessibly as possible and trust that those viewing the facts can come to logical conclusions. Note that if her theory is fatally flawed, so is the Republic. Adlai Stevenson, when told that every thinking American would vote for him, reportedly was chagrined and noted that to win he needed a majority. That was in the 1950's, when sensible tax policies had not been hijacked by dark messaging funded by those who had so much to gain if American safety nets such as Social Security and, in the 1960's, Medicare, could be misconstrued as the insidious tentacles of the Red Menace. The messengers of deceit, thanks to Citizens United, no longer have to whisper doom from the shadows. Rest assured that if EW moves toward the nomination we will be frightened by slick ads that equate gross wealth not with a cancerous concentration but with American lifeblood.10 Recommend
Frank Columbia, MO Jan. 29
@JW Not sure why anyone on the left sneers at Sanders. Did you know that Sanders has an approval rating of something like 80% in Vermont, a state that used to be full of Republicans and still has plenty of conservatives? People who pay serious attention to Sanders like and respect him. We'll actually be very lucky if we get someone with Sanders' magnetism. If you listen closely, his anger is at injustice, not at other people. He cares about everyone.10 Recommend
Berkshire Brigades Williamstown, MA Jan. 28
Why do we have college football coaches making $6million per year ? Because slightly lesser coaches make $5million per year. They could all get by very nicely on a quarter million per year. It's the same with the 1% : they need their fortune only in comparative terms. In the meantime 80% of us live in an economy comprising about 20% of our country's wealth, a very poor country in itself indeed.10 Recommend
M Lindsay Illinois Jan. 29
Liz has always been ahead of the curve. She knows well that it's time for Democrats to right the ship of state by reducing income and wealth inequality before it sinks our democracy. Go Liz! Go Dems! Go big .. before it's too late!10 Recommend
SherlockM Honolulu Jan. 29
"...public opinion surveys show overwhelming support for raising taxes on the rich." Yet, congress refuses to support such tax reform. I guess that tells us that most politicians are serving and protecting their wealthy political donors rather than our country.10 Recommend
JLM Central Florida Jan. 29
Here's a fine way to make America great again. Yes, let's go back to the marginal tax rates of the prosperous '50's. What have we got to lose?10 Recommend
Joe White Plains Jan. 29
@Linda One summer in Sigourney, Iowa, when I was a small boy, my grandfather took me into the library Carnegie built and talked about it with great pride. By the way, he served in both world wars and was a prominent Republican. Oh, how times have changed.10 Recommend
hm1342 NC Jan. 29
This is going to be a tough choice for average voters. Work till the day you die, live in squalor and penury in old age as the social safety net is cut, and condemn your family to ever decreasing living standards -- or in the alternative, tax the accumulated wealth of billionaires. Decisions, decisions, decisions...10 Recommend
John Wesley Baltimore MD Jan. 29
@Yuri Asian: "This isn't about taxing wealth. It's about taxing power, privilege and greed." Their is plenty of power, privilege and "greed" in our nation's capital, and it is practiced daily by individuals who are elected and un-elected.10 Recommend
Jesse DENVER, CO Jan. 29
RICH- THE ANSWER IS NOT CLASS WARFARE VS THE RICH...I'm not rejecting this proposal out of hand but Warren/Picketty have been putting the cart before the horse-she needs to identify and focus on a fiscal need, THEN assemble tax policy to pay for it in an earmarked way...and it has to be gradual, ideally phased in over 10 plus years. Suggestions ? What do we need to establish Medicare for all ? Or address infrastructure problems over next 10-20 years ? Or make SS solvent ? Determine the revenue you need, not the "revenge" you might want vs the "rentiers" - and I think a very good place to start would be top tax advantages accounts very heavily at high rates.Its absurd Mitt Romney has like what $200 million in his IRA and hes only taking the RMD ?? Tax any income to an IRA with a balance over say $10 million....nobody needs a tax break at that level.10 Recommend
A.G. Alias St Louis, MO Jan. 29
But billionaires are the job creators, the noble stewards of finance and cap... and I'm laughing. Tax the rats. If they complain, tax them more. Let them move to Singapore and share their crocodile tears with crocodiles (does Singapore have crocodiles?) America's oligarchs have given the working class 40 years of wage slavery and we've given them a life in the clouds. Time to renegotiate.10 Recommend
voreason Ann Arbor, MI Jan. 29
@John Homan It's I thought was about taxing the rich more, not only on high incomes but on high net worth also. Rajiv said about how the rich donate to causes that reduce their taxes, by say, electing more tax-cutting Republicans. The Koch brothers are good examples. I didn't quite get your criticism of Rajiv.10 Recommend
ACounter Left coast Jan. 29
If Elizabeth Warren is nominated for president, and I hope she will be, I believe we will see the most virulent, vile and vituperative campaign imaginable against her by the right, the wealthy and the corporate interests. It will be a battle for the soul of this country. But if anyone can make the case to the middle class for real economic and tax reform in the face of the attacks that such a plan will face, Elizabeth Warren is the person to do it. She has a first class intellect, she has remarkable communication skills and, as she says, this is her life. She's not running in order to "be" president, she's running to enact policies that have the potential of turning the tide in this country in favor of the people and away from the plutocrats. And in this, she will face real opposition from many within her own party. It's going to be an interesting two years.10 Recommend
Margo Atlanta Jan. 29
@CarolinaJoe Bernie's details on paying for Medicare for All and his other initiatives were -- and still are -- at www.berniesanders.com/issues It shows proposed changes to the tax code tiers and estimates of the revenue raised, as well as revenue raised by closing loopholes and by other methods.10 Recommend
Plennie Wingo Weinfelden, Switzerland Jan. 29
@Bonnie Luternow Try it - try to have a direct call with your members of Congress, it isn't happening. Not unless you can deliver some benefit, like large campaign contributions. They're afraid of us.9 Recommend
george Iowa Jan. 29
Much simpler is to just tax ALL income as ordinary income. No more favored capital gains rate.9 Recommend
Marx and Lennon Virginia Jan. 29
This column " Elizabeth Warren does Teddy Roosevelt " says a lot about Professor Warren but very little about Teddy. I read a column yesterday by Charlie Pierce where he goes into detail about TR`s New Nationalism speech. There are parts of this speech that are real eye openers such as - The true friend of property, the true conservative, is he who insists that property shall be the servant and not the master of the commonwealth; who insists that the creature of man's making shall be the servant and not the master of the man who made it. The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have called into being. Or- We must have complete and effective publicity of corporate affairs, so that the people may know beyond peradventure whether the corporations obey the law and whether their management entitles them to the confidence of the public. It is necessary that laws should be passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes; it is still more necessary that such laws should be thoroughly enforced. Corporate expenditures for political purposes, and especially such expenditures by public-service corporations, have supplied one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs. This speech spends a lot of time praising the Saviors of our Country, The Civil War Veterans. And it also says a lot about the proper place for Capital and Corporations, servants not masters.9 Recommend
CallahanStudio Los Angeles Jan. 29
@George I might agree with you if this was a momentary phenomenon, but it's not. The imbalance that is finally plain to all began with subtle changes in the balance between capital and labor in the early 1970s. The truly rich understood what they were doing. They found a fulcrum that allowed them to pry money and power from the increasingly vulnerable middle and lower classes, so they did. To correct this by less drastic means will take at least that long again. I doubt we can wait another 45 years, so yes. We need to use the taxation authority as the fulcrum to pry back the people's fair share. There is no other option as far as I can see.9 Recommend
Tim W Seattle Jan. 29
@Tom: Your characterization of the argument as suggesting that "we should just take all the money from individuals because we can" is as complacent as your reference to Lenin and Mao. Did you miss the part where Krugman points out that we have already used progressive taxation in this country to advance the collective economic good? U.S. economic policy from the Great Depression to Reagan unleashed a rising tide that truly floated all boats in the U.S. economy. It was the gratuitous tax giveaways to the wealthy advocated by Milton Friedman, among others, that gave our wealth distribution its present hourglass configuration.9 Recommend
dwalker San Francisco Jan. 29
Let's add another thing: scrap the cap on the amount of wages subject to the 6.2% Social Security tax, currently set at $128,400. Why should someone making $20 million a year only pay the SS tax on the first $128,400? Scraping the cap would make SS solvent forever, and could even reduce the percentage we're taxed.9 Recommend
Ellen San Diego Jan. 28
@Robert Elizabeth Warren is a good explainer, and when she starts banging on a point she's convincing. Importantly, she doesn't do it just once, she makes it a theme to be hammered. A great lesson of the Vietnam War was that it is *repetition* that drives change -- in that case, TV news repeatedly showing flag-draped coffins coming home, covering marching protesters, exposing atrocities, etc. Whether through timidity or laziness or slavishness to big money donors, Democrats have failed to create a momentum on the idea of wealth inequality that would persuade the public. This will change with Elizabeth Warren and, if he chooses to run, Bernie Sanders. In this regard, a prediction: At some point before November 2020, we will hear the phrase "I welcome their hatred."9 Recommend
Glassyeyed Indiana Jan. 29
Far from radical, the ideas of Warren, Sanders, and AOC are sensible, logical, and fair. Bring on any politician who means business such as these proposals and can articulate them, isn't a billionaire already, and doesn't have a tawdry history of being entangled with Wall Street, and watch him/her win.9 Recommend
Andrew Zuckerman Port Washington, NY Jan. 29
Thank you for not treating Elizabeth Warren the way you treated Bernie Sanders. I believed all that stuff about you being a liberal until you treated Bernie as though he were worse than Trump. "Welcome back to the fight. This time I know our side will win."9 Recommend
Rima Regas Southern California Jan. 28
@dmckj Progressive taxation isn't all that progressive anymore. Capital gains and even earned income of incredible amounts of money as well as stock options are taxed at low rates. In case no one has noticed, the AMT is a bust. It doesn't work and when it does, it harms the upper middle class rather than the super-rich. The "high-end earners" pay a lot (but not enough) because they are the only ones who have so much income that taxing them does not adversely affect the economy. We have rich folks who can afford giant yachts and not so rich folks who can't survive an unexpected $400 bill. That is not the way the economy should work. Eventually, income inequality will even weaken corporate profits and destroy the economy. Even large corporations need customers who can buy their products.9 Recommend
Yuri Asian Bay Area Jan. 29
FDR 2.0 must address the social class the Great Recession created. Those are the now 50-60 year olds and millennials who lost jobs, pensions, and are still underemployed and in the gig economy. Starting in ten years, if nothing is done,very will have 95 million or so homeless. Leaving it to states to construct affordable housing won't do. We need Universal Basic Income. This is needed regardless of whether the GOP and Trump's scams cause a depression. Bernie and Elizabeth would easily demand Congress act on these ideas. Bloomberg and Schultz? Not on your life. A decent future is progressive. We need FDR 2.0. we need to be done with triangulation. The GOP is an untrustworthy partner. --- Things Trump Did While You Weren't Looking  https://wp.me/p2KJ3H-3h29 Recommend
Constance Warner Silver Spring, MD Jan. 28
@Jim Thanks for your reply and appreciation. I'm lucky to be an Editor's Pick as there are so many great comments by thoughtful and articulate NYT readers, particularly those who follow Krugman's columns. I agree with your sense of wealth as a social disease that's highly contagious. We need a vaccine and I hope Sen. Warren is it and she inoculates a strong majority by 2020.9 Recommend
JP MorroBay Jan. 29
Let's hope Warren succeeds, whether she becomes President or not. I recall that under Eisenhower-era rates of taxation, the middle class and the working class had a lot better deal than we have today. Heck, we even had a better deal under Nixon-era rates of taxation. It's weird to be nostalgic for Nixon, but look at what's in the White House now.9 Recommend
DocBrew Central WI Jan. 29
Thanks for a great column again, and yes, Ms. Warren in on the right track. Now if we could only get the corporate media to stop trivializising her policies as "nerdy" we might get somewhere.9 Recommend
Kwip Victoria, BC Jan. 29
While Warren's proposal and ACO's marginal tax ideas both have merit, let's be honest- ideas such as these have no chance until campaign finance reform occurs. Given the current composition of the SOCTUS that seems impossible for several decades, as the obscenely rich simply buy the government they want.9 Recommend
PJ Salt Lake City Jan. 29
@Brenda I suggest that you rethink your position. I appreciate the frustration with the current system but the public school system is habitually underfunded. The $40k is not a direct benefit to each child. Look into that. And maybe look at Finland where schooling is considered one of the most important benefits to a country. As a result you see the best university graduates going into teaching because they make a very good salary and they are supported by an administration that supports their efforts, efforts that come with passion for helping kids.9 Recommend
Murray Illinois Jan. 29
Thank you Mr. Krugman for another great read. Your influence is so important in our politics. Keep up the good work.9 Recommend
Whole Grains USA Jan. 29
A 2% tax on wealth is not much more than what many of us pay the financial industry to 'manage' our savings. The investment funds take their percentage, and the companies managing the portfolio take theirs. Small investors tend to pay a higher percentage in fees than larger investors. When all is taken into account, people living paycheck to paycheck pay the highest percentage, of what ends up being zero wealth. This 'wealth tax' would help rectify the imbalance.9 Recommend
Karen Brooklyn Jan. 29
I'm very impressed with Elizabeth Warren,not just for her tax proposals, but because she is so intelligent - and genuine. Some say that she is too heady to win but she certainly has more charisma than Adlai Stevenson, who lost in the 1950s because he was too intellectual. And he didn't have a catchy slogan such as "I Like Ike." Unfortunately, it's all about how politicians are perceived. I would like to see Warren more poised and not afraid to express her sense of humor.9 Recommend
Julie Parmenter Jan. 29
@Brenda If talent and drive - particularly talent - were the deciding factor in wealth accumulation, the descendants of Fred Trump would be living on the street.8 Recommend
SteveHurl Boston Jan. 28
@Linda We have a Carnegie library in our small town of 2400 in rural Indiana. It is still in use as a community resource center and town history museum. It is a beautiful sturdy brick building and I assume it will be around for 100 more years. We just outgrew it and had to build a new one. Carnegie will be remembered for this, not his great wealth. Same with Gates and Buffett.8 Recommend
CDN NYC Jan. 28
I've generally been impressed with Warren's economic analyses, going back a couple of years before she ran for Senate. A close version of this plan deserves support. If it seems "radical," it's probably because the USA drifted so far to the right. I blame disco and "Grand Theft Auto."8 Recommend
4Average Joe usa Jan. 29
Her tax proposal would be a nightmare to implement. How do you value thinly traded assets (real estate, art, antiques, etc.)? Hire a valuation expert? Have the IRS contesting it every year? Litigate? Please, tax all dividends as ordinary income, eliminate/change the duration for long term cap gains treatment, make inherited assets have a zero cost basis, etc. Simple to implement, enforce, ideas.8 Recommend
Elizabeth Bennett Arizona Jan. 29
In 1906, Representatives and Senators did not spend 4.5 days a week, every in a cubicle, begging for money, calling rich people all day. We have elected telemarketers. (no insult intended to telemarketers.)8 Recommend
Christy WA Jan. 29
It's not surprising that "the usual suspects" are already trying to disarm Elizabeth Warren's well thought out tax plan. Many American billionaires are nouveau riche, and don't have the sense of responsibility that the very wealthy used to feel towards the less fortunate. And the Republican party is right there egging them on to resist fair taxation--like Elizabeth Warren's proposal.8 Recommend
Stephen Boston Canada Jan. 29
I'm all for her. Warren is by far the smartest presidential candidate in the Democratic pack and I'm all for supertaxing the superrich -- as well as making mega-corporations pay the proper taxes they've been evading for so long.8 Recommend
Mjxs Springfield, VA Jan. 29
@George The confiscation of excessive wealth is exactly the point and that point is a practical one -- to mitigate the tendency of unregulated large scale economies to form parasitic aristocracies that lead to resource deprivation in vast portions of the society's population. And this is not a scapegoating of the wealthy, it is refusing to worship them, it is to call them back to Earth and ask of them what is asked of each of us.8 Recommend
Schrodinger Northern California Jan. 28
"Malefactors of great wealth," Theodore Roosevelt called them. Prosperity that delivers unbelievable amounts of wealth to a very few while the other 99% struggle is not sustainable. TR was no wild-eyed Socialist: he was a man of wealth and property and wished to remain so. He and FDR were both blue-blooded aristocrats. Both were saving capitalism by restraining its excesses.8 Recommend
Pinewood Nashville, TN Jan. 29
@Phyliss Dalmatian...Like you, I'm not sure that the US is ready for a female President. Also like you, I am intrigued by Sherrod Brown. Is he too rumpled for the White House or is that part of his appeal?8 Recommend
Alex Washington D.C. Jan. 29
@Tom, Whether you realize it or not, the good old USA takes away the wealth of individuals and hands it over to the government to allocate. The rest of your statement, about tyrants, is just wrong. You are equating communism with taxation, a silly thing to do. Educate yourself.8 Recommend
@Peter Wolf I agree with you 1000%. I'm tired of people arguing that certain persons would not be good candidates because they sound too smart. That's the dumbest argument I've heard so far. If someone sounds smart, then GOOD. I hope they ARE smart. Right now we are a laughing stock of the world because our leaders are actually proud to sound stupid and boorish. Out with charisma and in with intellect and expertise, please. I wouldn't want Tom Hanks performing brain surgery on me, nor do I want him in the White House (much as I enjoy seeing him on the big screen
Feb 02, 2019 | www.nbcnews.com
He called Warren's wealth tax proposal "ridiculous" and Harris' single-payer health care plan "not American," while also saying "we can't afford" debt-free college, a plank likely to end up in many candidates' platforms.
"What's 'ridiculous' is billionaires who think they can buy the presidency to keep the system rigged for themselves while opportunity slips away for everyone else," Warren fired back on Twitter.
Bill Burton, a former deputy press secretary in the Obama White House who is now working for Schultz, told NBC News that his boss anticipated there would be "immediate vigorous debate about whether this is a good idea."
Jan 22, 2019 | www.theguardian.com
Bhaskar Sunkara in The Guardian pointed out that most Democratic Party candidates such as Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrandare bought by Wall Street:
It's a framing that's been everywhere over the past two years: the Resistance v Donald Trump. By some definitions that "resistance" even includes people like Mitt Romney and George W Bush. By almost all definitions it encompasses mainstream Democrats, such as the likely presidential hopefuls Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand.
In their rhetoric and policy advocacy, this trio has been steadily moving to the left to keep pace with a leftward-moving Democratic party. Booker, Harris and Gillibrand know that voters demand action and are more supportive than ever of Medicare for All and universal childcare.
Gillibrand, long considered a moderate, has even gone as far as to endorse abolishing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) and, along with Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders' single-payer healthcare bill. Harris has also backed universal healthcare and free college tuition for most Americans.
But outward appearances aren't everything. Booker, Harris and Gillibrand have been making a very different pitch of late -- on Wall Street. According to CNBC, all three potential candidates have been reaching out to financial executives lately, including Blackstone's Jonathan Gray, Robert Wolf from 32 Advisors and the Centerbridge Partners founder Mark Gallogly.
Wall Street, after all, played an important role getting the senators where they are today. During his 2014 Senate run, in which just 7% of his contributions came from small donors, Booker raised $2.2m from the securities and investment industry. Harris and Gillibrand weren't far behind in 2018, and even the progressive Democrat Sherrod Brown has solicited donations from Gallogly and other powerful executives .
When CNBC's story about Gillibrand personally working the phones to woo Wall Street executives came out, her team responded defensively, noting her support for financial regulation and promising that if she did run she would take "no corporate Pac money".
But what's most telling isn't that Gillibrand and others want Wall Street's money, it's that they want the blessings of financial CEOs . Even if she doesn't take their contributions, she's signaling that she's just playing politics with populist rhetoric. That will allow capitalists to focus their attention on candidates such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who have shown a real willingness to abandon the traditional coziness of the Democratic party with the finance, insurance and real estate industries.
Gillibrand and others are behaving perfectly rationally. The last presidential election cost $6.6bn -- advertising, staff and conventions are expensive. But even more important than that, they know that while leftwing stances might help win Democratic primaries, the path of least resistance in the general election is capitulation to the big forces of capital that run this country. Those elites might allow some progressive tinkering on the margins, but nothing that challenges the inequities that keep them wealthy and their victims weak.
Big business is likely to bet heavily on the Democratic party in 2020, maybe even more so than it did in 2016. In normal circumstances, the Democratic party is the second-favorite party of capital; with an erratic Trump around, it is often the first.
The American ruling class has a nice hustle going with elections. We don't have a labor-backed social democratic party that could create barriers to avoid capture by monied interests. It's telling that when asked about the former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper's recent chats with Wall Street political financiers, a staff member told CNBC: "We meet with a wide range of donors with shared values across sectors."
Plenty of Democratic leaders believe in the neoliberal growth model. Many have gotten personally wealthy off of it. Others think there is no alternative to allying with finance and then trying to create progressive social policy on the margins. But with sentiments like that, it doesn't take fake news to convince working-class Americans that Democrats don't really have their interests at heart.
Of course, the Democratic party isn't a monolith. But the insurgency waged by newly elected representatives such as the democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ro Khanna and others is still in its infancy. At this stage, it isn't going to scare capital away from the Democratic party, it's going to make Wall Street invest more heavily to maintain its stake in it.
Men like Mark Gallogly know who their real enemy is: more than anyone else, the establishment is wary of Bernie Sanders. It seems likely that he will run for president, but he's been dismissed as a 2020 frontrunner despite his high favorability rates, name recognition, small-donor fundraising ability, appeal to independent voters, and his team's experience running a competitive national campaign. As 2019 goes on, that dismissal will morph into all-out war.
Wall Street isn't afraid of corporate Democrats gaining power. It's afraid of the Democrats who will take them on -- and those, unfortunately, are few and far between.
Danexmachina , 15 Jan 2019 12:31One dollar, one vote.Tim Cahill , 15 Jan 2019 12:00
If you want Change, keep it in your pocket.
We can't turn this sinking ship around unless we know what direction it's going. So far, that direction is just delivering money to private islands.
Democrats have a lot of talk, but they still want to drive the nice cars and sell the same crapft that the Republicans are.
Taxing the rich only works when you worship the rich in the first place.Election financing is the single root cause for our democracy's failure. Period.Lenny Dirges -> Vintage59 , 15 Jan 2019 11:55
I really don't care too much about the mouthing of progressive platitudes from any 2020 Dem Prez candidate. The only ones that will be worth voting for are the ones that sign onto Sanders' (or similar) legislation that calls for a Constitutional amendment that allows federal and state governments to limit campaign contributions.
And past committee votes to prevent amendment legislation from getting to a floor vote - as well as missed co-sponsorship opportunities - should be interesting history for all the candidates to explain.
Campaign financing is what keeps scum entrenched (because primary challengers can't overcome the streams of bribes from those wonderful people exercising their 'free speech' "rights" to keep their puppet in govt) and prevents any challenges to the corporate establishment who serve the same rich masters.Lol, Social Security, Medicare, unemployement protections, so many of the things you mentioned, and so much more, were from the PROGRESSIVE New Deal, which managed to implement this slew of changes in 5 years! 5 years! You can't criticize "progressives" in one sentence and then use their accomplishments to support your argument. Today, the New Deal would be considered too far left by most so called "pragmatic liberals." I assume you are getting fully behind the proposed "Green New Deal" then, right?L C -> HobbesianWorlds , 15 Jan 2019 11:15Anti-trust would be a very good place to start with.partoftheproblem -> Atlant , 15 Jan 2019 10:55
Universal healthcare is a lot harder than you seem to think. I'd love it, but getting there means putting so many people out of work, it'll be a massive political challenge, even if corporations have no influence. Progressives might be better off focusing on how to ensure the existing system works better and Medicaid can slowly expand to fill the universal roll in the future.
That's not what I said at all and you know it.
My point is that Trump succeeded despite all the negative coverage, much of the media were laughing at his chances of winning, right up until election night.
Which of the candidates during the last election backed down? Bernie, both in terms of stepping aside for Clinton and also when people invaded the stage and demanded a right to talk before him... and he let them! That only served to make him look weak for many people who didn't care for the issues they wanted to rant about on stage.
Jan 23, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
How is it legal , January 22, 2019 at 9:32 pm
I'm Glad Kamala's California Attorney General Office's: what about the lost California revenues from the – in for years – non violent petty theft and petty drug (opioid prescriptions, weed, DUIs, et al) prisoners if we let them out, made it into your piece. Referenced on the ShadowProof link (only):
In 2014, lawyers for Kamala Harris argued in court that if minimum-custody inmates were released early, the state of California would "lose an important labor pool." These inmates included firefighters, who are paid $1 an hour to confront some of the deadliest blazes in California history. Harris later argued that she was unaware her own office argued in favor of keeping parolees in jail so they could serve as the state's on-call cheap labor.
So many recent Kamala Harris critiques leave it out, even though those 'news' sites are (or should be) aware of it. It was a very big deal at the time, since California had (still has) a huge over incarceration issue, which was even noted by the over incarcerating US Federal Government, which took Jerry Brown to task about his huge prison overload. Kamala blamed the revolting argument to maintain inhuman California prisoner revenues – versus releasing non violent prisoners who more than served their time – on her underlings. She claimed to be totally unaware of their actions. Who, in their right mind, believes that Kamala was utterly unaware of how her employees portrayed her objectives?
WheresOurTeddy , January 23, 2019 at 12:00 am
oh it gets even better – once those $1-a-day not-firefighters are paroled, most will not be eligible to work as firefighters in the future due to their records
KAMALA HARRIS IS A COP
Scoaliera , January 22, 2019 at 9:42 pm
Weirdly, she seems to be doubling down on the I'm A Cop thing.
"For the People" is what every prosecutor tells the judge and jury when she introduces herself at the beginning of a case in court, and given the endless stream of tv shows about cops and prosecutors, a lot of voters in America will have seen a prosecutor (well, an actor playing a prosecutor) standing and saying, "Jane Doe for the People, your honor!" approximately one hundred thousand times. She's never going to leave the issue of prosecutorial misconduct behind her; her slogan reminds people on every ad and every piece of campaign literature.
I suppose her people may think Democratic voters like that sort of thing. If they're right, we're doomed, but I have some hope that maybe we're not that far gone yet.
Jan 22, 2019 | discussion.theguardian.com
cagnusdei -> lullu616 , 15 Jan 2019 10:50Didn't help that the ostensibly neutral DNC was sending emails saying that they should play up Bernie Sanders' Jewish faith (among other attack strategies), fed debate questions to the Clinton campaign or tried to limit opportunities for Bernie and Hillary to share a stage together.
Bernie Sanders is widely considered by many to be one of the most popular American politicians, more than Trump and certainly more popular than Hillary. I think an interesting phenomenon to notice is the lengths the GOP, in particular, will go to in order to convince the average voter that anything that cuts taxes is inherently good for the 'little guy,' while anything that raises taxes is bad.
Trump's recent tax cuts are a good example. Most of the actual cuts go toward the corporations and ultra-wealthy, which just increases the deficit while shifting the proportion of taxes paid onto the middle class. It's a con that many Americans are inexplicably susceptible to believing, for some reason.
Jan 22, 2019 | www.theguardian.com
Haigin88 -> Tom J. Davis Clinton's Iraq war vote. She was always dealing with the inverse Nixon In China rule. Just as only Nixon could speak with China, she probably perceived that only males could be doves. That's an explanation not an excuse. Again, a total lack of integrity from Clinton.
Also, much of Clinton's later foulness was attempted to be offset by her early opinions and actions - her speeches at college; her working for children. Gabbard is around the other way: her record got better, offsetting much of her earlier nonsense. Clinton and Gabbard are apples and oranges, I think ,Clinton's Iraq war vote. She was always dealing with the inverse Nixon In China rule. Just as only Nixon could speak with China, she probably perceived that only males could be doves. That's an explanation not an excuse. Again, a total lack of integrity from Clinton.
Also, much of Clinton's later foulness was attempted to be offset by her early opinions and actions - her speeches at college; her working for children. Gabbard is around the other way: her record got better, offsetting much of her earlier nonsense. Clinton and Gabbard are apples and oranges, I think
Jan 22, 2019 | discussion.theguardian.com
Art Glick, 15 Jan 2019 09:44The neoliberalism of the Democratic Party elite (and most of the rank and file) is one big factor in our 2016 loss. Even voters too ignorant to see Trump for what he really was - voters that are misinformed to the point that they unwittingly and continually vote against their own best interests - realized how much the Dems have sold out to Wall Street.
HRC would have been nominated in '08 if she had kissed more Wall Street you-know-what. That's why they anointed Obama who then proceeded to squander eight years of opportunity to remove big money from politics and enact progressive reforms to health care, the environment, etc.
Bernie is a bit long in the tooth, so I am all in for Liz Warren. She's the only one with both the courage and the intelligence to take on the big money that controls our politics.
Therefore, you can expect the Russian trolls to be coming for her in force. If you read anything negative about Warren in the coming months, check the source and don't trust the accuracy.
Jan 22, 2019 | discussion.theguardian.com
HobbesianWorlds , 15 Jan 2019 10:37The best way to determine if one claims to be a Progressive is to fact-check the candidate's claim.BaronVonAmericano , 15 Jan 2019 10:37
The first and foremost question that should be asked and researched: Does this candidate have as one of his or her top priorities to eliminate corporate/private/labor money in politics? This would require a major federal campaign finance reform law that would establish public funding for all campaigns, permanently bar corporate/labor union/private-entity money (including funding media-attack ads) from any political influence and require all broadcast/cable networks to allow every candidate equal air time to state his opinions, policies, promises, and to state why he believes he is the best candidate for the working class and/or corporations.
As well, such a law should permanently eliminate the revolving door through which many politicians scamper to become a lobbyist for Wall Street after he "retires" from politics and the law should block all former lobbyists from running for an office that would have a bearing on legislation that would affect the corporation for which he or she worked.
As well, such a law should bar any politicians or family members from purchasing or selling stocks in corporate entities that would be affected by the legislation on which the politician is working (insider trading).
Think about it. The lure of big bucks can, and does, corrupt politicians such that they will work mainly for the donor (corporate, labor, and/or private) and provide for just enough benefit politicians' the voters (America's working class) to make them think he cares most about them. Much of that money is hidden in super-pacs where the donor's identity is hidden. Too, super-pacs would have to be eliminated.
A Progressive should advocate for a large infrastructure project . Our bridges and highways are now in a state of disrepair. Other nations such as Japan now have high-speed bullet trains, the fastest so far is Shanghai Maglev and can travel 267.8 mph. The U.S. has none.
Poverty would be a major focus of Progressives. Corporations will pay as little as they can get by paying. So there must be a minimum wage boost to a living wage. To keep corporations from moving to a part-time labor force with less pay, part-time workers must make the same hourly wage as full time workers. As well, universal, proactive healthcare must become law (Medicare for all).
Another major way to eliminate poverty would be to reform the income tax structure such that those individuals whose income exceeds ~$10 million would be taxed at 70%. I would also suggest that every dollar exchanged on the Stock Exchange would be taxed at 3%.
Using a greater influx of money into the public coffers, education should be a top priority for lawmakers. College tuition in public schools would be no cost, thus providing completely tuition free higher education and allowing every student equal access. A major bill should be passed to provide money to modernize/upgrade all secondary schools to provide a better learning environment for study. Every primary school should have a child psychologist on staff. Every High School a psychologist as well as every public college.
There are other Progressive policies--such as reversing the conservative's trickle-down economics (also called supply-side economics) such that we return to demand-side economics--that would be highly beneficial to the working class and to the future intellectual strength of the U.S., especially by providing a course structure that equips students to face the quick shift of industry to electronics and robotics. Currently, those will little technical training are being left behind. We must end this or face a HUGE poorly educated working class that will have no place to work.
Quite likely, both the RNC and the DNC (Wall Street's favorite politicians) will be against such measures. They'd rather have more billionaires and an unfettered Wall Street than eliminate poverty. The only way, however, to have a truly just society is to push for and vote for a progressive government. But before any of the above can happen, we MUST eliminate corporate/private/labor money from our government.The money is to ensure the rich do well whoever wins the general.ytram -> ChesBay , 15 Jan 2019 10:30
They do the same in congressional races. If the Democrats who win the primaries are in their pocket, it doesn't matter who wins the general .
Wall Street gives money to the Dems not to help Dems win; it's to make sure Wall Street doesn't lose.Our capitalist predators are still alive and well. The finance, insurance, and real estateMelty Clock -> William Anthony , 15 Jan 2019 10:07
organizations are the worst predators in the USA.
They will eat your babies if you let them.Except with voting and elections, those hallmarks of the fascist state.ChesBay , 15 Jan 2019 10:05I'm not fooled. These are not progressives, they are corporatists, beholden to their donors. They have no courage, no interest in serving their constituencies, but are only interested in the power and money. What our country , and the world, needs is radical change from the profit-first point of view. I won't support either one of them.
Jan 22, 2019 | discussion.theguardian.com
William Anthony -> BoneyOCoonassa , 15 Jan 2019 09:40We've known since WW2, that fighting fascism is difficult. Benito Mussolini defined fascism as "Barely able to slip a cigarette paper between business and government." And when business runs government, we have even exceeded fascism. The new battle against fascism is not going to be easy.
Jan 22, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Kamala Harris' presidential campaign has barely made its official start, and she's continuing to show her unfitness for the job. Martin Luther King would be rolling in his grave if he were to learn that a former big city and then state prosecutor, with no known history of protesting but an anti-minorities rap sheet that includes criminalizing truancy, enthusiastically prosecuting drug-related activity, and pushed to keep nonviolent "second-strike" convicts in prison to assure California a continued supply of cheap labor, was misusing his name to try to burnish her sorry record.
If you missed them, these reviews of Harris' record as a prosecutor should disabuse you of the notion that she's a friend of the downtrodden:
Kamala Harris Was Not a 'Progressive Prosecutor' Lara Bazelon, New York Times
A Problem for Kamala Harris: Can a Prosecutor Become President in the Age of Black Lives Matter? Intercept
Reckoning With The Neoliberal Record Of Kamala Harris ShadowProof
The Two Faces of Kamala Harris Jacobin
Readers may recall that last week, we addressed one Harris Big Lie about her record, that she was a big defender of abused homeowners by virtue of having gotten a less terrible deal than 48 other states in the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement, which we've regularly described as a "get out of liability almost free card" for the big mortgage servicers. Her lack of a commitment to homeowners, and her pliancy to big money interests, was confirmed by her failure to investigate One West Bank, ignoring a 2013 memo from attorneys in her office flagging the appearance of "widespread misconduct." Her complacency was rewarded via One West's former CEO, Steve Mnuchin, making Harris the recipient of his lone donation to a Democratic party Senate candidate.
Needless to say, if Harris had prosecuted Mnuchin, it's hard to imagine he'd be Treasury Secretary now.
Harris' book, The Truths We Hold, published earlier this month to help grease campaign skids, shows Harris applying lots of porcine maquillage to her record. It doesn't work very well. As Teodrose Fikre writes in Black Agenda Report on one of the more measured reviews, by Hannah Giorgis in the Atlantic :
Kamala Harris's memoir reads nothing like her actual record of locking up the poor and giving impunity to the rich
Checking off identity boxes and getting jiggy with it is not enough, we must demand more from politicians than soundbites and feigned indignation. Instead of addressing income inequalities and systematic imbalances that are the sources of most social ills, Harris tries to hide behind anecdotes and outlier stories in an attempt to minimize the disproportionate impact her decisions had on the poor and working class. After making a name for herself by aggressively locking up Californians and enhancing the inmate supply for the prison-industrial complex, she is now attempting an image makeover by using social justice and diversity hustles as launching pads .
Harris's take every prisoner temperament was nowhere to be found when the time came for her to take on robber barons. She famously chose to look the other way when she had the chance to prosecute Steve Mnuchin and make an example of unscrupulous bankers.Her "progressive prosecution" reserved progress for the rich and doled out draconian measures for the poor and marginalized. It is worth repeating, Harris's administration effectively argued for slave labor in order to enrich penal plantations.
Kamala Harris is no activist, she is Hillary Clinton in a black face.This is precisely the reason why the corporate donor class are licking their chops and pushing Harris as a viable presidential candidate. She has proven her loyalty to Wall Street; when push comes to shove, CEOs know that they have an ally in Kamala. What Harris is banking on is an electorate that is so deranged by Trump's puerility that we don't inspect her positions and just accept her optics and rhetoric as a suitable alternative to the incumbent president.
The one bit of good news is that Harris' campaign is so hopelessly tone deaf and narcissistic that Harris will do herself in as a serious contender in no time fast on current trajectories. A reader sent a copy of the "Day 1" fundraiser, which if done properly, should set the tone for the campaign.
What do we learn from this sorry missive? That Harris apparently regards herself as such an Oprah-level celebrity that her mere presence is enough to get citizens to want to vote for her. However, she can't resist remind us of her top 10% bona fides, that she is able to find a "healthy snack" in Penn Station vending machines. God forbid we catch a Ruler of the Free World wannabe enjoying some potato chips. Might be mistaken for Trump!
Another revealing-in-not-a-good-way bit is the last photo, of Harris supposedly getting down to "hard work". As you can see from the image, "hard work" is standing up while staff applauds. It's bad enough to see this sort of thing at CalPERS; we need to keep that pathology from going national.
So Harris presents absolutely nothing in the way of policy stances. Apparently the reasons to want her as President is that she's photogenic by the not-too-high standards of politics and she gets bonus points for not being a white man.
And this sorry e-mail really is representative of her campaign pitch. Her site is every bit as narcissistic as the fundraising appeal. It admittedly has a centrist dog-whistle in the form of a long-ish bio which is an attempt to position Harris on policy while punting on taking any positions. But otherwise, it's long on pretty pix and thin on much else.
It's stating the obvious that Harris is yet another variant on the Obama formula: take an attractive, well-educated, mixed-race centrist and encourage the press and public to project that their "minority" background means that they'll be staunch defenders of the downtrodden.
But the public isn't so easily fooled. 9 million foreclosures, many of which could have been prevented, bailouts for banksters, a two-tier recovery with smug elites preaching "Let them eat training" to people stuck outside big cities or too old to be employable, and sky-high Obamacare deductibles mean a lot of voters are not going to fall for idpol packaging as easily a second time. Plus Obama had so little in the way of a political track record that it was easy for him to be a shape-shifter; he made his stint as a community organizer go a long way. Even now, hardly anyone knows that Obama, along with his wife Michelle and Valerie Jarret, as described by Robert Fitch , built their early career success by lending an appearance of legitimacy to moving black South Chicago further south on behalf of local real estate and finance interests.
Further complicating the foolhardy effort to cast Harris in the Obama mold is that she's got way too much political baggage to fool all that many people as to what she is really about.
So it's telling that self-absorbed Harris campaign imagery clashes with her slogan, "For the people". Even more so than for most politicians, Harris' team has to stick with the surface because that's all they have to sell.Page 4 / 4 Zoom 100%
The Rev Kev , January 22, 2019 at 4:41 am
Saw this on the news earlier where she announced her Presidential candidacy on Martin Luther King Jr.'s day which I thought as a class act that. Hijacking a national celebration for her own political ambitions? Yeah, real good judgement that. With this being so, I am going to predict that Hillary Clinton will announce her candidacy for President on Friday, March 8th of this year. Why then? Because that is this year's date for International Women's Day that. It would be in keeping with the times. Personally I think that both of them should hold back their announcements to a better date. Say, February 30th?
Jan 22, 2019 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com
"Mounting a campaign against [financial] plutocracy makes as much sense to the typical Washington liberal as would circulating a petition against gravity.
What our modernized liberal leaders offer is not confrontation but a kind of therapy for those flattened by the free-market hurricane: they counsel us to accept the inevitability of the situation."
Thomas Frank, Rendezvous With Oblivion
Jan 14, 2019 | www.defenddemocracy.press
The magazine Le Point is one of the main media outlets of the French conservative "centre-right". One of its December issues carries the cover title France Faces its History. 1648, 1789, 1830, 1848, 1871 four centuries of revolutions.
The cover features also a painting by Pierre-Jérôme Lordon, showing people clashing with the army at Rue de Babylone , in Paris, during the Revolution of 1830. Perhaps this is where Luc Ferry, Chirac's former minister, got his idea from, when, two days ago, he asked the Army to intervene and the police to start shooting and killing Yellow Vests.
Do not be surprised if you haven't heard this from your TV or if you don't know that the level of police repression and violence in France, measured in people dead, injured and arrested, has exceeded everything the country has experienced since 1968. Nor should you wonder why you don't know anything about some Yellow Vest's new campaign calling for a massive run on French banks. Or why you have been lead you to believe that the whole thing is to do with fuel taxes or increasing minimum wage.
The vast majority of European media didn't even bother to communicate to their readers or viewers the main political demands of the Yellow Vests ; and certainly, there hasn't been any meaningful attempt to offer an insightful interpretation of what's happening in France and there is just very little serious on-the-ground reporting, in the villages and motorways of France.Totalitarianism
Following Napoleon's defeat in Waterloo, European Powers formed the Holy Alliance banning Revolutions.
Nowadays, Revolutions have just been declared inconceivable (Soros – though not just him – has been giving a relentless fight to take them out of history textbooks or, as a minimum, to erase their significance and meaning). Since they are unthinkable they cannot happen. Since they cannot happen they do not happen.
In the same vein, European media sent their journalists out to the streets in Paris on Christmas and New Year's days, counted the protesters and found that they weren't too many after all. Of course they didn't count the 150,000 police and soldiers lined up by Macron on New Year's Eve. Then they made sure that they remain "impartial" and by just comparing numbers of protesters, led viewers to think that we are almost done with it – it was just a storm, it will pass.
The other day I read a whole page article about Europe in one of the most "serious" Greek newspapers, on 30.12. The author devoted just one single meaningless phrase about the Vests. Instead, the paper still found the way to include in the article the utterly stupid statement of a European Right-Wing politician who attributed the European crisis to the existence of Russia Today and Sputnik! And when I finally found a somewhat more serious article online about the developments in France, I realized that its only purpose was to convince us that what is happening in France surely has nothing to do with 1789 or 1968!
It is only a pity that the people concerned, the French themselves, cannot read in Greek. If they could, they would have realized that it does not make any sense to have "Revolution" written on their vests or to sing the 1789 song in their demonstrations or to organize symbolic ceremonies of the public "decapitation" of Macron, like Louis XV. And the French bourgeois press would not waste time everyday comparing what happens in the country now with what happened in 1968 and 1789.
Totalitarianism is not just a threat. It's already here. Simply it has omitted to announce its arrival. We have to deduce its precence from its results.A terrified ruling class
The French bourgeoisie is the politically most experienced ruling class in Europe. It has no illusions about the challenge it faces. Le Point put its file on the revolt of the vests under the self-telling title "What is waiting us".
A few months ago, all we had about Macron in the papers was praise, inside and outside of France – he was the "rising star" of European politics, the man who managed to pass the "reforms" one after the other, no resistance could stop him, he would be the one to save and rebuild Europe. Varoufakis admired and supported him, as early as of the first round of the 2017 elections.
Now, the "chosen one" became a burden for those who put him in office. Some of them probably want to get rid of him as fast as they can, to replace him with someone else, but it's not easy – and even more so, it is not easy given the monarchical powers conferred by the French constitution to the President. The constitution is tailored to the needs of a President who wants to safeguard power from the people. Those who drafted it could not probably imagine it would make difficult for the Oligarchy also to fire him!Read also: Scandaleux : le fondateur du parti fasciste ukrainien Svoboda reçu à l'Assemblée et au Sénat !
And who would dare to hold a parliamentary or presidential election in such a situation, as in France today? No one knows what could come out of it. Moreover, Macron does not have a party in the sense of political power. He has a federation of friends who benefit as long as he stays in power and they are damaged when he collapses.The King is naked
"The King is naked", points out Le Point's editorial, before, with almost sadistic callousness, posing the question: "What can a government do when a remarkable section of the people vomits it?"
But it's not only the king who is naked. The whole system is naked. In the many pages devoted by the magazine to demonstrate that what the Vests want is unfeasible, not even a single serious word is written about what needs to be done to deal with the deep causes which led the French to revolt. Today's capitalism of Macron, Merkel and Trump does not produce a Roosevelt and New Deal or Popular Fronts – and we have to wait to see if it will produce a Hitler as some are trying to achieve. For the time being, it only produces Yellow Vests!They predicted it, they saw it coming, but they didn't believe it!
Yet they could have predicted all that. It would have sufficed, had they only taken seriously and studied a book published in France in late 2016, six months before the presidential election, highlighting the explosive nature of the social situation and warning of the danger of revolution and civil war.
The title of the book was "Revolution". Its author was none other than Emmanuel Macron himself. Six months later, he would become the President of France, to eventually verify, and indeed rather spectacularly, his predictions. But the truth is probably, that not even he himself gave much credit to what he wrote just to win the election.
By constantly lying, politicians, journalists and intellectuals reasonably came to believe that even their own words are of no importance. That they can say and do anything they want, without any consequence.
In Oscar Wilde's masterpiece "The Picture of Dorian Gray", the main character looks every night at his horrible real self in the mirror. But he looks at it alone.
This is where Macron made his most fatal mistake, being arrogant and markedly cut off from reality – with the confidence given to him by the mighty elite forces, which elected him and by his contempt of the common people which characterizes him.
Unwise and Arrogant, he made no effort to hide – this is how sure he felt of himself, this is how convinced his environment was that he could infinitely go on doing anything he wanted without any consequences (same as our Tsipras). Thus, acting foolishly and arrogantly, he left a few million eyes to see his real face. This was the last straw that made the French people realize in a definite way what they had already started figuring out during Sarkozy's and Hollande's, administration, or even earlier. Observing Macron, the people understood what lied ahead for them. They felt their backs against the wall – they felt that they had only themselves to rely on, that they had to take themselves action to save themselves and their country.
There was nobody else to make it in their place.Macron as a Provocateur. Terror in Pompeii
This was the decisive moment, the moment the historical mission of Macron was achieved . By establishing the most absolute control of Finance over Politics, he himself invited Revolution. His triumph and his tragedy came together.
It was just then, that Bucephalus (*) sprang from the depths of historical Memory, galloping without a rider, ready to sweep away everything in his path.
Now those in power look at him with fear, but fearful too are both the "radical right" and the "radical left". Le Pen has already called on protesters to return to their homes and give her names to include in her list for the European election!
Mélenchon supports the Vests – 70% of their demands coincide with the program of his party, La France Insoumise – but so far he hasn't dared to join the people in demanding Macron's resignation, by adopting the immense, but orphan, cry of the people heard all over France: "Macron resign". Perhaps he feels that he hasn't got the steely strength and willpower required for attempting to lead such a movement.
The unions' leadership is doing everything it can to keep the working class away from the Vests, but this stand started causing increasing unrest at its base.Read also: Macron Prepares a Social War
Many established "leftists" or "radical" intellectuals, who used to feverishly haul capitalism over the coals – although the last thing they really wanted was to experience a real revolution during their lifetime – they too, stand now frightened, looking at an angry Bucephalus running ahead of them. They prefer a stable capitalism, of which they can constitute its "consciousness", writing books, appearing on shows and giving lectures, analyzing its crises and explaining its tribulations. They idea that the People could at some point take seriously what they themselves said, never crossed their minds either!
In fact, this is also a further confirmation of the depth of the movement. Lenin , who, in any event knew something about revolutions, wrote in 1917: "In a revolutionary situation, the Party is a hundred times farther to the left than the Central Committee and the workers a hundred times farther to the left than the Party.""Revolutionary Situation" and Power Vacuum
Today, four out of five French people disapprove of Macron's policies and one in two demands that he resigns immediately. We assume that this percentage is greater than the percentage of Russians who wanted the ousting of Tsar Nicholas II in February 1917.
France is currently almost in a state of Power Vacuum . The president and the government cannot in essence govern and the people cannot tolerate them. It is not a situation of dual power, but a situation of dual legitimacy , in Mélenchon 's accurate description.
This is a typical definition of a revolutionary situation . As history teaches us, the emergence of such a situation is necessary but not sufficient condition for a victorious Revolution. What is required in or order to turn a rebellion into a potentially victorious Revolution, is a capable and decided leadership and an adequate strategy, program and vision. These elements do not seem to exist, at last not for now, in today's France, as they did not exist in May 1968 or during the Russian Revolution of February 1917. Therefore, the present situation remains open to all possible eventualities; there must be no doubt however, that this is the beginning of a period of intense political and class conflicts in Europe, and that the Europe, as we know it, is already history.People's Sovereignty at the center of demands
Starting from fuel tax the revolting French have now put at the centre of their demands, in addition to Macron's resignation, the following:
- preserving the purchasing power of the poorest social strata, e.g. with the abolition of VAT on basic necessities to ensure decent standards of living for the entire population,
- the right of people to provoke referendums on any issue, the Citizens' Initiative Referendum (RIC), including referendums to revoke elected representatives (the President, MPs, mayors, etc. ) when they violate their mandate, all that in the context of establishing a Sixth French Republic .
In other words, they demand a profound and radical " transformation " of the Western bourgeois-democratic regime, as we know it, towards a form of direct democracy in order to take back the state, which has gradually and in a totalitarian manner – but while keeping up democratic appearances – passed under direct and full control of the Financial Capital and its employees. Or at least, for the people to be given the opportunity to develop an effective way of controlling state power.
These are not the demands of a fun-club of Protagoras or of some left-wing or right-wing groupuscule propagating Self-Management or of some club of intellectuals. Nor are they the demands of only the lowest social strata of the French nation.
They are supported, according to the polls and put forward by at least three quarters of French citizens, including a sizeable portion of the less poor. In such circumstances, these demands constitute in effect the Will of the People, the Will of the Nation.
The Vests are nothing more than its fighting pioneers. And precisely because it is the absolute majority of people who align with these demands, even if numbers have somewhat gone down since the beginning of December, the Vests are still wanted out on the streets.
By reversing Marx's famous formula in German Ideology , the ideas of the dominant class do not dominate society. This is why the situation can be described as revolutionary.
And also because it is not only the President and the Government, who have been debunked or at least de-legitimized, but it's also the whole range of state and political institutions, the parties, the unions, the "information" media and the "ideologists" of the regime.
The questioning of the establishment is so profound that any arguments about violence and the protesters do not weaken society's support for them. Many, but not all, condemn violence, but there are not many who don't go on immediately to add a reminder of the regime's social violence against the people. When a famous ex-boxer lost his temper and reacted by punching a number of violent police officers, protesters set up a fundraising website for his legal fees. In just two hours they managed to raise around 120.000 euro, before removing the page over officials' complaints and threats about keeping a file on anyone who contributes money to support such causes.Read also: Greece: Creditors out to crush any trace of Syriza disobedience
Until now, an overwhelming majority of the French people supports the demands while an absolute majority shows supports for the demonstrations; but of course, it is difficult to keep such a deadlock and power-void situation going for long. They will sooner or later demand a solution, and in situations such as these it is often the case that public opinion shifts rapidly from the one end of the political spectrum to the other and vice versa, depending on which force appears to be more decisive and capable of driving society out of the crisis.The organization of the Movement
Because the protesters have no confidence in the parties, the trade unions, or anyone else for that matter, they are driven out of necessity into self-organization, as they already do with the Citizens' Assemblies that are now emerging in villages, cities and motorway camps. Indeed, by the end of the month, if everything goes well, they will hold the first " Assembly of Assemblies ".
Similar developments have also been observed in many revolutionary movements of this kind in various countries. A classic example is the spontaneous formation of the councils ( Soviets ) during the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917.
Although it is difficult to form an opinion from afar about how the situation may unfold, the formation of a such a United Front from grassroots could perhaps offer a way out with regards to the need for a political leadership for the movement, or even of the need to work out a transitional economic program for France, which must also serve as a transitional program for Europe .
Contrary to how things were a century ago, certain factors such as the educational level of the lower social classes, the existence of a number of critical, radical thinkers with the necessary intellectual skills and the Internet, render such a possibility a much more realistic scenario today, than in the past.
Because the movement's Achilles' Heel is that, while it is already in the process of forming a political proposition, it still, at least for now, does not offer any economic alternative or a politically structured, democratically controlled leadership.
Effective Democracy is an absolute requirement in such a front, because it is the only way to synthesize the inevitably different levels of consciousness within the People and to avoid a split of the movement between "left" and "right", between those who are ready to resort to violence to achieve their ends and those who have a preference for more peaceful, gradual processes.
Such a " front " could perhaps also serve as a platform for solidifying a program and vision, to which the various parties and political organizations could contribute.
In her Critique of the Russian Revolution Rosa Luxemburg , the leader of the German Social Democracy was overly critical of the Bolsheviks , even if, I think, a bit too severe in some points. But she closes her critique with the phrase: " They at least dared "
Driven by absolute Need, guided by the specific way its historical experience has formed its consciousness, possessing a Surplus of Consciousness, that is able to feel the unavoidable conclusions coming out of the synthesis of the information we all possess, about both the "quality" of the forces governing our world and the enormous dangers threatening our countries and mankind, the French People, the French Nation has already crossed the Rubicon.
By moving practically to achieve their goals at a massive scale, and regardless of what is to come next, the French people has already made a giant leap up and forward and, once more in its history, it became the world's forerunner in tackling the terrible economic, ecological, nuclear and technological threats against human civilization and its survival.
Without the conscious entry of large masses into the historical scene, with all the dangers and uncertainties that such a thing surely implies, one can hardly imagine how humanity will survive.
(*) Bucephalus was the horse of Alexander the Great, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucephalus
Jan 21, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Posted on January 20, 2019 by Lambert Strether New America (board chair emeritus Eric Schmidt , President the aptronymic Anne-Marie Slaughter ), a nominally center-left Beltway think tank ( funding ) " took up the mission of designing a new social contract in 2007 and was the first organization [anywhere?] to frame its vision in these terms." On May 19, 2016, New America sponsored an annual conference (there was no 2017 iteration) entitled "The Next Social Contract." Elizabeth Warren, presidential contender, was invited to give the opening keynote ( transcript , whicn includes video). Warren shared a number of interesting ideas. I will quote portions of her speech, followed by brief commentary, much of it already familiar to NC readers, in an effort to situate her more firmly in the political landscape. But first, let me quote Warren's opening paragraph:
It is so good to be here with all of you. And yes I will be calling on people. Mostly those of you standing in the back. I always know why people are standing in the back. That's what teachers do.
Professional-class dominance games aside, it's evident that Warren is comfortable here. These are her people. And I would urge that, no matter what policy position she might take on the trail, these policies and this program are her "center of gravity," as it were. Push her left (or, to be fair, right) and, like a bobo doll , she will return to this upright position . So, to the text (all quotes from Warren from the transcript ). I'll start with two blunders, and then move on to more subtle material.
Warren Does Not Understand Uber's Business Model
Or, in strong form, Warren fell for Uber's propaganda. Warren says:
Thank you to the New America Foundation for inviting me here today to talk about the gig economy You know, across the country, new companies are using the Internet to transform the way that Americans work, shop, socialize, vacation, look for love, talk to the doctor, get around, and track down ten foot feather boas, which is actually my latest search on Amazon .
These innovations have helped improve our lives in countless ways, reducing inefficiencies and leveraging network effects to help grow our economy. And this is real growth . The most famous example of this is probably the ride-sharing platforms in our cities. The taxi cab industry was riddled with monopolies, rents, inefficiencies. Cities limited the number of taxi licenses
Uber and Lyft, two ride-sharing platforms came onto the scene about five years ago, radically altered this model, enabling anyone with a smartphone and a car to deliver rides . The result was more rides, cheaper rides, and shorter wait times.
The ride-sharing story illustrates the promise of these new businesses. And the dangers. Uber and Lyft fought against local taxi cab rules that kept prices high and limited access to services .
And while their businesses provide workers with greater flexibility, companies like Lyft and Uber have often resisted efforts of those very same workers to try to access a greater share of from the work that they do. Their business model is, , dependent on extremely low wages for their drivers.
"In part" is doing rather a lot of work, there, even more than "the wealth that is generated," because NC readers know, Uber's business model is critically dependent on massive subsidies from investors, without which is would not exist as a firm. Hubert Horan (November 30, 2016):
Published financial data shows that Uber is losing more money than any startup in history and that its ability to capture customers and drivers from incumbent operators is entirely due to $2 billion in annual investor subsidies. The vast majority of media coverage presumes Uber is following the path of prominent digitally-based startups whose large initial losses transformed into strong profits within a few years.
This presumption is contradicted by Uber's actual financial results, which show while the limited margin improvements achieved in 2016 can be entirely explained by Uber-imposed cutbacks to driver compensation. It is also contradicted by the fact that Uber lacks the major scale and network economies that allowed digitally-based startups to achieve rapid margin improvement.
As a private company, Uber is not required to publish financial statements, and financial statements disseminated privately are not required to be audited in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) or satisfy the SEC's reporting standards for public companies.
The financial tables below are based on private financial statements that Uber shared with investors that were published in the financial press on three separate occasions. The first set included The second set included tables of GAAP profit data for full year ; the third set included summary EBITAR contribution data for .
[F]or the year ending September 2015, Uber had GAAP losses of $2 billion on revenue of $1.4 billion, a negative 143% profit margin. Thus Uber's current operations depend on $2 billion in subsidies, funded out of the $13 billion in cash its investors have provided.
Uber passengers were paying only 41% of the actual cost of their trips; Uber was using these massive subsidies to undercut the fares and provide more capacity than the competitors who had to cover 100% of their costs out of passenger fares.
Many other tech startups lost money as they pursued growth and market share, but losses of this magnitude are unprecedented; in its worst-ever four quarters, in 2000, Amazon had a negative 50% margin, losing $1.4 billion on $2.8 billion in revenue, and the company responded by firing more than 15 percent of its workforce. 2015 was Uber's fifth year of operations; at that point in its history Facebook was achieving 25% profit margins.
Now, in Warren's defense, it is true that she, on May 19, 2016, could not have had the benefit of Horan's post at Naked Capitalism, which was published only on November 30, 2016. However, I quoted Horan's post at length to show the dates: The data was out there; it wasn't a secret; it only needed a staffer with a some critical thinking skills and a mandate to do the research to come to the same conclusions Horan did, and Uber's lack of profitabilty, easily accessible, is a ginormous red flag for anybody who takes the idea that Uber "generates wealth" seriously. How is it that the wonkish Warren is recommending policy based on what can only be superfical research in the trade and technical press? Should not the professor have done the reading?
Warren Does Not Understand How Federal Taxation Works
The second blunder. Warren says:
First, make sure that every worker pays into Social Security, as the law has always intended. Right now, it is a challenge for someone who doesn't have an employer that automatically deducts payroll taxes to pay into Social Security. This can affect both a worker's ability to qualify for disability insurance after a major [injury], and it can result in much lower retirement benefits. , gig workers, 1099 workers, and hourly employees.
It is laudable that Warren wants to bring all workers in the retirement system. But as NC readers know, Federal taxes do not "pay for" Federal spending, and hence Warren's thinking that Social Security will be "fully funded" through "payroll taxes" is a nonsense (and also reinforces incredibly destructive neoliberal austerity policies). I will not tediously rehearse MMT's approach to taxation, but will simply quote a recent tweet from Warren Mosler:
And if Mosler isn't good enough, here's John Stuart Mill on currency issuers:
Again, is it too much to ask that a professor do the reading? After all, MMT gotten plenty of traction, even in 2016. The Sanders staff, for example, could have been helpful to her .
Warren Supports Medicare for All Only Nominally
Warren is indeed a co-sponsor of Sanders' ( inadequate ) S1804. But read the following passages, and you will see #MedicareForAll not where her passion lies:
As greater wealth is generated by new technology, how can we ensure that the workers who support the economy can actually share in the wealth?
(The idea that workers "support" "the" [whose?] "economy," instead of driving or being the economy, is interesting, but let that pass.)
Warren then proceeds to lay out a number of policies to answer that question. She says:
Well, I believe we start with one simple principle. All workers, no matter where they work, no matter how they work, no matter when they work, no matter who they work for, whether they pick tomatoes or build rocket ships, all workers should have some basic protections and be able to build some economic security for themselves and their families. No worker should fall through the cracks. And here are some ideas about how to rethink and strengthen the worker's bargain.
So, she's not just laying out policy for the gig economy (the occasion of the speech); she's laying out a social contract (the topic of the speech). Picking through the next sections, here is the material on health care:
We can start by strengthening our safety net so that it catches anyone who has fallen on hard times, whether they have a formal employer or not. And there are three much-needed changes right off the bat on this.
I hate the very concept of a "safety net." Why should life be like a tightrope walk? Who wants that, except crazypants neoliberal professors, mostly tenured? She then makes recommendations for three policies, and sums up:
These three, Social Security, catastrophic insurance, and earned leave, create a safety net for income.
Hello? Medical bankruptcy ? She then moves on from the "safety net" for income to benefits, which is the aegis under which she places health care:
Now, the second area of change to make is on employee benefits, both for healthcare and retirement. To make them fully portable. They belong to the worker, no matter what company or platform generates the income, they should follow that worker wherever that worker goes. And the corollary to this is that workers without formal employers should have access to the same kinds of benefits that some employees already have.
I want to be clear here. The Affordable Care Act is a big step toward addressing this problem for healthcare. Providing access for workers who don't have employer-sponsored coverage and providing a long term structure for portability. We should improve on that structure, enhancing its portability, and reducing the managerial involvement of employers.
Remember, this is a Democratic audience, and what do we get? "Portability," "access", and reduced "managerial involvement." That's about as weak as tea can possibly get, and this is a liberal Democrat audience. ("The same kinds of benefits that some employees already have." Eeesh.) But wait, you say! This speech iis in 2016, and in 2018, Warren supports #MedicareForAll! For example, " Health care: Supports the "Medicare for All" bill led by Bernie Sanders " (PBS, January 17, 2019). But notice how equivocal that support is. Quoting PBS again, Warren "called that approach 'a goal worth fighting for.'" Rather equivocal! And folliowing the link to that quote, we find it's from a speech Warren gave to Families USA's Health Action 2018 Conference :
I endorsed Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All bill because it lays out a way to give every single person in this country a guarantee of high-quality health care. Everybody is covered. Nobody goes broke because of a medical bill. No more fighting with insurance companies.
There are other approaches as well I'm glad to see us put different ideas on the table.
So, we have a gesture toward #MedicareForAll. But then, Warren, instead of going into detail about how #MedicareForAll would work, immediately backtracks and emits a welter of detail about
minor fixesimprovements, on the order of "portability," "access," and reduced "managerial involvement." (Different details, but still details). Then she moves on to Massachusetts. Read this, and it's clear where Warren's heart is:
Massachusetts has the highest rate of health insurance coverage in the nation. We are the healthiest state in the nation.
That didn't just happen because we woke up one morning and discovered that insurance companies had just started offering great coverage at a price everyone could afford.
We demanded that insurance companies live up to their side of the bargain. Every insurer participating in our exchange is required to offer plans with standard, easy-to-compare benefits and low up-front costs for families. Last year, we had the second-lowest premiums in the ACA market of any state in the country. Massachusetts insurers pay out 92% of the dollars they bring in through premiums to cover costs for beneficiaries – not to line their own pockets.
The rules are tough in Massachusetts, but the insurance companies have shown up and done the hard work of covering families in a responsible way. We have more than double the number of insurers participating on our exchanges, compared to the average across the country. They show up, they serve the people of Massachusetts, and they still make plenty of money.
Look, we still have plenty of work to do, particularly when it comes to bring down health spending, but we're proud of the system we have built in Massachusetts, and I think it shows that good policies can have a real impact on the health and well-being of hard working people across the country.
Never mind that Warren can say, virtually in the same breath, that insurance companies "still make plenty of money" and "we have plenty of work to do to bring down health care spending." RomneyCare was the beta version of ObamaCare. We tried it, as a nation, starting in 2009, and here we are. Is that's what Warren wants, fine, but why not simply advocate for it?
Warren Has No Coherent Theory of Change
Except, perhaps, one distinctly slanted toward insiders. " Work hard and play by the rules " is a Clintonite trope, but let's search on "rules" and see what we come up with. More from the transcript:
But it is policy, and regulations, that will determine whether workers have a meaningful opportunity to share in the wealth that is generated.
Here, workers are passive , acted upon by rules, and those who create them. But Warren contradicts herself: "Lyft and Uber have often resisted efforts of those very same workers." Here, workers are active. But if workers are active in the second context, they are also active in the first! Where does Warren think change comes from? The generosity of Uber and its investors? More:
Antitrust laws and newly-created public utilities addressed the new technological revolution's tendency toward concentration and monopoly, and kept our markets competitive. Rules to prevent cheating and fraud were added to make sure that bad actors in the marketplace couldn't get a leg up over folks who played by the rules.
Note the lack of agency in "were added." Warren erases the entire Populist Movement ! She also can't seem to get her head round the idea that workers didn't necessarily play by the existing ruies in order to create new ones. And:
Workers have a right to expect our government to work for them. To set the basic rules of the game. If this country is to have a strong middle class, then we need the policies that will make that possible. That's how shared prosperity has been built in the past, and that is our way forward now. Change won't be easy. But we don't get what we don't fight for. And I believe that America's workers are worth fighting for.
Now, on the one hand, this is great. I, too, believe that "America's workers are worth fighting for." What Warren seems to lack, at the visceral level, is the idea that workers should be (self-)empowered to do the fighting (as opposed to having the professional classes pick their fights for them). Here is Warren on unions:
Every worker should have the right to organize, period. Full-time, part-time, temp workers, gig workers, contract workers, you bet.
Very good. More:
Those who provide the labor should have the right to bargain as a group with whoever controls the terms of their work .
The idea that workers themselves should control the terms of their work seems to elude Warren. This erases, for example, co-ops. More:
Government is not the only advocate on behalf of workers.
"Not the only?" Like, there are lots of others? This seems a tendentious, not to say naive, view of the role of government. More:
It was workers [here we go], bargaining through their unions [and the qualification], who helped [helped?] introduce retirement benefits, sick pay, overtime, the weekend, and a long list of other benefits, for their members and for all workers across this country. Unions helped build America's middle class, and unions will help rebuild America's middle class.
Here, at least, Warren grants workers (partial) agency, but only through the institutional framework of unions . That distorts the history. Granted, "helped introduce" is doing a lot of work, and who they were "helping" isn't entirely clear, but the history is enormously complicated. (Here again, Warren needs to do the reading.) For example, the history of the weekend long predates unions . And "bargaining through their unions" isn't the half of it. Take, for example, the Haymarket Affair . From the Illinois Labor History Society:
To understand what happened at Haymarket, it is necessary to go back to the summer of 1884 when the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions, the predecessor of the American Federation of Labor, called for May 1, 1886 to be the beginning of a nationwide movement for the eight-hour day. This wasn't a particularly radical idea since both Illinois workers and federal employees were supposed to have been covered by an eight-hour day law since 1867. The problem was that the federal government failed to enforce its own law, and in Illinois, employers forced workers to sign waivers of the law as condition of employment.
Fine, "rules." Which weren't being obeyed! More from the Illinois Labor History Society:
Monday, May 3, the peaceful scene turned violent when the Chicago police attacked and killed picketing workers at the McCormick Reaper Plant at Western and Blue Island Avenues. This attack by police provoked a protest meeting which was planned for Haymarket Square on the evening of Tuesday, May 4. Very few textbooks provide a thorough explanation of the events that led to Haymarket, nor do they mention that the pro-labor mayor of Chicago, Carter Harrison, gave permission for the meeting . Most speakers failed to appear . Instead of the expected 20,000 people, fewer than 2,500 attended . The Haymarket meeting was almost over and only about two hundred people remained when they were attacked by 176 policemen carrying Winchester repeater rifles. Fielden was speaking; even Lucy and Albert Parsons had left because it was beginning to rain. Then someone, unknown to this day, threw the first dynamite bomb ever used in peacetime history of the United States. The next day martial law was declared, not just in Chicago but throughout the nation. Anti-labor governments around the world used the Chicago incident to crush local union movements.
This is how workers "helped introduce" the eight-hour day.
Yes, America's workers are "worth fighting for." But they also fight for themselves , and are fought against! Warren's theory of change -- which seems to involve people of good will "at the table" -- cannot give an account of events like Haymarket or why, in the present day, it's Uber's drivers who are also the drivers of change, and not benevolent rulemakers. Warren's views on the social contract are in great contrast to Sanders' "Not me, us."
 Warren is far stronger in areas where she has developed academic expertise than in areas where she has not.
 Google is Google, i.e., crapified, but if Warren has retracted or changed her views on Uber, I can't find it. She was receiving good press for this speech as late as August 2017 .
 Oddly, bankruptcy is where Warren made her academic bones. I'm frankly baffled at her lack of full-throated advocacy on this, especially before a friendly audience.
 Warren, by juxtaposition, suggests that Massachusetts' health insurance coverage causes it to be "the healthiest state in the nation." This post hoc fallacy ignores, for example, demographics and the social determinants of health .
 Warren focuses on health insurance, not health care. I'm nothing like an expert in the Massachusetts health insurance system. However, looking at this chart , I'm seeing all the usual techniques to deny access to care: Deductibles, co-pays, out-of-network costs, and (naturally) high-deductible plans. Health care should be free at the point of delivery. Why is that so hard to understand?
Burritonomics , January 20, 2019 at 5:16 pm
I quickly went over the (188 page!) report referenced in Warren's claim that "Massachusetts has the highest rate of health insurance coverage in the nation. We are the healthiest state in the nation". It should be noted I went in with the expressed purpose of finding something to be snarky about, and I found it.
One of the metrics under "core measures" of clinical care was Preventable Hospitalizations. As it states in the report itself: "Preventable hospitalizations reflect the efficiency of a population's use of primary care and the quality of the primary health care received Preventable hospitalizations are more common among people without health insurance and often occur because of failure to treat conditions early in an outpatient setting". Wow! With such bang up health insurance in MA, one would figure they would do great on this metric. Nope! MA ranks 37th in the country. Many more such examples can be found, I'm sure.
I have a real dislike of these "who's best" lists, regardless of topic. Rarely do they (the aggregated ratings) contain insight beyond that captured by the individual metrics.
lambert strether , January 20, 2019 at 5:24 pm
Massachusetts is #1 on mortality (though they have issues with opioids). They have median US age, so it's not the enormous Boston student population. So they're doing something right, I'm just not sold it's health insurance or, more to the point, health insurers. They do have more physicians (and psychiatrists) per capita.
Joe Well , January 20, 2019 at 8:52 pm
What is "mortality" in this case? I'm curious about this because people often casually say that US health outcomes are worse than in other countries by looking at life expectancy (which I guess is not the same as mortality), and that comparison is rarely done on a state by state basis in the US.
Massachusetts is roughly tied with the other top ten states in life expectancy, which are almost all "blue" states . Worldwide, life expectancy among highly developed countries is roughly similar, within a few years of each other . The US comes out towards the bottom (no. 31), but only by about 1-3 years.
Also amazed just now to see that Asian American and Latino life expectancy are so much higher than for white and black Americans. Does anyone know anything about that? I'm really stunned.
Usually, lower life expectancy for blacks is given as evidence of inequality, but the white-black gap (about 1-2 years) is tiny compared with the black-Latino and black-Asian gap, or for that matter, the white-Latino or white-Asian gap, which are more like 5-10 years. I'm really floored by that.
In general, looking at the numbers just now has shaken my assumptions about poor US life expectancy and also racial disparities and I'm wondering if I'm misinterpreting them.
Joe Well , January 20, 2019 at 9:10 pm
Wow, you learn something new every day.
Apparently there is something called the "Hispanic Health Paradox" that has been studied intensively for over 30 years . The biggest reason seems to be much lower rates of smoking. There also seems to be a filtering effect whereby healthier people migrate to the US. Anecdotally, I'd suggest much lower rates of alcohol and drug abuse, but the article doesn't mention that.
So, why Mass. has a relatively high life expectancy could in part be due to it having one of the earliest and most aggressive anti-smoking movements. I'm guessing historically high smoking rates (up to 50% of adults in the 1950s with huge second-hand exposure) could also account for poorer health outcomes today.
BoyDownTheLane , January 21, 2019 at 12:49 am
One of my favorite pictures (the one I have not yet taken) would have been an elevated shot of the intersection at Longwood and Brookline Avenues (379–385 Brookline Ave) at noon on a clear, sunny spring day to see the murmuration of medical staff running between appointments, lunch, rounds, etc.
The intersection is surrounded by arguably some of the finest medical institutions in the Western world (Beth Israel Deaconess, Dana-Farber, Brigham & Women's (where Atul Gawande, author of the book "Better" and the whole entire concept of positive deviance, once held court), Harvard Medical School itself with its etched-in-granite entrace to the Countway Library that reads "Ars Longa, Vita Brevis", and the Harvard School of Public Health.
The murmuration of white coats may be at that moment the greatest single concentrated density of medical excellence at one time. It is easy to scoff. I've been the recipient of bad medicine myself, but also far more high-quality, life-saving medicine. But the public health movement in Massachusetts has been around for a very long time and is supported by and engrained within governmental regulations, oversight and policy. Insurance plans covering most of the state ranked, typically and for years, #'s 1, 2, 3 and more. The Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Systems report out results that are painstakingly gathered, audited to improve performance. It is fair to say that a major part of the intersection between computing and medicine was born and is overseen across the river in Cambridge. Organizations that collect or audit data for health plans and providers are screened, trained and certified by NCQA ( https://www.ncqa.org/about-ncqa/ ).
In addition, there are national, regional and state associations devoted to quality improvement and toi improvement of access. The National Association of Community Health Centers (those clinics funded Federally to serve the under-served for free or on a sliding scale) "works in conjunction with state and regional primary care associations, health center controlled networks and other public and private sector organizations to expand health care access to all in need." There are CHC's dotted everywhere around the country (albeit not enough of them), and there is a state association in almost every state. No one can ever be turned away from a CHC, especially for lack of ability to pay; the Federal government underwrites their care.
nothing but the truth , January 20, 2019 at 5:29 pm
govts can call force us to call toilet paper a pound, but i doubt they can make it worth a pound of sterling silver – if they pretend that they can produce any amount.
Brooklin Bridge , January 20, 2019 at 5:58 pm
Warren's emphasis on the economic market for health "care?" (insurance companies making plenty of money ) and particularly her whole rant on the superlatives of Massachusetts insurance care (that means, care for insurance companies) , increasingly neglects health and people care as the primary concern of medicine and the people who practice it.
As an average Joe, meaning not part of the medical world, I have come across a surprising number of doctors in both social circumstances as well as health issues of my own and of my extended family, where doctors have complained about the ever worsening constraints imposed on them by insurance companies. I know at least three doctors who retired early because of it and one of them talks about it being a significant problem in keeping highly qualified doctors in general practice. From ever more ridiculously short visits, to constant refusal to cover such and such a drug, to all manner of schemes to improve patients health by overseeing and controlling what the doctor does to finding ways to monitor what the patient does; what he or she takes as medicine and exactly when and how often – cutting the doctor out of the loop completely. Improve the patient experience my *ss. It's horrible and it all comes down to ever new ways to reduce coverage – to make more money.
Perhaps I'm being a little unjust, but Warren seems fine with this "system" where the gate keepers make, "plenty of money," as long as people are going in and out of doctors' offices in countable droves as if on run-away conveyer belts. I should at least allow that many of her superlative claims are accurate (or somewhat accurate) and that there is fairly wide coverage in this state but nevertheless stress that our excellent medical facilities in Boston proper are due to historical reasons and NOT to RomneyCare.
deplorado , January 20, 2019 at 5:59 pm
Thank you Lambert, for your cogent and discerning analysis as always. I've long ago disabused myself of the notion that E. Warren is more than "lipstick" on the usual "pig", but it was good to have written support for that thesis and I will save it for my reference.
What worries me more though is Sanders's bill and why he wouldn't go all the way? Would you do an analysis of that please – will really appreciate it.
Joe Well , January 20, 2019 at 6:10 pm
The vast majority of Massachusetts health plan providers are nonprofit HMOs so I'm baffled by the idea that they are making tons of money since legally they are not supposed to.
The most obvious difference between Mass and the rest of the country is precisely the preponderance of nonprofit health plans (it's not commonly called health insurance here) and nonprofit hospitals. The idea of for-profit health plans and hospitals freaks me out.
It's worth noting that Mass health coverage seems to have gotten worse in recent years, though I don't know how much of that is due to Obamacare. High deductibles, coinsurance, confusing in-network requirements combined with poor documentation and even poorer customer service to tell you what is in-network and what is not. I just got a surprise $370 bill for a provider that supposedly was out of network even though I had checked extensively that they were in-network. That is the first time that has ever happened to me in Mass. Not to mention the confusing and unnerving notices I got the last few months saying I was in danger of losing coverage. A great big ball of Weberian beaureaucratic stress.
bob , January 20, 2019 at 8:04 pm
Non-profit health insurance Company – https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/money/business/2014/04/25/former-excellus-ceo-package-total-m/8155853/ The final retirement package for former Excellus BlueCross BlueShield CEO David Klein likely will exceed -- by millions -- the $12.9 million the company reported to the state in March. $29.8 Million in retirement. Non-profit for who? It's a complete misnomer and a huge problem in the discourse of healthcare. Hospitals are usually non-profits too. They non-profitly charge you $80,000 for a few stitches and some aspirin.
somecallmetim , January 20, 2019 at 10:08 pm
Health Care Economist / Professor Uwe Reinhardt used to comment that in the current system non-profit hospitals (The Sisters of Mercy, with a token nun on their board, in his telling) were subject to the same forces as for profit hospitals.
He also said Massachusetts has the only adult health care system, and the other states are all adolescents.
johnnygl , January 20, 2019 at 9:10 pm
We've got for-profit hospitals Cerberus took the caritas network. The hospitals dominate this state. The rest of us are just living here.
johnnygl , January 20, 2019 at 9:15 pm
Special thanks to the catholic church for selling such an important institution to a monster that guards the gates of the underworld.
I bet it was to cover the costs of child predator priests.
Joe Well , January 20, 2019 at 10:20 pm
Wow, I'd missed that (moved out of state, then came back). Thanks for the update. It looks like the Catholic Church (former owner of Caritas) has further enhanced its legacy in Massachusetts. However, I believe it is still true that the hospital market in Mass. is dominated by nonprofits (albeit greedy nonprofits).
And yes, hospitals and hospital chains (e.g., Partners Healthcare, which is nonprofit) pose huge challenges to managing healthcare costs in Mass. as the numerous Boston Globe investigative series attest, by using their market power to raises prices.
My concern is when the market becomes dominated by for-profit actors, the profit-seeking, which is already bad with nonprofits, becomes even worse, especially in an ultra-expensive market like Greater Boston.
Brooklin Bridge , January 20, 2019 at 6:16 pm
I should add (if my earlier comment get's posted), it's even more surprising how many doctor's seem just fine with all the negative changes being brought about by insurance companies' intrusive quest for control and I don't mean just the ones who say nothing.
That is, some doctors seem to enjoy the vestiges of the glow of community respect and honor that once went with being a doctor all while doing almost nothing other than sheep herding patients through the office in good file while staff (not the good doctor) attend to making the visit digital and storing it away in some cloud.
Tomonthebeach , January 20, 2019 at 7:07 pm
I agree with Warren Mosler that Elizabeth Warren's apparent ignorance of MMT, much less mastery of it, makes here a lame candidate in my book. She needs to get woke pretty quickly or settle for some cabinet appointment.
Anarcissie , January 20, 2019 at 10:10 pm
Is MMT now Scripture?
ChrisAtRU , January 20, 2019 at 10:22 pm
It's more important than 'scripture' it's how sovereign fiat money actually works .
Joe Well , January 20, 2019 at 10:57 pm
You don't even need MMT. When asked how the federal government can pay for something, people can just answer, "the same way we pay for military and intelligence spending." Any politician who won't say at least this is deeply suspicious.
David in Santa Cruz , January 20, 2019 at 7:40 pm
In The Unwinding , George Packer quotes Elizabeth Warren as describing her political views thusly:
"I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets"
I'm glad that she's out there, I'm glad that she's talking, and we need an open and transparent nomination process, but Bernie Sanders remains the only (potential) nominee who comes close to representing my views. Good piece.
emorej a hong kong , January 20, 2019 at 7:50 pm
The transcript could easily have been a speech by Hillary (and even delivered to Goldman Sachs if Hillary had had the foresight to realize that every speech would become known to everybody in the Internet age -- before Russiagate was leveraged into Social media banning of anti-establishment speech).
The speech's date (May 19 2016), was two days after Bernie won the Oregon primary by 14%, and two days before Hillary won the Washington state primary by 5%.
Synoia , January 20, 2019 at 8:07 pm
It was going to be BS directly after this:
New America (board chair emeritus Eric Schmidt
The Eric Schmidt who took Google down the primrose part of spying on everybody. Warren is centrist.
Synoia , January 20, 2019 at 8:11 pm
It was going to be BE after this phrase
New America (board chair emeritus Eric Schmidt,
The Eric Schmidt who took Google doen the path of spying on everybody. He has nothing to offer by centrist rhetoric. It would be very interesting in how much In-Q-Tel invested in Google.
flora , January 20, 2019 at 8:39 pm
Thanks for this post.
And thanks for the reminder that the 8 hour workday and the 40 hour workweek were not 'given' to workers, they were won by workers.
Matthew G. Saroff , January 20, 2019 at 9:48 pm
I made an a similar observation on my blog .
Compare these two quotes on Pharma looting.
Giant companies may hate my Affordable Drug Manufacturing bill – but I don't work for them. The American people deserve competitive markets and fair prices. By fixing the broken generic drug market, we can bring the cost of prescriptions down.
If the pharmaceutical industry will not end its greed, which is literally killing Americans, then we will end it for them.
This is a not an insignificant difference
Mike Barry , January 20, 2019 at 10:30 pm
The best is the enemy of the good.
Yves Smith , January 20, 2019 at 11:17 pm
Tell me what about Warren not understanding how federal taxes work, which is fundamental to formulating sound fiscal policy and spending plans, not being serious about fixing our health care system, or praising the predatory gig economy, is "good".
RepubAnon , January 20, 2019 at 11:32 pm
On a side note: self-employed workers pay more out-of-pocket into Social Security than W-2 employees. W-2 employees only pay half the Social Security tax – employers pay the other half via a "payroll tax."
The self-employed pay both the employee's half of Social Security, and also pay a "Self-Employment tax" (the employer's half of Social Security). The logic is that if you are both employee and employer, you should pay both halves.
Yves Smith , January 21, 2019 at 12:58 am
This is thread jacking, plus an economist would point out that the employer clearly is paying a net wage that reflects his awareness that he is paying the employer side of the FICA taxes.
Ape , January 21, 2019 at 12:31 am
Or lesser of two evils? There really needs to be a good discussion again about reform versus structural change without Chait-like pretensions. The question isn't just whether we'll get there in time, but whether reform even out runs reaction. Once you take out patriotic myth, it's not obvious whethervthe good in the long term is even worth bothering with.
Glen , January 21, 2019 at 12:47 am
Warren 2020 campaign is DOA. If you want Trump for another four years go with Warren 2020. Bernie would have won.
The Rev Kev , January 20, 2019 at 11:01 pm
I can't help but think that if you are talking about the "Next Social Contract", them you should put something in there that if you have children going hungry then something has gone wrong with your society. Not being snarky here as I believe that a fundamental purpose of society is to protect those in need. An earlier society talked about 'women and children first' and they were not too far off the mark here.
She was invited to talk about the gig economy but in reading her speech I was under the impression that she wants the Federal government to underwrite the costs of workers for corporations to ensure that maybe these workers have food to eat while working for these very same corporations. I suspect that this is the thinking behind letting Amazon workers go for Federal assistance for the sheer basics of life while Amazon makes off like bandits.
No. The way to go is to enforce corporations like this pay a living wage and not to have them count on the country to make up the difference. If they start to protest, then start to talk about looking over their accounts for any discrepancies to make them back off. That's how they got Al Capone you know. Not for being a gangster but for not paying his taxes while doing so. And do the same for mobs like Uber and Lyft and all the other corporations.
BoyDownTheLane , January 21, 2019 at 12:16 am
" Elizabeth Warren is Hillary Clinton reborn, and they're both unlikable, because they're both inauthentic scolds who suffer from hall monitor syndrome. They spent their entire lives breaking every rule they could find while awkwardly fantasizing about running every tiny detail of everyone else's lives ."
Left in Wisconsin , January 21, 2019 at 12:38 am
Sigh. Nail hit squarely on head. The one thing I will say to Warren's credit is that she has learned in some specific ways that the world isn't invariably the pure meritocracy that is so instinctively part of her world view. That said, it seems clear there will always be plenty that she is simply not capable of seeing, so she will always say and support things that are just wrong. She will not be leading the revolution.
Jan 20, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com
Fred C. Dobbs , January 18, 2019 at 01:52 PMTulsi Gabbard, Democratic Presidential Candidate,ilsm -> EMichael... , January 19, 2019 at 06:24 AM
Apologizes for Anti-Gay Past https://nyti.ms/2HhUDev
NYT - Liam Stack - Jan. 17, 2019
Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who last week announced she was running for president, apologized Thursday for her history of anti-gay statements and her past work for an anti-gay advocacy group -- issues that have emerged as an early obstacle as she pursues a long-shot bid for the Democratic Party's nomination.
... ... ...read!
I venture to guess, since Anne goes here several times. The 'militarists', unrelated to LGBT, faction of the DNC will use LGBT comments from Gabbard's past...... to show she is not liberal enough to defend the party's permanent war profiteering plank!
Jan 20, 2019 | failedevolution.blogspot.com
Searching the Podesta emails inside WikiLeaks we found a rather disturbing fact about Tulsi Gabbard who recently announced that she will run for the 2020 US presidency. Iraq War Veteran, Jon Soltz, chairman at VoteVets at the time, sent an email on Aug. 2012 to Hillary Clinton top lobbyist, John Podesta, in order to thank him for his contribution to Gabbard's campaign in Hawaii.
Soltz wrote (emphasis added):
This morning, we are one step closer to making history. In Hawaii, VoteVets PAC-endorsed Iraq veteran Tulsi Gabbard has won her primary, in a stunning come-from-behind victory. If she wins in November, she along with Tammy Duckworth (who we also feel very good about), would be the first female combat veteran ever elected to Congress in United States history! This is happening because of you. Your tens of thousands of dollars in donations for Tulsi's campaign, through VoteVets PAC , allowed her to run a first-rate effort.
VoteVets Action Fund was the first group to step up to help her close that gap. In all, VoteVets Action Fund spent over $317,000 promoting Tulsi's incredible biography . Now, we're even closer to sending another incredible veteran to Congress, to add to the growing voice of today's progressive veterans in the halls of power. From all of us at VoteVets.org, I want to thank you for helping to make this all possible .
While it's quite annoying the fact that one of the most promising progressives for the US presidency, have won back then, to some extent, thanks to Podesta's money, it is clear that she didn't receive that money directly from Clinton's top lobbyist.
The money was used by VoteVets Action Fund to boost Gabbard's campaign, and there is no evidence that she had direct connections with the Clinton mechanism.
Furthermore, there is additional evidence about the fact that Gabbard upset the elites inside the Democratic party, as she has subsequently chosen to adopt more progressive positions and join permanently the Bernie Sanders progressive faction.
For example, Darnell Strom, a Hillary Clinton fundraiser , sent an email to Tulsi Gabbard on Feb. 2016 to express his big disappointment about the fact that she had chosen to endorse Bernie Sanders.
The tone of writing reveals a lot of anger for the fact that Gabbard had clearly chosen to join the Bernie Sanders camp instead of that of Hillary Clinton. And it's quite impressive that in the end, Strom straightly clarifies that he will not help Gabbard to raise money for her campaign!
Strom wrote (emphasis added):
We were very disappointed to hear that you would resign your position with the DNC so you could endorse Bernie Sanders, a man who has never been a Democrat before . When we met over dinner a couple of years ago I was so impressed by your intellect, your passion, and commitment to getting things done on behalf of the American people.
For you to endorse a man who has spent almost 40 years in public office with very few accomplishments , doesn't fall in line with what we previously thought of you.
Hillary Clinton will be our party's nominee and you standing on ceremony to support the sinking Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful to Hillary Clinton . A woman who has spent the vast majority of her life in public service and working on behalf of women, families, and the underserved. You have called both myself and Michael Kives before about helping your campaign raise money, we no longer trust your judgement so will not be raising money for your campaign .
This is probably the best proof that, at that moment, Tulsi Gabbard had cut ties with the Clinton mechanism permanently. A very hopeful sign.
Recall that Gabbard introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists act to prohibit taxpayer dollars for being used to support terrorists. She is probably the only one from the US Congress who dared to tell the truth about Syria by stating that " ... the US government has been violating this law for years, directly and indirectly supporting allies and partners of groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, with money, weapons, intelligence and other support in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government. "
Jan 20, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
"The Tulsi Gabbard Factor" [ Counterpunch ].
"Gabbard seems to think of international relations in a different register, seeing states as rational agents pursuing their national interests – mainly in self-preservation and self-defense. Academics call this way of thinking about geopolitics 'realism'; it is old-fashioned Realpolitik projected onto the global stage .
If Gabbard's candidacy catches on enough for her to become a threat to prevailing interests within the Democratic Party, expect to hear more about how her policies are of a piece with Assad's, the demon of the hour, and also, of course with Vladimir Putin's, the devil incarnate in the eyes not just of Clintonite liberals, but also of the anti-Trump "conservatives" who have overrun CNN and MSNBC (=MSDNC), and of the national security state "experts" whom one sees at all hours of the day and night on those increasingly unbearable cable networks.
Worse still, expect to hear more about how Gabbard's views coincide with Trump's. If anyone really is the devil incarnate, he's the man. But face it: when he's right, he's right, and compared to Clintonite Democrats, on more issues than foreign affairs – on trade, for example -- he's often more right than they. Better a leftwing realist, which is what Gabbard seems to be, than a Clintonite moralist." • Indeed.
"New Trump campaign hires to focus on convention delegates, party organization" [ Politico ]. "The new hires will help run the campaign's delegate and party organization arm, which is waging an elaborate nationwide campaign to ensure the delegates selected to attend the nominating convention are staunch White House allies -- not Never Trump Republicans.
The group will be focused on delving into the granular state-by-state battles that will ensue in the coming months and which will determine the composition of the convention delegation."
Jan 17, 2019 | discussion.theguardian.com
Art Glick , 15 Jan 2019 09:44The neoliberalism of the Democratic Party elite (and most of the rank and file) is one big factor in our 2016 loss. Even voters too ignorant to see Trump for what he really was - voters that are misinformed to the point that they unwittingly and continually vote against their own best interests - realized how much the Dems have sold out to Wall Street.Canuckistan , 15 Jan 2019 09:30
HRC would have been nominated in '08 if she had kissed more Wall Street you-know-what. That's why they anointed Obama who then proceeded to squander eight years of opportunity to remove big money from politics and enact progressive reforms to health care, the environment, etc.
Bernie is a bit long in the tooth, so I am all in for Liz Warren. She's the only one with both the courage and the intelligence to take on the big money that controls our politics.
Therefore, you can expect the Russian trolls to be coming for her in force. If you read anything negative about Warren in the coming months, check the source and don't trust the accuracy.Sanders or Warren would mean a change from neoliberal war mongering of the Clinton/W model. If the Democrats offer up another Clintonite they will lose. They need to offer something positive to the 90% who have lost the last 40 years of class war.
Jan 17, 2019 | www.bloomberg.com
Elizabeth Warren is demanding that Wells Fargo & Co. be kicked off college campuses, a market the bank has said is among its fastest-growing.
The Democratic senator from Massachusetts and likely presidential candidate said Thursday that she requested more information from Wells Fargo Chief Executive Officer Tim Sloan and from 31 colleges where the bank does business. The inquiry follows a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau report said that Wells Fargo charged students the highest fees of 573 banks examined.
"When granted the privilege of providing financial services to students through colleges, Wells Fargo used this access to charge struggling college students exorbitant fees," Warren said in a statement. "These high fees, which are an outlier within the industry, demonstrate conclusively that Wells Fargo does not belong on college campuses."
Warren has been a vocal critic of Wells Fargo -- including repeatedly calling for Sloan's ouster -- since a series of consumer issues at the company erupted more than two years ago with a phony-accounts scandal.
Wells Fargo is "continually working to improve how we serve our customers," a bank spokesman said in an emailed statement Thursday. "Before and since the CFPB's review on this topic, we have been pursuing customer-friendly actions that support students," including waiving service fees on some checking accounts offered to them.
A reputation for overcharging students could further harm Wells Fargo's consumer-banking strategy. The San Francisco-based bank has identified college-age consumers as a growth opportunity, and John Rasmussen, head of personal lending, said last year that Wells Fargo may expand into the refinancing of federal student loans.
Jan 17, 2019 | discussion.theguardian.com
TempsdesRoses , 15 Jan 2019 08:47Yep,Brassic , 15 Jan 2019 08:21
The party has circled its wagons.
They insist that the Evil Vlad stole the last election.
Therefore, no need to examine Obama's centrist/neoliberal policies and the socio-economic conditions that fueled the rejection of Hillary.
We're doomed to repeat our errors.
The farcical DNC leadership echoes the days of Brezhnev's intransigent politburo.Excellent article. Thank you.
This is the realistic perspective we have to adopt in the US: the Democratic establishment is part of the neoliberal machinery that has generated Bush's wars, Obama's bank bailouts, deportations, and drone executions, and now Trump's anti-democratic populism.
Jan 17, 2019 | discussion.theguardian.com
cagnusdei -> cagnusdei , 15 Jan 2019 10:53In regards to the Hillary v Bernie question, it also didn't help that the primary vote was wildly skewed by so-called 'superdelegates,' who don't actually commit their votes until the DNC convention, but were being counted by the media as having already voted for Hillary, which made it appear to many of the uninformed that Bernie didn't have any chance of winning, which may have been intended to keep Bernie supporters home on primary day under the assumption that Hillary was unbeatable.ehmaybe -> HobbesianWorlds , 15 Jan 2019 10:52As sensible as your suggestions may be, what you're calling for would require at least three constitutional amendments to be practical - including scrapping the first amendment.cagnusdei -> lullu616 , 15 Jan 2019 10:50
Maybe we should strive towards attainable goals instead?Didn't help that the ostensibly neutral DNC was sending emails saying that they should play up Bernie Sanders' Jewish faith (among other attack strategies), fed debate questions to the Clinton campaign or tried to limit opportunities for Bernie and Hillary to share a stage together.ConBrio -> cnzewi , 15 Jan 2019 10:45
Bernie Sanders is widely considered by many to be one of the most popular American politicians, more than Trump and certainly more popular than Hillary. I think an interesting phenomenon to notice is the lengths the GOP, in particular, will go to in order to convince the average voter that anything that cuts taxes is inherently good for the 'little guy,' while anything that raises taxes is bad. Trump's recent tax cuts are a good example. Most of the actual cuts go toward the corporations and ultra-wealthy, which just increases the deficit while shifting the proportion of taxes paid onto the middle class. It's a con that many Americans are inexplicably susceptible to believing, for some reason.memo10 -> GRBnative , 15 Jan 2019 10:34
Progressive believe in inclusion and if that is "moralistic rhetoric" then so be it.
The litany goes "round and round.
" you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it!
"Referring to working-class voters in old industrial towns decimated by job losses, the presidential hopeful said: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion "
There's liberal "inclusion" for you!Bernie's bid was crushed by Clinton's superdelegates. No amount of throwing money against him in the direct sense was doing any good. He took popular positions on issues and stubbornly stayed on-message.
Jan 16, 2019 | theguardian.com
William Williamson, 15 Jan 2019 10:38Well put. All the USA has is Coke or Pepsi. With a lot of masquerading in between. A couple people who aren't on THE payroll, or wanting to be.MyGenericUsername , 15 Jan 2019 07:38Half of Americans don't bother voting for president. Why is the American media full only of people who insist that the country is divided in half between Democrat and Republican supporters? Where are the people of influence who think it's a problem and reflects poorly on the country that half of eligible voters don't see a reason to participate, and that it's worth changing things in order to get more people to chang