But will a significant number of Democrats voting in the primary choose someone who is running on a platform of "Minnesota nice"?
Maybe you have a different perpective on her candidacy, but it is my sense that Klobuchar might have a real chance to win in a general election contest, unlike most of the other Democrats who appear to be poised to run. However, it seems unlikely to me that Democrats will vote for Klobuchar in large numbers in the primary. If that is right, then she obviously will not be nominated to represent the Democrats in the general election contest.
Seems like they could have had this rally at an indoor venue. Minnesota in winter? Don't they have a bowling alley or curling rink available? Maybe a shoney's?
Next election the US will elect 18 presidents. So there needs to be that ratio to the number of normal candidates in the primaries.
on the Donaldo Insult Meter, this is pretty tame stuff. Guess he hasn't figured out Klobuchar's nickname yet.
I don't know if she would be my first choice but DEM's need someone moderate that can bring people together if that is even possible. One thing both parties have in common is that they want to spend like drunken sailors in advancing their agendas. In a perfect world it would nice to have free college and health care for all but the cost of that has to be staggering. Probably as much or more as Trump's tax cut is costing us. I honestly don't know what it is going to take for our country to get its financial house in order. So it seems to me the choice in political parties is welfare for the masses bordering on the edge of socialism versus what we have now under Trump which is welfare for the rich with his tax cuts allowing the wealthiest half of one percent in this country to get wealthier than ever by not paying any taxes to speak of. The trickle down effect, just like it was supposed to work under other REP regimes, is that by paying less in taxes the wealthy would put that money to use creating more jobs for others. Instead the wealthy tend to sit on or hoard their money causing the gap between rich and poor to grow wider and wider and the deficit to grow deeper and deeper. This is why even though I am conservative by nature, every year since I began voting in the mid 70's I hold my nose and most often vote for the DEM candidate. It appears they are the lessor of two evils. As much as I dislike the prospects and some of the ideas within the DEM party, the ideas and agenda of the REP party in the past 50 years bother me more. So far the DEMS do not have anyone running that I really like. One thing for sure. I sure as hell will not vote for Donald J. Trump.
The tax cut (if that is what it was) is miniscule compared to the various programs being suggested. The "hoarding or sitting on" wealth is actually money being invested which drives the economy, innovation, etc. The wealthy don't hide their money under mattresses -- they put it to work which is why they are getting wealthier. And there is no question that the divide between the wealthiest and others is growing. BUT, at the same time, the standard of living of all segments had increased. So, as has been said before, the really wealthy (and people do move in and out of that category) are doing a LOT better, but all segments are doing better. Seems like people should care about whether they are doing better (or strive to do better) than focusing on how other people are doing, particularly when those other people are funding the vast majority of the services in this country.
All segments? If true, Trump never gets elected. BTW aren’t you ignoring that mean family income has not risen in 50 years, on an inflation adjusted basis.
I linked a paper in another thread refuting the idea that the high tax rates were successful previously. The data showed the effective tax rate on the one percent is higher now than in the age of top rates of 90 percent. Same study showed all segments (not each individual) doing better.
By "segments" I was not referring to industries (like coal). The study was looking at different segments of wealth levels.
This is what I posted in the Howard Schutz thread. If I'm reading the information wrong, let me know: Does the article say why? I could see it being a number of factors, but I don't really know. There have been businesses started in the tech industry that have created a bunch of billionaires and that may account for some of it. The rising stock market over the decades has clearly benefitted those who had the capacity to invest in stocks. Those who didn't have the capital or the desire to do so didn't share in the long term rise in the markets. A lot of good to high paying jobs have been lost to tech advances or offshoring negatively impacting the 90 percent. I'm not professing to be an expert on this, but I can think of a lot of factors that aren't part of some evil conspiracy. Also, if you read this article, it supports what you are saying regarding the concentration of wealth changing dramatically since the mid 70's. It also says that from post World War II to the mid-70's were "widely shared" and that since then, the gains have been concentrated at the very top. (Frankly, it is a very good data based article that supports your position in a lot of ways.) https://www.cbpp.org/research/pover...ics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality But, the data also shows that all categories improved in real family income during that period. So, the very wealthy are doing way better than they were in 1973. But all categories are doing better. In the interim, there have been major tech advances which have created huge wealth for a relatively small amount of individuals (including those who invested in and supported those advancements) -- a number who moved from the bottom 90 percent into the higher stratospheres of the one percent. I don't expect to convince you of my point of view, and I appreciate the way you responded. I think the Government wastes our money, that they will quickly move to expand any new form of taxes and that using class warfare as a political strategy to gain votes is (for me) offensive.
If the deficit continues to increase what do you think the light at the end of the tunnel is? That is what my primary concern is. If a family brings in $50,000 a year of income and spends $75,000 on income in that same year, eventually something has to give. Creditors will only extend them various lines of credit for so long as they rob Peter to pay Paul to postpone going into bankruptcy. That is the same problem our government faces but on an infinitely larger scale. These trickle economy theorizes that like you said if the wealthy pay less in taxes that they will use that money to reinvest in the economy, create jobs and the result will be more tax revenue for the treasury. But it never happens. Every time we go down this road the government gets deeper and deeper in debt. The wealthy do not put their money in mattresses. But they do put it in offshore bank accounts, stocks and bonds, lavish lifestyles, and in various types of saving instruments. The only one of these that directly feeds the economy is increasing their lavish lifestyles. In the meantime the deficit continues to grow and both DEMS and REPS come up with more ideas to spend money including giving themselves pay raises while the problem gets worse and worse. I think we need a constitutional amendment that requires a balanced budget. One way or another we have to get our spending under control but we need to continue to bring revenues into the treasury to pay the bills. That is why we need to go back to a system where the wealthy pay their fair share, That is the only solution I see for us to get out of the mess we are in.
I agree with you on overspending. I will say that investment in stocks, bonds and saving instruments are actually investments that help power the economy. (Off-shore accounts, no). I think one major issue is entitlements reform that neither party wants to touch for fear of losing votes. This "fair share" mantra that is constantly being used drives me nuts because the wealthy do pay the vast majority of the taxes in this country. I'm not sure who determines what is "fair."
