Billionaires

Give Credit To Michael Bloomberg, Using His Fortune To Help Defeat Donald Trump, If He Does Not Win Democratic Presidential Nomination

It is great news to hear that Democratic Presidential contender Michael Bloomberg has decided, that if he does not win the nomination, he will use part of his fortune to help defeat Donald Trump.

For any candidate, including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, to decide to reject such support would be totally stupid, even with their commitment to wish to tax multi millionaires and billionaires, and to refuse corporate support.

This is not a time to “play games”, as the urgency is to remove the cancer of Donald Trump from the Presidency, with all of the tremendous damage he has done in both domestic and foreign affairs, and also in his appointment of nearly 200 federal judges, that if added to further, will totally undermine all of the good work done by Presidents and Congresses in the 20th and early 21st centuries.

In fact, billionaire Tom Steyer should also agree to contribute massive amounts of his fortune, on a smaller scale than Bloomberg, to the Democratic effort to excise Trump from office, and hold him legally accountable as a private citizens for his sins and transgressions, which are massive in number and depth!

Money Battle For 2020 Presidential Campaign Favors Trump, And Gives Bloomberg And Steyer An Argument For Their Candidacies For President

The Donald Trump Presidential campaign is spending more than all Democrats combined, and that is very worrisome.

This is all due to the Citizens United Case of the Supreme Court in 2010, allowing corporations and individuals to spend as much as they want.

This makes a case for a billionaire such as Michael Bloomberg or Tom Steyer to be the nominee, since they can outspend or match the Trump campaign, although neither competes well in the polls, and only Steyer has been in some of the debates.

Sadly, this could end up the results, although far from desirable.

It would disillusion millions of Democrats, however, who might stay home and not vote.

It will be interesting to see how caucus and primary voters react to Bloomberg and Steyer, and if they react that these two candidates are viable due to their financial resources.

Michael Bloomberg Makes It Official, But Does He Have Any Chance To Be The Democratic Nominee? NO!

Former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg made it official finally, that he is running for President.

Worth $53 billion, the 8th wealthiest person in America, Bloomberg has begun a campaign where he expects to spend $37 million on ads immediately in the next few weeks, more than all of the other Democratic contenders combined.

Bloomberg is passing the Iowa Caucuses, New Hampshire Primary, Nevada Caucuses, and South Carolina Primary, and putting all of his emphasis on Super Tuesday, March 3, when fourteen states have caucuses and primaries, including the major states of California, Texas, Tennessee, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Virginia as the major states on that day.

Bloomberg will not be participating in any Democratic debates, or so it seems, as he does not register in the polls, and is unlikely to gain enough public support to qualify.

He is betting on his fame and public persona to take him to the Presidency, a highly arrogant and egotistical way of seeking the White House.

While he can be proud of some aspects of his 12 years of government experience governing the largest city in the nation, often called the second most difficult job in America, some of his policies were highly controversial.

Additionally, the fact that he is Jewish will make him a target of white supremacists, and the fact of his magnificent wealth turns most people off, as they do not wish to replace one supposed billionaire with a more qualified, but even much wealthier billionaire.

If somehow Bloomberg goes all the way to the Democratic nomination for President, he probably would have a better than even chance to be elected, but being nominated seems a very long shot, not worth betting one’s income or fortune!

Elizabeth Warren’s Proposed Tax On MultiMillionaires and Billionaires Not Going To Impoverish Anyone, As Two Percent And Three Percent Loss Of Wealth Is Laughable For Them To Be Disturbed About

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a declared candidate for President, has proposed a wealth tax on multimillionaires and billionaires, and has caused a ruckus, including that of two potential Presidential candidates, who are billionaires.

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, who has indicated he plans an independent candidacy, is outraged, as is Michael Bloomberg, former NYC Mayor, who plans to announce as a Democrat for President.

Both want to only give support through generous donations, but are opposed to being forced to pay a high level of taxes.

But their protest is preposterous, as they could never spend or utilize all of their fortune, and they seem unwilling to take the view that their success requires them to pay a small percentage in taxes.

What does Warren propose, after massive tax cuts for the wealthy under Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump?

Those who have assets of $50 million or more would pay 2 percent annually, which is only $1 million, and easily made up in interest.

Those who have assets of $1 billion or more would pay 3 percent, or a minimum of $30 million, which is a “drop in the bucket” if you have a billion dollar fortune, and also easily made up in interest over the next year.

A wealthy person never really loses his assets as the interest is always more than two or three percent.

Only a small less than one percent of taxpayers would face this tax, but it would raise a lot of money to deal with social and economic matters that affect a population becoming poorer and the middle class dwindling.

For these and other wealthy people to complain about this small percentage of their wealth being taxed, is totally preposterous and outrageous.

Billionaires Howard Schultz And Michael Bloomberg Are NOT The Way To Go, Following Donald Trump

The campaign for the Presidency has begun with strong attacks by Billionaires Howard Schultz and Michael Bloomberg against the Democratic Party going too far to the Left, such as Medicare For All and Free Public College and University Tuition, for the first two years of higher education.

Schultz is the bigger threat, as he plans to run as an Independent, and by so doing, could help Donald Trump/Mike Pence to win another term in the White House.

But Bloomberg is also attacking progressive ideas as unworkable, without any concept of how to make health care and higher education, as well as environmental advancement, and even other issues, to advance to a more fair and just future.

After the disaster of Donald Trump, will the nation go for two billionaires who, while certainly not as conservative as Trump, and having a nicer facade, really do not understand the plight of the struggling middle class and the poor in this country?

And, while no one wishes to discuss this issue, the fact that both Schultz and Bloomberg are Jewish, in a nation where antisemitism still is prevalent in the South and Midwest, encourages more danger against Jews, by two men who have no clue as to what it is to live from paycheck to paycheck.

Their running for the Presidency, as they are making clear, only encourages more conspiracy theories on the Right, and also more left wing anger, and undermined the possibility of either, realistically, being able to promote political unity in the 2020s.

Theoretical Possibility Of Nine Business People Or Celebrities With No Government Experience Who Might Run For The Presidency In 2020

Donald Trump is the first totally non government experience candidate ever to win the Presidency.

Before him, Wendell Willkie for the Republicans in 1940, and Ross Perot, as an Independent in 1992 and 1996, also had no government experience.

With the horrific Trump experience, the question arises whether another business person or celebrity with no government experience might run for the White House in 2020, and might have a chance to win.

At least nine potential candidates have been mentioned, but most are not considered serious possibilities.

Oprah Winfrey , Kanye West, and Dwayne (The Rock) Johnson come from the entertainment world, but none of these has seemed serious about running, and somehow, with all three being African American, and Oprah being a woman, it is hard to imagine, without government experience, and just basically being a celebrity, that anyone of them would get very far.

Then, we have Mark Zuckerberg, the Facebook billionaire, who is Jewish and would be only 36 years old in 2020, and has controversy surrounding Facebook’s role in affecting the 2016 Presidential election. Also, he has made controversial statements, and comes across to many, including this blogger, as extremely arrogant, and needing much more maturity and judgment to even consider running at any time in the future.

Then we have Andrew Yang, who is an entrepreneur, promoting startups in business in many different cities across America. Yang, born of Chinese parents from Taiwan, would be 45 years old, and wants to promote a Universal Basic Income of $1,000 a month to all Americans 18-64, as part of his platform, and he has already announced for President, but the question is whether he can gain any traction.

Bob Iger, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Walt Disney Company, is Jewish, and is rumored to be interested, but there has been criticism of his leadership of Disney, and he would be close to 70 on Inauguration Day 2021.

Howard Schultz, the former Chief Executive Officer of Starbucks, is Jewish, and would be 67 years old if he won in 2020, and has a very liberal image, and seems to be seriously considering announcing his candidacy.

We also have Mark Cuban, who owns the Dallas Mavericks basketball team, is very outspoken, and has hinted at running for President. He has been all over the map politically, having expressed admiration for libertarian author Ayn Rand, but backing Hillary Clinton for President in 2016. Also Jewish in his religion, Cuban has been more of a public relations oriented person, much more noticed in the news media than most other businessmen, including Zuckerberg, Yang, Iger and Schultz. He would be likely a Republican candidate if he ran, as he calls himself fiscally conservative, although a social moderate by his own definition.

Finally, much more in the public eye since Donald Trump became President, is Tom Steyer, a billionaire hedge fund manager, philanthropist, environmentalist, liberal activist, and fundraiser, who has been on an active campaign to impeach Donald Trump, gaining a lot of attention. He has long been a Democratic activist, going back to Walter Mondale in 1984 through Hillary Clinton in 2016, and was considered to be a cabinet member twice under Barack Obama, for Secretary of the Treasury in 2009 and Secretary of Energy in 2013, but others were chosen. Steyer is often seen as the adversary of Charles and David Koch.

The only ones on this list of nine who this author and blogger see as “legitimate” are Andrew Yang and Tom Steyer, who seem to have the best credentials, but still, no desire here to have another businessman or celebrity without any government experience as our President in 2021.

In the “real world”, somehow, three African Americans (Winfrey, West, Johnson); one woman (Winfrey); four Jews (Zuckerberg, Iger, Schultz, Cuban); and one Asian American (Yang) potential candidates seems highly unlikely, in the political climate we are in, to have a real shot at being the nominee. So this means probably Tom Steyer, who is most “out there” in the present political climate and is a white Episcopalian, might be the one of the nine with the best potential. Had he actually served in Barack Obama’s cabinet, he might seem to many as a more legitimate candidate, as we have had Presidents who were never elected before the Presidency but were cabinet members, specifically William Howard Taft and Herbert Hoover.

The Trump experience makes it difficult to look at others in the non political world as better than having a Governor, Senator, Congressman, Mayor, or Cabinet Officer in the White House.

We shall see how far these nine possible candidates go in seeking the Presidency, as after the next 100 days, the announcement of Presidential candidacies, will rapidly emerge!

Trump Cabinet Appointments And Other Top Advisers Mostly A “Basket Of Deplorables”! An Outrage To Presidential Cabinet History!

Donald Trump is nearing the end of his search for Cabinet appointments and other top advisers, and sadly, the group is mostly a “Basket of Deplorables”, an outrage to Presidential Cabinet history!

The problem is that some skeptical Republicans and the entire Democratic Party in the US Senate have limited ability to prevent or hold up more than a few of this disgraceful group.

The list of people Trump is offering us includes people too close to Russia; people who are billionaires and deeply engaged in the corporate culture; people who are totally inexperienced and unqualified to hold the positions they are being offered; people who are retired generals who have not been retired long enough from the military, so must have legislation passed to allow them to serve, undermining the idea of civilian control; and people who are simply outrageous in their views on the environment, education, health care, labor rights, and foreign policy.

It is hard to find anyone who one can be content with as a choice, and it seems as if Donald Trump is determined to select the kind of people which seem assured to wish to destroy not only the Barack Obama legacy, the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Great Society of Lyndon B. Johnson, but also to promote the interests of major corporations such as in the oil industry and Wall Street at the expense of workers, consumers, and the middle class and the poor, while also stirring up animosity toward China, Iran, and North Atlantic Treaty allies, while strangely becoming cozy with Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

We are on the road to a massive constitutional crisis that may surpass Richard Nixon and Watergate, and Donald Trump seems very willing and able to create one crisis after another, as he lurches toward Fascist type government, and declares war on the news media and civil liberties and civil rights. He is already alarming many members of the Republican Party, which he feels no loyalty to, and to think that we are seeing John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, Ben Sasse, and Floyd Flake as already alarmed about his controversial statements and actions, and he is not yet inaugurated as President, but already is stirring a tempest, is a sign of the crisis that is coming after January 20, 2017!

I just published an article on the Trump Cabinet choices on History News Network, and it is posted on the blog on the right side for everyone to read and consider.

Imagining The “Impossible”: Donald Trump Vs. Bernie Sanders OR Trump (Independent), Sanders And Jeb Bush!

Impossible to believe, but it could be happening—Independent Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont as the Democratic nominee for President vs. Businessman Donald Trump as the Republican nominee for President OR Trump running on an independent or third party line, with former Florida Governor Jeb Bush as the Republican nominee!

How could this happen?

It is clear that there is an anti Establishment mentality at this time in America, and it is showing up in both political parties!

But the differences between Sanders and Trump are massive.

Sanders has no vast amounts of wealth or wealthy people supporting him, while Trump has his own unlimited resources for his campaign.

Sanders has never been a Democrat, but has served longer in government than any independent in the history of Congress.

Trump has never been a member of any party, but has flirted with Democrats before, and his views are unsettled, and not clearly Republican.

Sanders has set principles and ideas, while Trump has no ideas except to promote his own ego.

Sanders has run a positive campaign of ideas, and refuses to attack his opponents.

Trump has spent the last three months attacking the character and persona of all of his opponents.

Sanders has tried to expand his base to minority voters, while Trump has done everything to antagonize all minority groups and women.

Sanders is trying to stop the influence of billionaires, while Trump is a billionaire who is endangering the idea of a democracy with his encouragement of greed, selfishness, and egotism as a virtue to be promoted.

Sanders is a sincere, genuine, authentic person, while Trump is an egomaniac and narcissist.

It would seem that Sanders, running as a Democrat, would be favored over Trump in the Electoral College, but one could imagine the false charges that Socialism is Communism, and although Trump would not utilize it, it is certain that hate groups would promote antisemitism, as Sanders would be the first Jewish Presidential nominee.

It would be a contest between two different worlds, of a 75 year old Socialist, who would be the oldest elected first term President in history, vs a billionaire who would be past 70 and a half, and would be, if elected, himself, the oldest elected first term President in history, although four years and nine months younger than Sanders!

Donald Trump: A Mix Of Wendell Willkie, George Wallace, And Ross Perot

Donald Trump’s Presidential candidacy has brought back memories of three other Presidential candidates.

First is Wendell Willkie, a corporate leader and Wall Street industrialist from Indiana who had never run for public office, who wowed the Republican convention in 1940 with his charisma, rhetoric, and attack on “career politicians”.  He was able to win the Republican Presidential nomination in 1940, and run a good but losing race against the master politician, Franklin D. Roosevelt, running for an unprecedented third term.

Next is George C. Wallace, Governor of Alabama, who formed the American Independent Party in 1968, rallying those opposed to the Civil Rights laws passed under Lyndon B. Johnson.  He attracted angry working class whites, and won 13.5 % of the popular vote, the fourth best percentage for a third party in American history.  He also won five Southern states and 46 electoral votes, making him the second best in total states and electoral votes in American history, only behind former President Theodore Roosevelt, who won six states and 88 electoral votes as the nominee of the third party known as the Progressive (Bull Moose) party, in 1912.  TR also is the only third party nominee to end up second, rather than third in the election results.  His campaign in 1912 decimated the Republican Party under President William Howard Taft, and helped to elect Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

And then we have Ross Perot, a billionaire businessman who had never run for public office, who ran an independent race twice, winning nearly 19 percent of the vote in 1992, and 8 percent of the vote in 1996, while winning no states in the Electoral College.  He appealed to those who were disgusted with the federal government, and worried about the growing national debt.  His candidacy undermined the Republican Party nominees, President George H. W. Bush in 1992 and Senator Bob Dole in 1996, and elected Democrat Bill Clinton twice.

Now we have Donald Trump, a billionaire, who has developed an appeal to those who are disillusioned with politics and the federal government, making him similar to Perot.  But Trump also appeals to the baser instincts in many people, those who dislike African Americans, Latinos, immigrants in general, in these ways having similar views  to Wallace.  These Trump supporters  also think women should not be treated equally, preferring the old image of women who should cook, clean, and be available for the sexual satisfaction of their men, but with no rights over their bodies and reproduction,  similar to the Tea Party Movement.  Also, there is a distaste for labor rights, and for the environment, and an orientation toward absolute belief in religion as the gospel, and a repudiation of science.

Can Trump “storm” the Republican Party, as Wendell Willkie did in 1940; or will he run on a third party, like Ross Perot, and make it impossible for the GOP to win the White House?  And will Trump continue to appeal to the George Wallace type voters, and promote a right wing populism as Wallace did?

This is what is yet to be evolving, but in many ways, Trump is a combination, right now, of Willkie, Wallace, and Perot!

A 1912 Election In 2016: A Third Party Campaign Ending Up Second, And Republican Candidate Third?

In the crazy world of American politics, the concept has grown that we could be witnessing an election in 2016 that might emulate the Presidential Election of 1912, where Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat defeated Theodore Roosevelt, the Progressive (Bull Moose) Party nominee, and Republican President William Howard Taft.

We could, in theory, have businessman Donald Trump, who is, right now, riding high in the polls, being treated in a way that he feels is unjust. He has already said that he would not pledge to support the Republican nominee for President, if if is not him, and if he feels he has been treated unfairly.

So, were that scenario to happen, Trump could, very well, run on a third party or independent ticket, copying the route of billionaire Ross Perot, who ran as an independent in 1992, helping to elect Bill Clinton over President George H. W. Bush.

We could have Hillary Clinton, or even Joe Biden, if he chooses to run, or even Bernie Sanders, benefit from a Republican party split. And imagine if Jeb Bush was the losing Republican candidate to another Clinton.

But also, Trump has shown strength in a poll in a three way races, with him gaining 20 percent of the vote, similar to Ross Perot’s 19 percent in 1992.

But what if Trump’s popularity were to continue to grow, and Trump could match third party nominee Theodore Roosevelt’s 27.5 percent of the vote in 1912, leading TR to end up second, rather than third, the only time a third party has ended up second instead of third?

Imagine the shock if Clinton or Biden or even Sanders won 42-43 percent of the vote and won the Electoral College, with Bush or some other Republican ending up third behind Trump, just as President William Howard Taft did in 1912, when he only won 23 percent of the vote!

If Trump were to end up with mid 20s percentage of the vote, it would be likely that he would win some states in the Electoral College, with the Republican winning very few states, as with Taft only winning two states in 1912.

That scenario, were it to happen, would be the true demise of the Republican Party as we know it, but maybe, just maybe, it would lead to a “purging” of the party, and a return to moderate centrist conservative government, and an ultimate revival resembling the party of the Eisenhower to Ford years!