So we really need to drive a stake through the heart of this idea that "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" = "centrist."

If you look at where people actually fall, there are a lot of people like most of Slog's readership, who are pretty left wing across the board, and who are natural Democrats. There are people who believe in laissez-faire economics and who hold conservative positions on social issues, and they read National Review and are natural Republicans.

There is actually a pretty large number of people who hold socially conservative views on things like racial, feminist and LGBT issues, but who are broadly in favor of things like Social Security, Medicare, even Obamacare. These people have traditionally aligned with the GOP because they view the social issues as being more important (and only want social programs for the "right people"). But they are also the reason why GWB couldn't destroy Social Security and why the GOP couldn't repeal Obamacare. They're the Trump voters, but in decades past they were also FDR Democrats. Some could be persuadable on Medicare for All and other economically populist issues (AOC's Green New Deal has a lot of potential if it ends up spending a lot on rural areas). If you're going to identify an American center, this is probably it.

The smallest group of all? "Fiscally conservative, socially liberal" types, AKA libertarians. They consist of Wall Street financiers, Koch Industries, insufficiently socialized teenage boys, and Paul Ryan.

“When the out-of-touch Seattle City Council tried to tax away our jobs and throw the money to their buddies in the rat-hole of our local homeless-industrial complex, union-represented iron workers publicly protested, and tens of thousands of citizens signed the repeal petitions in record time.”

Fixed that for you. You’re welcome.

Playing devil's advocate here..... shouldn't determining your fair share of taxes paid be based on the level of resources you consume? It doesn't work that way at all, and therefore is somewhat socialist, isn't it?

I agree. Let's go back to the Eisenhower era, when top tier tax rates were NINETY PERCENT. Let's bring back those Roaring Fifties, when Republicans were pro-Union, dad went to work (five days = a week?) and mom stayed at home making peanut butter and jam sammiches and lotsa babies, and Everyone (who was White) could easily buy a home and send their kids off to College, which didn't require one to hock your fucking Future forever.

Fifteen dollar minimum wage?
We need a Maximun fucking Wage.

Billionaires are NOT Special.

@ 6,

And in today’s glorious kleptonomy, dad blew his brains out after his third layoff in ten years, mom’s on the corner screamin’ “booty for opioids,” while junior has six figure student loan debt and no hope of ever owning a now million dollar “middle class” home.

Well, shit—who wouldn’t want these good times to continue to roll.

Like tDUMP, Schultz’s campaign isn’t an inspiring political statement, it’s a national murder-suicide.

@7 -- Dystopia can be fun, too!
Thanks for the reminder.

This entire article, is why the Democrats are going to lose in 2020.

Running for president expensive? Not if you do it in good plutocrat fashion, which is to offer subsidies to your plutocrat buddies. Then they'll fund your whole run and more.

(You don't think Trump spent money on his campaign, do you? He made money.)

@17 But that doesn't feel good or enrage people so they stick to the rate.

Go away Howard, the next election isn't about your fantasies of being president, it's about getting rid of Trump and the GOP.

@12 - the dems would have to work pretty hard to lose the next election. So far we're seeing more signs of blue wave 2020 than we are that they'll lose. But don't let that stop you from indulging in your little partisan dreams. In the meantime, just know that Trump sucks and so do the people who inflicted this disaster on America.

What’s really incredible is the pathetic peasant mentality that it’s OK for super-rich plutocratic despots to buy our political system, exploit workers, ransack our environment, and bankrupt our society all in the service of their own insatiable greed.

"Schultz said Kamala Harris's support for Medicare for All was "not American."

He's right -- it's not American. But it should be, and it can be. This is the #1 reason this lightweight shouldn't even think about running as a Democrat.

I read the linked article and saw the reference to the head of the Republican Party and the Sonics.

It still reads like so much impotent envy, leaning your head back to look down your nose at others because you never cultivated any hand-eye coordination and are dead set on splitting the party between those with any ability whatsoever and those without.

Josh Marshall points out that boycotting Starbucks is really easy.

"There’s almost always another place to get a coffee."

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/has-howard-schulz-really-thought-this-through

@17: I'm fine to focus on that.

The totals are not enough with how spending is currently apportioned, and while how to spend that is a conversation worth having, we need more tax revenue if we stay with the current slicing of the pie. People with more money have the room to give more before it affects their lifestyle, health, retirement prospects or a myriad of other factors, and taxing the wealthy more seems like a more viable plan than trying to get more drops of blood from the vanishing middle class.

Trump's/Ryan's/McConnell's newest giveaway to the wealthiest is not going to help that.

@1 & @16 German Sausage: Thank you and bless you. I was about to offer @12 a vituperative retort, but you already handled it perfectly.
@3 tensor: Thank you and bless you for helping put out the trash fires.
@19 RickFromTexas and @20 Original Andrew: For the tied WIN and Bravo again for being so consistently spot on. Keep on rocking the house, Rick and Andrew!
@23 seatackled: Works for me.
@24 Knat: Agreed and seconded.

His beef with the Democrats seems to be that they have proposed ambitious programs without adequate funding mechanisms and they are naive about the necessity of entitlement reform.
Neither of these claims strike me as legitimate.
He certainly is no policy wonk. Robert Reich, Barbara Ehrenreich, Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken... any of those folks would eviscerate him in a debate.

The attack ads on Schultz would be great tho—

[Deep, calm-yet-stern, female voice]
He wanted taxpayers (echo on "taxpayers") to build him an arena even though he's worth billions (show photo of Howard Schultz eating lobster on massive yacht, Photoshop if necessary)

But when the city of Seattle said no; turns out it was all a lie and he sent their beloved basketball team to Oklahoma City (echo "Oklahoma City?")

Now he wants control of the whole government. Then what Americal treasures will Howard Schultz sell if he doesn't get his way? (Show images of Statue of Liberty, Grand Canyon, Tom Hanks)

Howard Shultz; Hates basketball fans, hates telling the truth.

Paid for by the friends of Greg Nickels.

(This was my add. I'm sure the Christians can do a dozen spots of their own about the stupid Christmas cup thing)

I'm totally voting for him!

@28; Yeah!---just before Mr. Get-Off-My-Lawn 86es your benefits and triples your taxes to pay for his next yacht. You might want to cut your caffeine intake, given your username, too. You could start by boycotting Starbucks. It might help eliminate your screaming into the night.

Christ, what an asshole.

No need to get upset about the 2020 race in any shape or form for at least another year. In the meantime, just see how it plays out and relax.

@31: Meanwhile, I'm all for Trumpty Dumpty / Dencey Pencey ad nauseum for Prison 2019.

"As you've likely heard, nobody wants this. Washington Republicans still haven't forgiven him for selling the Sonics, which, ha."

You know Rich, it is possible to be a journalist without being an asshole. You should try it sometime.

Schultz told CNBC that he doesn't answer hypothetical questions when he was asked if he would raise taxes.Could tRump and Schultz actually be in cahoots and have planned this phony run as an independent scam to insure tRump's reelection? tRump's tweet, daring Schultz to run, seemed awfully suspicions!

he wants to play at running for president because he surrounds himself with ass-kissers who tell him he is more than some coffee flavored swill salesman.

@38 I believe I saw somewhere that only 8 people actually paid the Eisenhower tax rate.

Ok. Let's go with the Raygun-era tax rates on income above $2,000,000, then, of SEVENTY PERCENT.

Let's say 70% tax AFTER your first $10,000,000.00.

Spose we might get the same re-investment in America we achieved in those Glory Days?

We built a nation with Superhighways.
WE can't even afford to fucking fix our fucking Highways anymore. But we sure as fuck have a lotta Billionaires, now. Thank the lord, eh?

I know, more tax cuts! is all's we really need.
That's it.

US tax rates are regressive for people like Schutz. Romney's 14%. A bit under the long term capital gains tax rate. They are progressive for the 0-99% or so, but then total effective rates drop because the really very rich get (by hook or by crook at times) their income as long term capital gains which are strongly favored and the long term capital gains tax is the only one that matters for them.

As to the 'myth' of 90% tax rates. Nah, it isn't a myth. But the reality is that under that tax regime pre-tax incomes are compressed, inequality is reduced. Companies didn't pay CEO's hundreds of millions because it's silly in the face of those tax rates. They dole out perks, they do more charity, they spread windfalls across more employees. The CEOs couldn't just rake in the mega-cash, so they had their company spend some money to make them popular, to fix up the town, etc.

@43/4 The average tax rate on the top 1% in 1950 was 42%.

In 2014, the average rate was 36.4%.

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

44

"But the reality is that under that tax regime pre-tax incomes are compressed, inequality is reduced. Companies didn't pay CEO's hundreds of millions because it's silly in the face of those tax rates. They dole out perks, they do more charity, they spread windfalls across more employees.

The CEOs couldn't just rake in the mega-cash, so they had their company spend some money to make them popular, to fix up the town, etc."

Thanks, Jeff.

Invest in America? WHY?! Now it's every man for hisself.
My, how Far we've come.
Down the toilet we go.
Thanks, Billionaires.
We Love you!

And thank god for all the Cake.

@45

You are talking about the top 1%, I am talking about the super rich. The top 0.01% and above, people like Schultz, Romney, etc.

This article has a chart of total effective tax rates for some groups within the top 1%. Note how they start going DOWN. That's the turn regressive. Lumping the top 1% together you hide that. The super rich are hidden among vastly more numerous highly paid professionals and small business owners.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/04/as-the-rich-become-super-rich-they-pay-lower-taxes-for-real/?utm_term=.c6c1bd995ec0

The income share of the top 1% is 2.5 times what it was in 1950. Income was FAR less unequal. So the "1%" cutoff was much closer to the median income than it is today.

The 90% tax rates were for very high incomes. Something like 10,000 people paid them. That's the top 0.006%. 1 out of 15,000.

And, yes, many hundreds of people are employed to produce convincing reports on how taxes on the rich never were nigh/were disastrous when they were high/are always just evaded anyway/are just unamerican/etc. One of their strongest tactics is to lump or split groups and encourage apple-to-orange comparisons by, for example, pretending Schultz is a measly 1%-er rather than someone who could buy 3000 million dollar houses and still have half a billion in the bank.

I'm not finding a source for the income cutoff for the top 1% in 1950, but $10,000 was about the top 3% of families. That looks like it would have been the third of the twenty five tax brackets: 23.6%.

The $100,000 tax bracket was 68.25%.

So I'm thinking that the top 1% cutoff was somewhere in the middle of the 1950 tax rates, where the marginal rate is somewhere between 40% and 60% making a total effective rate of 42%... just what one would expect. The top 1% didn't face 90% taxes. Those were for more like the top 0.001%. A class that almost didn't exist because it doesn't make sense to pay into the face of a 90% tax rate.

" and small business owners. "

More like "medium business owners".

Also do keep in mind, Schultz wasn't born in this utopia of low taxes for the super rich. He's pretty old. He was born when the top rate was 92%. It was still 70% when he reached adulthood. It was 50% when he was figuring out how to buy and open his first store. Only after he was already on the path to stupendous success did lower tax rates make it easier to pile up the hundreds of millions and billions.

"Only after he [Mr. Bean] was already on the path to stupendous success did lower tax rates make it easier to pile up the hundreds of millions and billions."

We need a Maximum Wage.
Rather, we need to bring it back.
Thank you for your enlightening comments, Jeff.

SOOO many homeless sharing this city with the Richest Man
(and capt. Starbucks!) on the Planet.

There is no Balance.

Enough with whining about the Sonics.

I find it hilarious that so many people who clearly dislike the rich are complaining about the "loss" of a professional sports team. Having a team in town is nothing but a way for the owners (who are invariably very very wealthy) to extort more money from the people in terms of tax breaks, $$ for arenas/stadiums, etc.

You can't hate the rich but support pro sports at the same time. I for one am proud of any city that has the balls to stand up to an owner & let a team leave. Only when more cities are willing to do so will the blackmail stop.

52

"I find it hilarious that so many people who clearly dislike the rich are complaining about the 'loss' of a professional sports team."

Seems like those most emotional about losing 'their' beloved team worship the Rich the most, and can't wait to hand them more and more Public Monies. You know, Socialism. They don't want anybody BUT the Rich getting those Handouts.*

Surely a Puzzle to me, too.

*not even themselfs