Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Gillum On MSNBC: Corporations Must Pay Their Fair Share" video.

  1. Dr. Stephanie Kelton - the hysteria about "balanced" budgets is mostly unnecessary. The debt of one is the asset of the other. It is a CYCLE. Check out her talk, I recommend the interview with Democracy@Work. Or see Debt and Interest Free Money (Dr. Richard Werner). States cannot enact that - they do not control the currency (but they could do something with alternative currencies). But the federal government with the Fed COULD and pass on the means to invest. Debt and deficits did not matter with the massive tax cuts which benefits MOSTLY rich people (they get 80 %) of it and only their cuts are permanent. From an economic standpoint that is foolish, the money is fed back into stock buybacks (bubble) and it is not spent for purchases. The beneficiaries already have more money than they spend - so if a member of the 1 % has 60,000 USD per year more, it make no difference for their consumer spending. The money is parked on accounts - is is TAKEN OUT OF CIRUCALATION. So it can do no good. BUT the reduced tax revenue now increased DEBT (with rising interest rates) and there are still not enough funds to finance infrastructure, welfare, or public services. That means that the potential wages are not spent, people have to spend out of pocket to compensate for (good) public service, so it reduces consumer spending. And surprise, surprise - the alternative private services that people are forced to buy (like education if public is bad because underfunded) become a lucrative investment niche for the rich. And a safe investement opportunity , everything that is a public service is very likely almost unavoidable as expenditure for citizens. NOW deficit and debt are exploding because of the tax cuts - no one of the "fiscally responsible" Republicans bats an eye. This is a PRETEXT to NOT have public programs for the masses (there is some subtle contempt going on towards those who have less). or simply utter selfishness. In the Time of the Economic Miracle (after WW2 until the 1970s) taxes for the wealthy and profitable businesse were MUCH higher. 1960 debate JFK vs. Nixon, they discussed in a very matter of fact manner a top marginal EFFECTIVE income tax rate of 72 %. The economy was doing fine, people were doing wall and were positive (except for the Cold War). But I think in everyday life they felt very confident. Taxing the rich AND paying good wages keeps the money moving (between citizens, businesses and government). They are already talking about cutting Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid (more). Now, whatever you think of "fairness" THAT money would be spent right back into the economy. And funding for Medicare and Medicaid creates jobs - they are run cost-effective.
    2
  2. Sales tax is a mass tax - the tourist may pay it easily. regressive taxes like sales tax hit low income people more. The state tax could raise revenue from the many very wealthy retired people. Keep the sales tax if tourists are paying it. Invest in good public services which reduce cost of living for low-income Floridans. They will end up with MORE disposable income.
    1
  3. + Tripplefive The ground game of the Sanders campaign in Florida was not good, practically non-existent (campaign staff says so *). So little chance that Gillum's endorsement would change something - other than getting on the black list of the Clinton campaign. It was likely Sanders would lose Florida (Sep. 2016), while he had a shot in the Rustbelt States or New York. Before Sanders upset the concepts of how to finance campaigns, it was firmly assumed that anyone would need the approval of the Clinton machine if they wanted to be more than mayor. And of course it was widely expected that Clinton would win the primaries and the race. There is a reason many big names shied away from recommending Sanders (even the representatives from Vermont). Tulsi Gabbard seems confident that she can keep her seat without the help of the all powerful party. That she can raise money, has the support of the base w/o expensive TV ads - and that the party also cannot retaliate by sending her a primary challenger. That can only be warded off if you are in very good contact with your constituency. - for instance I cannot imagine that Civil Rights Legend John Lewis or Bernie Sanders could be kicked out of their seats. No matter how much money Republicans or Democrats would invest to unseat them. Most representatives work more for the Big Donors, there are not many that have that kind of backup from the voters. Nina Turner lost a race in Ohio in 2014 for Secretary of State (maybe not enough support from the party ??) so she had no immediate concerns for campaign funding. Both women are into his message of course - but that was not nearly enough to muster the courage to endorse anyone but Clinton for most Democrats. Again much bigger fish than Gillum John Lewis switched from Clinton to Obama in 2008 - he was "forgiven" (being black and from the Civil Rights Movement and all). But he went the extra mile for Clinton in 2016 to make up for his "offense". * Little wonder The Sanders campaign calculated with only 30 million budget, so naturally they were slower in having a good campaign and groundgame everywhere. Considering this was a first campaign and he came from nowhere .... Obama secretly had a deal with Wallstreet in 2008, so the oligarchs gave the nod to mainstream media (and party establishment !) that it was O.K. to report on him - often and in a positive manner. I think they even thought that Obama would be a better distraction than Hillary Clinton. And they were definitely in need of that, the masses were furious / desperate in the crisis. Jack Weaver, campaign manager : Had we known that we would get more than 200 million USD in donations, we could have started out differently. There were months when we hired 1000 people. Ed Schultz was the only show host (on MSM) who likely would have given Sanders regular and friendly airtime - the possibility to build name recognition for FREE and with little time investment. That could have been VERY VALUABLE in the beginning. Ed was ordered by top management to NOT report on the campaign announcement end of April 2015, to stand down 15 minues before reporting started. And was fired by MSNBC 40 days later - despite good ratings.
    1
  4. + tripplefive he got some SuperPac Money - not that much. But he builds his name recognition NOW and big time, if he runs again he COULD do it without the Big Money. Time will tell if he sells out or not. Even John Lewis who walked with MLK seems to like the gravy train these days. Politicians are tools, vote them in with public money and or small donations and most import volunteer work. Then watch them and call them out ALL the time. Someone like Gillum is not yet spoiled (too badly), he owes his biggest success to the grassroots, it may advance his career (unlike Obama he did not have covert establishment help). If he keeps that habit - knowing you owe your success to the grassroots - he should be a sufficiently good tool for the voters.
    1