Richard, I think that it may be more basic than that—money. Putin holds the reins of those who supply loans when no one else will loan 45 any money. We’re going to see who comes to 45’s financial aid now that he’s unable to “negotiate” his appeal bonds. BTW, his offer of 1/4 of his bond reflects how he treats those who sign contracts with him.
Richard, I think that it may be more basic than that—money. Putin holds the reins of those who supply loans when no one else will loan 45 any money. We’re going to see who comes to 45’s financial aid now that he’s unable to “negotiate” his appeal bonds. BTW, his offer of 1/4 of his bond reflects how he treats those who sign contracts with him.
TFFG is now on the hook for more than 1/2 billion dollars. He is up against the wall. Why, oh why, do his MAGA true believers still follow him? This letter helping to explain that was published in today's edition of the Palm Beach Post:
MAGA likes Trump’s views
Re 'Defeating Biden seems the MAGA end-all' (Feb28):
I had an immediate flash-back to an issue that I pondered several years ago. I wondered, 'Who in the world would vote for Donald Trump? What were they thinking?' I got lucky. It turns out that two professors at the University of Kansas, David Norman Smith and Eric Hanley, wondered the same thing. They researched the issue and published their findings in February 2018, in a study entitled 'The Anger Games: Who Voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 Election and Why?' published in Critical Sociology . Their findings? They voted for Trump because they share his views on race, women’s rights, immigrants and gay rights. The economy had nothing to do with their support.
It's deeper than anger at cultural issues. And we need to recognize the economic context.
1. MAGA followers distain those who have led both parties. They feel looked down upon. They resent the huge increase in inequality.
2. The "traditional" Republican Party has nothing to show the people for their rule except deeper public debt. When Trump said "the system is rigged" it echoed since it felt true. And largely remains true. Starting with Reagan, "cutting taxes" became their religion. They used the "voodoo economics" of "supply-side" thinking to promise great benefits (see the new book "Power to Destroy" by Michael Graetz that lays out the history of this debt-generating change). On top of that the Republicans added harsh criticism of Democrat politicians and signed onto many aspects of the cultural war. All in a (fairly successful) effort to get elected. And the Democrats, seeking election, eventually became reluctant partners in allowing the public to forget that spending requires roughly corresponding tax revenue. That never made any sense but, in a world ready to buy our bonds (for a while), reality has been delayed.
3. We have a constitution (unstable and ineffective presidential "checks and balances" type instead of a responsive parliamentary type) and election system that drives us towards two parties dominated by extremes. Instead of the kind of multi-party system that can find room for and promote compromise (hence action). So, we have seen the conversion of the Republican party into the Trump party. See, for example, David Dayen's January essay "America is not a Democracy":
4. Finally, media changes and campaign finance have distorted the flow of truth to the public. Nearly everybody misses the point that the rich and successful have been financing our elections with a relatively tiny amount of money. $10 billion in 2022 and probably double that in 2024. Please think for a moment how small that amount of money is in a $26 trillion dollar economy. A federal campaign finance voucher program of roughly the same size (costing the average taxpayer the cost of a single cup of coffee a year in taxes) would at least clear the air of lies and allow candidates to focus on truth.
I agree with MOST of what you say here. I will take slight issue with your financial statement. $20 billion dollars (the suggested cost of the 2024 election) is probably pretty close to correct. You say that would cost each taxpayer roughly a cup of coffee per year. You MUST be drinking incredibly great coffee :-). With 300,000,000 people in the country, that's $66/person. WOW, that is the most expensive coffee I have ever heard of LOL! And probably slightly more because not ALL of our 300,000,000 people are taxpayers.
I will say though that I completely agree that state or federally financed elections should be required and private organizations should be absolutely BARRED from spending money on electoral politics. We need to eliminate PACs completely and require that everyone who donates to any political contests be identified with the amount contributed.
And note that there would be no need to ban PACs or restrict donor actions in any way. Not that such restrictions would get past the Supreme court. Just keep matching what the rich and corporations spend and watch politicians start bragging how much money they are getting from "average voters".
Median (loosely, "average") taxpayers (~70K income or less) are in low marginal tax rates. Most of the taxes used to pay that $20 billion (as any program) would come from higher income families. Indeed, the wealthy would need to give up a few more cups of coffee.
Divide a $2 trillion federal budget by 125 million households we get an "average" of $16K taxes paid. Median/average households pay nothing like that. Adding $20 billion and you get a trivial increase in taxes for Median/average households.
But the main point is that the "successful" (my code word, I confess) already contribute campaign money. It is the median/average/low-income people whose votes are rendered irrelevant/mute by our campaign finance system.
You are so correct, Mary! He caused 4 casinos to go bankrupt in Atlantic City with the help of greedy loan officers in American banks!
He rebounded with $$$$ money from Deutsche Bank whose capital came from newly minted Russian oligarchs! Lest we forget, after the Soviet Union dissolved, the American Congress loosened banking regulations so that the Russian oligarchs could launder their looted funds here!
I watched an interesting British documentary; opening national systems to offshore money was an effort by both Britain and then US to reduce capital outflows. The Russians were only one piece in this. Must watch again to better understand. Here it is.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np_ylvc8Zj8
Richard, I think that it may be more basic than that—money. Putin holds the reins of those who supply loans when no one else will loan 45 any money. We’re going to see who comes to 45’s financial aid now that he’s unable to “negotiate” his appeal bonds. BTW, his offer of 1/4 of his bond reflects how he treats those who sign contracts with him.
TFFG is now on the hook for more than 1/2 billion dollars. He is up against the wall. Why, oh why, do his MAGA true believers still follow him? This letter helping to explain that was published in today's edition of the Palm Beach Post:
MAGA likes Trump’s views
Re 'Defeating Biden seems the MAGA end-all' (Feb28):
I had an immediate flash-back to an issue that I pondered several years ago. I wondered, 'Who in the world would vote for Donald Trump? What were they thinking?' I got lucky. It turns out that two professors at the University of Kansas, David Norman Smith and Eric Hanley, wondered the same thing. They researched the issue and published their findings in February 2018, in a study entitled 'The Anger Games: Who Voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 Election and Why?' published in Critical Sociology . Their findings? They voted for Trump because they share his views on race, women’s rights, immigrants and gay rights. The economy had nothing to do with their support.
Richard Sutherland, Lakeland
Not just "share his views" but revel in the permission to be angry and hateful towards those groups.
It's deeper than anger at cultural issues. And we need to recognize the economic context.
1. MAGA followers distain those who have led both parties. They feel looked down upon. They resent the huge increase in inequality.
2. The "traditional" Republican Party has nothing to show the people for their rule except deeper public debt. When Trump said "the system is rigged" it echoed since it felt true. And largely remains true. Starting with Reagan, "cutting taxes" became their religion. They used the "voodoo economics" of "supply-side" thinking to promise great benefits (see the new book "Power to Destroy" by Michael Graetz that lays out the history of this debt-generating change). On top of that the Republicans added harsh criticism of Democrat politicians and signed onto many aspects of the cultural war. All in a (fairly successful) effort to get elected. And the Democrats, seeking election, eventually became reluctant partners in allowing the public to forget that spending requires roughly corresponding tax revenue. That never made any sense but, in a world ready to buy our bonds (for a while), reality has been delayed.
3. We have a constitution (unstable and ineffective presidential "checks and balances" type instead of a responsive parliamentary type) and election system that drives us towards two parties dominated by extremes. Instead of the kind of multi-party system that can find room for and promote compromise (hence action). So, we have seen the conversion of the Republican party into the Trump party. See, for example, David Dayen's January essay "America is not a Democracy":
https://prospect.org/politics/2024-01-29-america-is-not-democracy/
4. Finally, media changes and campaign finance have distorted the flow of truth to the public. Nearly everybody misses the point that the rich and successful have been financing our elections with a relatively tiny amount of money. $10 billion in 2022 and probably double that in 2024. Please think for a moment how small that amount of money is in a $26 trillion dollar economy. A federal campaign finance voucher program of roughly the same size (costing the average taxpayer the cost of a single cup of coffee a year in taxes) would at least clear the air of lies and allow candidates to focus on truth.
https://open.substack.com/pub/michaelfoxworth/p/achilles-heel-of-control-by-big-campaign?r=33ahhb&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
I agree with MOST of what you say here. I will take slight issue with your financial statement. $20 billion dollars (the suggested cost of the 2024 election) is probably pretty close to correct. You say that would cost each taxpayer roughly a cup of coffee per year. You MUST be drinking incredibly great coffee :-). With 300,000,000 people in the country, that's $66/person. WOW, that is the most expensive coffee I have ever heard of LOL! And probably slightly more because not ALL of our 300,000,000 people are taxpayers.
I will say though that I completely agree that state or federally financed elections should be required and private organizations should be absolutely BARRED from spending money on electoral politics. We need to eliminate PACs completely and require that everyone who donates to any political contests be identified with the amount contributed.
And note that there would be no need to ban PACs or restrict donor actions in any way. Not that such restrictions would get past the Supreme court. Just keep matching what the rich and corporations spend and watch politicians start bragging how much money they are getting from "average voters".
Median (loosely, "average") taxpayers (~70K income or less) are in low marginal tax rates. Most of the taxes used to pay that $20 billion (as any program) would come from higher income families. Indeed, the wealthy would need to give up a few more cups of coffee.
Divide a $2 trillion federal budget by 125 million households we get an "average" of $16K taxes paid. Median/average households pay nothing like that. Adding $20 billion and you get a trivial increase in taxes for Median/average households.
But the main point is that the "successful" (my code word, I confess) already contribute campaign money. It is the median/average/low-income people whose votes are rendered irrelevant/mute by our campaign finance system.
You are so correct, Mary! He caused 4 casinos to go bankrupt in Atlantic City with the help of greedy loan officers in American banks!
He rebounded with $$$$ money from Deutsche Bank whose capital came from newly minted Russian oligarchs! Lest we forget, after the Soviet Union dissolved, the American Congress loosened banking regulations so that the Russian oligarchs could launder their looted funds here!
I watched an interesting British documentary; opening national systems to offshore money was an effort by both Britain and then US to reduce capital outflows. The Russians were only one piece in this. Must watch again to better understand. Here it is.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np_ylvc8Zj8