Third Party & Independents Archives

Is It the Establishment Lane or the Establishment Bus?

The GOP Establishment Lane is an interesting metaphor. It seems to imply special rules of transit for certain candidates who have the endorsements and funding from powerful Republican groups. Groups whose political power at least, is recently coming under a certain amount of doubt.

As of late January, it seems there are now a handful of GOP establishment candidates - Rubio, Christie, Bush, and now even Kasich - who find themselves in a sort of road rage as they struggle to find a way foreward. 4 candidates clogging up the establishment lane, in the hope that the two clear front runners - Cruz and Trump - will somehow implode or run out of gas or take a wrong turn. And that would mean freeing up added lanes for these frustrated establishment candidates.

Or having the GOP establishment choose between them and them giving them free reign in the great primary highway: like the no-speed-limit lanes on the German autobahns. Or something.

But what if the establishment lane is in fact a bus lane? Running from Biscayne Boulevard to I-95, for example? Stuck in go-slow city traffic with it's occupants lobbying insults - read negative ads - at each other? Especially at that Florida Senator sitting up in the front of the bus.

The question is starting to be: will they even make it out to I-95 and start heading North? Because if you're behaving like disgruntled commuters on a city bus, you'll never make it out of the downtown core and into the green feilds of suburbia where the votes really add up. Especially for GOP candidates.

Are Trump and Cruz turning the electoral concept of an establishment lane into a joke? It is still too early to declare that to be the case, but it's starting to feel that way, more and more with each passing week. Rubio now seems stuck on that bus, and has had to bear the overwhelming bulk of recent negative ads. All aimed at keeping him on the bus and stuck in the go-slow lane.

In a few weeks we'll thankfully no longer be hearing much about the establishment lane. By that time, it will have proven to be a joke. Or, a Rubio - for example - will no longer need or even want such a silly metaphor.

Posted by AllardK at January 21, 2016 6:17 PM
Comments
Comment #402130

Allard; Dole, McCain, Kerry and Hillary should be evidence enough that crowning a party favored candidate for president, by virtue of their paying dues in the Republican or Democrat establishment, is just about worthless in recent times when it comes to winning.

The party elite’s of Republicans and Democrats are so full of their own importance that it seems they believe Americans will elect anyone carrying the party banner.

I believe that American voters are more sophisticated today than yesterday. Most recognize that seasoned politicians especially; lie to them and make promises they can’t or won’t fulfill.

Sanders is believable because he is perceived as believing what he says. I too think he believes what he says. Hillary is a known liar and nearly everyone with just one brain cell knows it.

Cruz is believable because his “talk” matches his “walk”. He has angered the party elite simply by not going along to get along. He has dared to actually perform as promised.

Trump is a totally different candidate than we have ever seen before. He has not paid his political dues. He has not “walked” any of his “talk”. I perceive his popularity is one born of total rejection by many voters of either party and the establishment. Many Americans are willing to take a chance on Trump as they are so frustrated by the usual political crowd.

Voters believe that neither Trump or Cruz are beholden to their party affiliation and might…just might, do what they say they will should they win.


Posted by: Royal Flush at January 22, 2016 4:02 PM
Comment #402137

RF, I heard it on the news and it rings true to a lot of folks. The Rep’s have not moved the ball forward since the Regan admin. IMO, ditto for the dems and that is why Bernie and Trump are the front runners.

The folks have paid big bucks in tax revenue to minimize poverty, to get control of the borders and immigration. As we speak some 500k come in yearly on visas and don’t go home. Apparently, they are in databases but the databases aren’t queried for overstay enforcement purposes, and so on - - -

Corpocratists are a little worried that the ‘outsiders’ will put a dent in their status quo stranglehold on gov’t. IMO, they need not worry as Bernie or Trump, w/o control of the purse strings, could do no more than rant and rave against the ‘establishment’.

While it would take a new 3rd party w/a/dif/pol att to get any real reform of gov’t, for the interim, Trump or Bernie can, to possibly act as an impediment, to some degree, to the corpocracy.

Or, they could turn out to be great corpocratists. Folks just don’t know and most just don’t care.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at January 22, 2016 10:03 PM
Comment #402139

Why on earth would you suggest Cruz should be allowed to ride on the coattails of Donald Trump Royal? Trump is anti establishment Cruz is a pathological liar. Cruz is an opportunist who would do or say anything to get into power.

Anybody who criticizes Hillary and tells us this BS about Cruz is part of the GOP establishment IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 23, 2016 2:22 AM
Comment #402141

That you disagree with me politically is no surprise j2t2. I don’t find Cruz to be a liar.

Hillary has established her bona fides in the lying arena. Some months ago I listed her known litany of lies on WB.

Roy, like you, I want the cozy arrangement between some big corporations and politicians curtailed or eliminated. We can only do this by eliminating the existing tax code which is the funnel for government favoritism to corporate America.

Cruz has the cahones to speak out against corn ethanol subsidies. He wants to eliminate the tax code as we know it. He is against illegal immigration and migration. And, he has been willing to defy the leadership of his own party for the principles he stated when running for office.

We know for certain that Hillary stands for more big government, soliciting more big money from big corporations. She favors a tax code that manipulates and extends government favors for some and harm for others. She advocates that UN-elected bureaucrats be given even more power over the life and activities of Americans. She has failed monumentally as SEC STATE and left the world in greater disarray with ever more violence.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 23, 2016 2:00 PM
Comment #402142

RF, there must be 4 or 5 candidates espousing a flat tax or similar during this silly season. The tax code is the golden goose for corpocratism. It serves as a microdial to tweak the economy and serves as a way to shuttle more money to the corpocracy.

Only way tax reform could happen is thru a 3rd party, IMO.

The corpocracy is so determined to shut Trump down they are pushing Bloomberg to run. He would run as an independent and probably jump in at a point when it becomes clear that Hillary won’t get the nomination.

That would be a shurefire way for the corpocracy to keep control of the system.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at January 23, 2016 7:38 PM
Comment #402143

Royal, the sad fact is Ted Cruz is much worse when it comes to lies than Hilary Clinton. That is why I wondered, knowing your hatred of liars, how you could support someone such as Ted Cruz. My guess is it is hypocrisy on your part.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ted-cruz/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

Posted by: j2t2 at January 23, 2016 11:18 PM
Comment #402144

A flat tax is a regressive tax that would benefit the rich and hurt the working poor. Out of these 4 or 5 plans which one of them has a flat tax on business without any deductions for equipment or business travel? Will we now have to claim Christmas presents on our grand kids taxes. To make ends meet the tax rate for everyone would be what 30+%. You make the claim it would stop the corpocracy but it wouldn’t, you are fooling yourselves.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 23, 2016 11:37 PM
Comment #402145

jt, my preference would be a flat tax at say, 16%, with no deductions for folks or corporations.

Implementing a flat tax is not a solution to corpocracy. Campaign finance reform is the more effective way to eliminate corpocracy.

But, we really don’t have to worry our minds about tax reform as, beyond a little banter during the silly season, there won’t be any tax reform.

What is your opinion on going to a cashless society like Sweden and some others are trying to do?

I think that going to a flat tax would increase revenue by 30-35% and going to non-cash would bring in another 20-30%.

We could just turn over everthing to goldman sachs and let them run it all.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at January 24, 2016 9:48 PM
Comment #402146

Roy, tax reform under the guise of a flat tax or consumption tax really isn’t tax reform. It is the same old thing we have saw for years now, under the guise of “job creators” and such, regressive taxation.

We have had the wealthy pulling the wool over our middle class eyes for years, increasing the burden on the middle class and relaxing the burden on the wealthy. I say it is time to penalize the “job creators” who have failed to create jobs despite all the tax relief. A transaction tax on sales of stock would help as well. The capital gains tax loop holes should be fixed as well.

Read up on Kansas and Sam Brownbacks failed attempt to eliminate income taxes and lower taxes thinking the lower taxes would result in more income for the state.


Posted by: j2t2 at January 25, 2016 11:38 AM
Comment #402147

j2t2 many thanks for the link to politifact on Ted Cruz. I actually read the references they used to classify a statement true or false. You should read them to as it is a great laugh. Liars lying is about as funny as it gets.

It is easy to understand why a liberal would hate a flat tax and eliminate the need for the IRS as we now know it. Congress uses the IRS to funnel government money to BIG corporate America and social causes dear to the heart of the Left.

With no IRS how would billions of taxpayer dollars find their way into corporate pockets and Leftie favored segments of the population? How would Wall Street be paid off and political coffers be filled?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 25, 2016 1:54 PM
Comment #402148

This is interesting. Does this bode well for our economy? Is this important in an election year?

“So far in January, investors have yanked nearly $7 billion from stock funds, according to Thomson Reuters Lipper data. Investors have also put more than $3 billion into money market funds. But the more alarming data comes from last month, when investors pulled $48 billion from stock funds. That is eerily similar to 2008, as the financial crash hardened: Investors took $49 billion out of stock funds in Sept. 2008 and $55 billion out of stock funds in October 2008.”

From my financial guru.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 25, 2016 2:09 PM
Comment #402158

“Congress uses the IRS to funnel government money to BIG corporate America and social causes dear to the heart of the Left.”

No. Congress uses legislation to steer money where it wants. The result would be precisely the same regardless of whether there was an IRS, sales tax, or flat tax.

“That is eerily similar to 2008, as the financial crash hardened:”

No. It is not. That is a very bad comparison. The downturn since the beginning of the year is a result of the precipitous drop in oil, which went as low as the $26’s, until short covering brought it back above $30. Indicators for manufacturing and elsewhere show declines because their oil related components have declined. This is not that complicated. Speculators can quickly assess how lost oil revenues will affect oil stocks. The benefit everyone else will reap takes much longer to make themselves apparent.

The other two components are a strong dollar and weakness in overseas economies such as China. The strong dollar has both benefits and drawbacks, so I see it as an overall wash. When choosing a stock, it depends on whether the individual company benefits or suffers from a strong dollar.

The weakness in some foreign countries, such as Russia, once again come as a result of declining oil prices.

Two words of advice: ) the little guy is always wrong, and 2) your emotions are your enemy when it comes to the stock market. When your stocks go up and you are celebrating your financial genius for choosing winners, that is the time to sell. But you won’t want to sell because you are a financial genius. When stocks go down and you are terrified to buy because the world is coming to an end, or ‘it looks just like 2008!’, and you never want to be in stocks again, that is the time to buy. But you won’t want to buy.

Perverse, but that’s how it works.

Posted by: phx8 at January 25, 2016 6:00 PM
Comment #402177
It is easy to understand why a liberal would hate a flat tax and eliminate the need for the IRS as we now know it. Congress uses the IRS to funnel government money to BIG corporate America and social causes dear to the heart of the Left.

Evidently Royal it isn’t as easy as you tell us. Despite my explanation in this thread and other threads recently you have it wrong. Of course that not news as you continue on with the IRS thing as if it were true. In fact coming from a conservatives whose elected representatives have sided with corporate Americas every chance it got it seems you have a real problem discerning fact from fiction.

The reason I am against a flat tax, sales tax or fees in lieu of income taxes is they are regressive. Simple as that, they are regressive and only keep the poorest mired in poverty.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 26, 2016 9:47 AM
Comment #402187

Get over yourself j2t2 about “regressive taxes”. Certainly you understand the “Earned Income Credit” and other schemes to lesson the tax burden on those selected for favorable treatment.

So much ado over taxes. The Left wants to increase taxes. Why bother? The US spends all its tax revenue each year and for the last seven years has also spent a Trillion each year in borrowed money.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 26, 2016 3:45 PM
Comment #402192

“No. It is not. That is a very bad comparison.”

Sorry you missed the primary thrust behind the comparison phx8. It’s about investors taking money out of stocks…the reason is not the story here.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 26, 2016 5:13 PM
Comment #402201
Get over yourself j2t2 about “regressive taxes”. Certainly you understand the “Earned Income Credit” and other schemes to lesson the tax burden on those selected for favorable treatment.

Royal EIC for lower income families is considered favorable treatment! I would consider those whose income comes from capital gains, such as hedge fund managers as being selected for favorable treatment. Perhaps if anti tax types such as Grover Norquist wouldn’t lobby for special treatment for these guys our national debt wouldn’t be what it is. Well and if we didn’t spend more on our military than the next 12 countries combined of course.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 27, 2016 1:20 AM
Post a comment