Trump: Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz doesn't have the 'guts' to run for president

[DonViejo]

Source: CNBC


PUBLISHED 9 MIN AGO

Tucker Higgins
@TUCKERHIGGINS

President Donald Trump on Monday ripped former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, saying the business titan “doesn’t have the ‘guts’ to run for President!”

Link to tweet

“Watched him on @60Minutes last night and I agree with him that he is not the ‘smartest person,’ ” Trump wrote. “Besides, America already has that! I only hope that Starbucks is still paying me their rent in Trump Tower!

This is breaking news. Please check back for updates.


Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/28/trump-former-starbucks-ceo-howard-schultz-doesnt-have-the-guts-to-run-for-president.html

[Apollyonus]

1. Junior High dare n/t

[olegramps]

21. The best defense against him: Organize a boycott of Starbucks.

He is a spoiler with no regard for the working class citizens.

[Clash City Rocker]

27. Tomorrow's tweet: "Hey, Schultz, what are you, chicken? Buk buk buk!"

[global1]

2. This Is Trump Daring Schultz To Run....

Trump needs Schultz to split the Dems vote so that his base gives him a 2nd term.

[Farmer-Rick]

11. He's NOT a Democrat, he's more like a Libertarian

Schultz advocates eliminating or reducing Social Security and Medicare to balance the budget

He also think Medicare for all is wrong.

"Every American deserves the right to have access to quality health care. But what the Democrats are proposing is something that is as false as the wall. And that is free health care for all, which the country cannot afford," Schultz said.

His whole shtick is balance the budget. Be afraid of the budget deficit, be very afraid. He buys into the RepubliCON deficit hawk crap. Reminds me of Ross Perot except without the smarts to know that "free" trade agreements lower wages and moves most manufacturing to other countries. The Democratic nominee won when Ross was running. They will again with Schultz.

Schultz comes off NOT as a Democratic leader but as a Libertarian and middle of the road RepubliCON. He's not going to draw votes from the Democratic party he's going to draw them from the RepubliCON party. Now all he needs to do is add in some misogyny and racism and he's all set.

[David__77]

12. Some Democrats oppose provision of health care to all at no cost to patient.

I think he’s hoping to appeal to them.

[Farmer-Rick]

15. Perhaps

But there is a cost to Medicare for those over 65, there is a 20% co-pay and a monthly premium. So, I'm assuming Medicare for All would also have those costs. Though health care through our taxes is better. We pay a ton of taxes that is mostly going to the uber rich right now.

[David__77]

17. Yes-it would be tremendously expensive.

I think it is a lie to state “we can’t afford it.” It can most certainly be done. The question is: is it worth it?

[Farmer-Rick]

18. Good point

Medicare was never free. It was always health insurance. So, there was always some price to pay for seniors.

Other countries have health care covered by taxes and individuals pay nothing or practically nothing when using the service. So, you are right, we can afford it. But "do we want to?" is the question.

[global1]

20. Exactly - When I Advocate For 'Medicare For All' I'm Not Considering That It Is Free Healthcare.....

I'm on Medicare right now. I have a monthly payment that I have to make to maintain it. I also have to carry a supplemental plan to pick up the other 20% that Medicare doesn't cover. I also have a Drug Plan which I have a premium to pay for my prescription medications. Total I pay around $480/month.

My Medicare premium is $134/month or $1608/year for basic medical care. Very affordable. If I didn't pick up the Supplemental and Drug Plan (which are optional) $1608 would be my total premium for the year for basic healthcare.

Before I turned 65y/o - I was paying $3200/month for a Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan in which I had a $5000 deductible. I was self-employed and that only covered myself.

So though 'Medicare for All' is not free - it's a bargain over other health care insurance that those under 65 have to pay.

So it is a misnomer to say that 'Medicare for All' is free healthcare. It isn't. It is more economical though. It is also more affordable than the Obamacare plans. What makes it work - is the big pool of users - in that all Americans would be in the plan.

Medicare for All would be structured the same way as Medicare is structured for those that qualify for Medicare - like me.

There would still be a need for the current health insurance companies to offer the optional supplemental plans - but the basic healthcare needs would be satisfied by this plan.

It always upsets me when people say that the Dems want to provide 'free healthcare for all'. It's not free and those that think it is - just don't understand how it is structured and the politicians that say it 'the Dems want to provide free healthcare use that to steer people away from supporting 'Medicare For All'.

[LiberalLovinLug]

30. Yup. They should emphasize instead "Cheaper + covers every citizen from cradle to grave"

They have to get through the point that paying private monthly insurance payments would be simply replaced by a tax towards a common public insurance. If they could manage to make enough see how money is money no matter how they pay it. The difference is that, averaged out, most Americans would be paying less money that they have earmarked for their medical insurance on a monthly basis. On top of that, the freedom of knowing you and your children will be fine. Will be taken care of no matter what financial struggles the family has in life. No matter what "pre-conditions" they have.

[TexasBushwhacker]

35. And when Medicare is the only payer, they control the costs

There will be some variation according to location, because it costs more to run a hospital in Manhattan than it does in a small town in Arkansas. But with our private insurance based system, which has done a TERRIBLE job at controling costs, a knee replacement can cost anywhere from $12K to $80K, and that's just nuts. That means a 20% copay can be $2400 to $16K!

Private insurers don't really try to keep costs down because they just pass them on to consumers in the form of higher premiums. Medicare will pay enough for doctors to make a good living and hospitals to stay in business, but that's it. Price controls will be put into place on drugs too, like every other developed country on the planet.

Since everyone will have insurance, things like cancer can be caught earlier when it's easier and cheaper to treat and chronic conditions like diabetes and high blood pressure can be managed before they cause costly complications like heart disease and stroke. Ultimately, it's cheaper to have everyone covered, not to mention more humane.

[Honeycombe8]

32. I don't think he's a libertarian. Libertarians don't want govt at all.

Or if you have to have it, it should be teensy tiny.

Schulz believes in social programs to some extent, and in govt. Starbucks pays for college for employees, good health care, good wages, when there was no pressing need for his business to do that. So he believes in assisting with education and good wages.

He believes in increasing the tax rate for the wealthy. (He would have done the cut for them, but to a lesser degree.)

If he's against Social Security and Medicare (for seniors), that's a nonstarter. There aren't many who would vote for someone who wants to kill Social Security and Medicare. Well, I guess Republicans and Libertarians. But no left-leaning independent, and no Democrat.

I agree with him on the deficit, though. It is at an historical high. Something's gotta give. It's scary high. We were making headway on that until the big tax cut.

[Farmer-Rick]

36. Deficits are a bogeyman the RepubliCONS use to keep social programs perpetually underfunded

and meager. It prevents the expansion of social systems that would make the average citizen's life better. You don't see them cutting back on wars, or subsidiaries to oil corporations or even Nike subsidiaries. They use it as an excuse for austerity for the middle class instead of taking back the huge amounts of our tax dollars that are given away to the richest of the rich. Don't you think if the deficit was a real problem they would go for the billions they hand out to the rich instead of going for the meager poor's benefits?

"According to The Cato Institute, corporate welfare handouts shot all the way up to $92 billion as of 2002. Most of those subsidies were secured by companies in industries like energy — which are some of the most profitable entities in the history of the world. As one writer at Forbes points out, cutting these huge subsidies would be a great way to help balance the national budget, but it is never put into action, and much less even considered."

"Nike, based in the Portland suburb of Beaverton, Oregon, has taken in more than $2 billion in government appropriations, spanning 75 individual subsidies. Spanning the globe in terms of scope and reach, Nike isn’t exactly strapped for cash, so making the case that the company is in need of government assistance can be difficult."

ttps://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/high-on-the-hog-the-top-8-corporate-welfare-recipients.html/

Here is a summary of the 2011 oil industry subsidies compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense in its report, "Subsidy Gusher."

Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit - $31 billion.
Intangible Drilling Costs - $8.9 billion.
Oil and Gas Royalty Relief - $6.9 billion.
Percentage Depletion Allowance - $4.327 billion.
Refinery Equipment Deductions - $2.3 billion.
Geological and Geophysical Costs Tax Credit - $698 million.
Natural Gas Distribution Lines - $500 million.
Ultradeepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and other Petroleum Resources R&D - $230 million.
Passive Loss Exemption - $105 million.
Unconventional Fossil Technology Program - $100 million.
Other subsidies - $161 million.

https://www.thebalance.com/government-subsidies-definition-farm-oil-export-etc-3305788

So, no the deficit is really not a problem.

And really the rich love the deficit despite Schultz. Politician who get their campaign funding from the uber rich cut the uber rich's taxes then the government has to borrow to continue working. So, they borrow from those exact same people who they wont tax. It's a win win for them and it's why it's done that way.

And if you really want to know the truth about government spending (deficits) and wealth distribution, take a look at the federal reserve and our banking system. Talk about giving wealth to the wealthiest.

[Honeycombe8]

37. IMO, the deficit IS a huge problem.

People often say it's not a problem, when it's to their benefit to disregard it.

The fact is, it DOES matter that the country goes deeply into debt to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. Cuts that do not benefit the country economically, to offset the debt.

Yes, each side uses the deficit to argue against the other side's "causes." But regardless, it matters.

As for social programs...it is NOT the social programs that caused the deficit/debt. So cutting those does not make sense.

What caused the deficit? The unnecessary wars, two HUGE unpaid-for tax cut bills for the wealthy. And there you have it. Those are the main reasons for the historical debt.

[Farmer-Rick]

38. I agree with 90 percent of what you wrote.

The deficit is a symptom of a problem that is corrupting democracy.

I agree with everything you wrote but I don't see the deficit as problem. It's like saying my limp is a problem without finding out why I'm limping. My limp means there is something wrong with my leg, foot, hip or even my diet. Those are the real problems. The limp is just how I cope with the pain and dysfunction. The deficit is just how democracies deal with rampant corruption.

Why are we sending off our tax dollars to wars? to the rich? to the oil corporations that will be extinct in 50 years. Why does our banking system give profits to certain rich banks and not others? Why do we give tax cuts to corporations that off shore jobs? The system is broken, maybe we can fix it but it's going to have to reach catastrophic levels I fear before the majority are convinced we need to take action.

[Honeycombe8]

39. Yes, it's a symptom.

The symptom has to be dealt with. Financial problems are not like medical, though. For a deficit problem, if you fix the symptom, you have cured the cause. For the time being. That's not the case with most medical issues.

A huge deficit also makes us even more beholden to China and other countries who hold that debt. That gives them enormous leverage over us. It's also a large amount of money flowing out of the country every year to pay the debt, instead of having it in the country to spur the economy, pay for our programs, and such.

Once a big tax cut bill is passed, it's unpopular to change it back. The Democrats under Obama extended the Bush tax cuts. I expect the same will happen with this last, very unfair tax cut bill. But we'll see. Maybe it can be rolled back somewhat.

Oh, well. It's not like I have any control over it. Both parties seem intent on borrowing money to pay for things. It's okay to pay for something by borrowing, if the program pays the country back in the longrun. You take out a mortgage for a house. After you pay off the mortgage, you probably have real estate worth more than the mortgage you got in the beginning. Or you borrow money to open a business, hoping that the business will pay back the loan and turn a profit over that.

[Farmer-Rick]

40. Yes, it's not a perfect analogy

But, I agree a deficit does funnel off funds to foreign and other debts. It can get out of control especially if you don't tax the most successful of your citizens and only put the tax burden on the average, poorer citizens.

I see your point. It's good that you can present a logical reason and don't just provide an emotion based "fear the debt" response. You have clearly thought this through.

[Honeycombe8]

41. Thanks! :) nt

[Owl]

19. Exactly

[irresistable]

3. Translation: please, please, please run for President, or I'll lose in a landslide.

If Schultz does run, he will fizzle.

[Lonestarblue]

4. Democrats need to start boycotting Starbucks immediately.

I am. Schultz needs to understand that he does not have support, and that’s one way to send a message. We do not need another CEO president. We need someone who has been in government and has an understanding of how it works and how it doesn’t work and can be improved. CEOs order rather than negotiating, which just doesn’t work in government. And they’re too concerned with the bottom line. Government should be focused on providing services in return for taxpayers’ dollars, not on earning a profit.

[CurtEastPoint]

7. WELL SAID!

[BumRushDaShow]

9. He is no longer with the company.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/business/dealbook/starbucks-howard-schultz.html

[marlakay]

22. He owns 32 million shares of the company

The closest person to him has 1/2 million, Starbucks would affect him.

[BumRushDaShow]

34. He still doesn't hold a "managing" position

where the previous argument was that he was a current CEO. Not that I agree with him running at all but...

[Farmer-Rick]

13. Good point

His whole shtick is a balanced budget. He's bought into the whole RepubliCON deficit hawk lie. He's all for eliminating Social Security and Medicare to balance it. And gods know what else he'd eliminate in his quest for a balanced budget.

He's really Not a Democrat, more like a middle of the road RepubliCON. You know, the kind of RepubliCONS we had back in Reagan's day.

[notdarkyet]

16. I don't go to Starbucks.

[C_U_L8R]

5. Who asked you, Trumpnuts.

[Pachamama]

6. LOL - Best endorsement that Schultz has gotten!

[lark]

8. Toddler trump tries to bait Schultz into running.

PUtin told him he had a gift for him and he knows this is it and he's totally thrilled. Bet he shook with glee from laughing so hard after he posted that thinking that no man could resist running after being trolled that way.

[FreeWheatForever]

10. Please explain

How can a President collect rent on a property he owns while being President again? How does that work (cough...emoluments clause) anyway?

[NurseJackie]

14. "Please, Br'er Fox, don't fling me into the brier-patch..."

Of course that's exactly what he wants.

Any vote that does NOT go toward the Democratic nominee has the mathematical effect of benefiting Trump.

[Snellius]

23. Spoiler Alert.

Hope Schultz doesn't fall for this taunting ploy goading him into playing the spoiler.

[Maxheader]

24. Gad!

Looks like it wouldn't be that hard for the wingers to find
some middle of the road righty to kick cheetox ass...

[BlueIdaho]

25. Yawn...

But I’ll tell ya what Schultz doesn’t have...

He doesn’t have a 50 state strategy
He doesnt have a ground operation
He doesn’t have a coherent message
He doesn’t have the backing of either of the two parties in a two party system
He doesn’t have government experience.

If he needs to take a big financial loss for tax purposes, maybe he could open a casino and ask Trumpsky to run it. Self funding a third party run for President is about as stupid as ideas get.

[atreides1]

26. If anyone knows about Cowardice

It would have to be a Trump, they've been cowards since 1885...and are carrying on the family tradition!!!

[cstanleytech]

28. Sounds like Trump is trying to goad him into doing it probably with the hopes of weakening

whatever Democrat runs against Trump.

[IcyPeas]

29. Schultz should immediately vacate any stores in Trump owned buildings. /nt

[Nitram]

31. Oh, Trump REALLY wants him to run! What amazing psychology!

[redstateblues]

33. That is so fucking stupid

[0rganism]

42. he double-dog dares you to run!

and, as we all know, the double-dog dare is absolutely irresistible.