Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You might look to Richard Branson for the answer there.
“Take Care Of Your Employees And They’ll Take Care Of Your Business,”
I'll give him credit for understanding it's cheaper to keep a good employee as opposed to constant turn over and constant training. I have to imagine his clientele would abandon his $5.00 coffee's if they were constantly screwed up as much as McD's .99 cent hamburgers.
It doesn't sound as though you know much about what may motivate Schultz. He has stated that his motivation to execute what he did re health insurance at Starbucks came from his personal situation while growing up, re his own father and how that influenced the family....that he wanted to help re not having other households face what his household faced during that part of his childhood. I have no reason to believe that was not his motivation, and I have yet (over a period of years) to hear anyone dispute and trip him up re that stated motivation.
Have you ever been in a Starbucks?
Do you think all of the coffee selections cost $5.00?
I've been in Starbucks all over the U.S. (in 47 states), and probably at least half of the people I've been in line with have ordered regular coffee which (depending on location and size, and not getting the personal cup discount) is anywhere from $2.10 to $2.95, and unlimited refills are free during the same visit with a registered Starbucks card.
It doesn't sound as though you know much about what may motivate Schultz. He has stated that his motivation to execute what he did re health insurance at Starbucks came from his personal situation while growing up, re his own father and how that influenced the family....that he wanted to help re not having other households face what his household faced during that part of his childhood. I have no reason to believe that was not his motivation, and I have yet (over a period of years) to hear anyone dispute and trip him up re that stated motivation.
Have you ever been in a Starbucks?
Once.
Quote:
Do you think all of the coffee selections cost $5.00?
For coffee they are all expensive.
Quote:
I've been in Starbucks all over the U.S. (in 47 states), and probably at least half of the people I've been in line with have ordered regular coffee which (depending on location and size, and not getting the personal cup discount) is anywhere from $2.10 to $2.95, and unlimited refills are free during the same visit with a registered Starbucks card.
.99 cents at McDonalds with free refills no matter who you are.
You probably have a point about the parties being gun shy over third party candidates but not even during the Tea Party uprising was anyone willing to cut Social Security.
Some talk it, but it never goes anywhere. Ryan-Kemp-Sununu had a great plan for privatization of SS, and Dubyah was all for it in 2005, until the GOP leaders in both the House ad Senate torpedoed it and blamed the Dems.
That's about as far as it ever got on a serious basis, and the rank and file in the two houses of no term limits said nay no. The Tea Party at its outset, when it was a more pure rebellion against the whole thing (which lasted like the first 3-4 weeks, tops), did favor drastic reductions/reforms o both Mediwelfare and Socialist Security, but as mentioned, that didn't last long. Between GOP coattail riders co-opting the Tea Party for their own ends, and nervous Baby Boomers who like to preach all super libertarian but don't want to stick to principles if it means less free stuff, yeah, even the Tea Party craze didn't address our two worst, most likely to bankrupt the nation, entitlements.
Closest we've had to Schultz' rhetoric so far would be Giuliani at the beginning of the 2012 primary season. he squawked dramatic budget cuts, even to the 3rd rail entitlements, but the pictres of him in drag at a Halloween party put an end to that. Haven't heard anything about it since, except from people named "Paul", who nobody takes too seriously anyway.
And as a campaign message where a majority of the voters get free stuff, preaching taking away the free stuff is a loser. He can stick with it if he likes, but he'll do awesome if he comes anywhere close to 10% of the vote, much less Perot's otherworldly 19%. His value in he election, for Trump anyway, is he becomes the sane choice for the person who cannot possibly vote Trump, but can't seriously vote for an idiot like Kamala Harris or whatever "medicare4ALL" whacko they run on that platform. Now, he would shave votes from Trump as well, but not as many as he would from DNC Nutbar_Nominee_01. It would throw a huge wrench into the gears of the primaries, and the DNC cupboard financially and personnel wise isn't exactly overflowing. They can't afford to have him draining off money, time and energy that they want to use 100% assaulting the Trump castle.
Some talk it, but it never goes anywhere. Ryan-Kemp-Sununu had a great plan for privatization of SS, and Dubyah was all for it in 2005, until the GOP leaders in both the House ad Senate torpedoed it and blamed the Dems.
That's about as far as it ever got on a serious basis, and the rank and file in the two houses of no term limits said nay no. The Tea Party at its outset, when it was a more pure rebellion against the whole thing (which lasted like the first 3-4 weeks, tops), did favor drastic reductions/reforms o both Mediwelfare and Socialist Security, but as mentioned, that didn't last long. Between GOP coattail riders co-opting the Tea Party for their own ends, and nervous Baby Boomers who like to preach all super libertarian but don't want to stick to principles if it means less free stuff, yeah, even the Tea Party craze didn't address our two worst, most likely to bankrupt the nation, entitlements.
Closest we've had to Schultz' rhetoric so far would be Giuliani at the beginning of the 2012 primary season. he squawked dramatic budget cuts, even to the 3rd rail entitlements, but the pictres of him in drag at a Halloween party put an end to that. Haven't heard anything about it since, except from people named "Paul", who nobody takes too seriously anyway.
And as a campaign message where a majority of the voters get free stuff, preaching taking away the free stuff is a loser. He can stick with it if he likes, but he'll do awesome if he comes anywhere close to 10% of the vote, much less Perot's otherworldly 19%. His value in he election, for Trump anyway, is he becomes the sane choice for the person who cannot possibly vote Trump, but can't seriously vote for an idiot like Kamala Harris or whatever "medicare4ALL" whacko they run on that platform. Now, he would shave votes from Trump as well, but not as many as he would from DNC Nutbar_Nominee_01. It would throw a huge wrench into the gears of the primaries, and the DNC cupboard financially and personnel wise isn't exactly overflowing. They can't afford to have him draining off money, time and energy that they want to use 100% assaulting the Trump castle.
He can argue certain welfare cuts and survive. Even Bill Clinton did that. Being that Social Security is not free, it's something people have paid into their entire working lives, it's untouchable. To me he is out of touch to not realize that.
The Democrats need Schultz to make some noise as an independent & siphon some moderate votes away. Only then will the party have to right itself and move back to the center. It's really the opposite of how Bernie Sanders forced Hillary to come much further left in 2016.
And this, imho, is the entire point of Schultz doing what he is doing. I honestly don't think he wants to dump a third of his fortune into a job that pays $400k and 24/7 abuse. I think he's a lifelong moderate Democrat who is throwing his hat into the ring as an Independent in order to force the DNC to move away from Kamala Harris and Ocasio-Cortez et al, and embrace a WJClinton-esque middle American moderate platform.
He'll spend enough money to hang around long enough to force the Dems to give him somebody to endorse. And he can buy airtime anytime he wants, and can actually be a pretty solid motivator where his goal is concerned.
Basically, I think he is the billionaire version of Joe Leibermann, trying to stop Trump's opposition from going off the rails into the land of insanity, thus guaranteeing Trump another 4 years. They hate him for the same reason the GOP machine hates Trump - you cannot really threaten/control semi-retired billionaires who are out of f**ks to give. And the Dems, just like the Republicans, have financial lords and ladies they answer to, and the IDGAFF billionaire is the bull in their china shop.
Again, it will be very interesting to see it unfold.
He can argue certain welfare cuts and survive. Even Bill Clinton did that. Being that Social Security is not free, it's something people have paid into their entire working lives, it's untouchable. To me he is out of touch to not realize that.
As much as I want the entire welfare state demolished, I agree. A platform that includes cutting, even by a dollar, the two welfare programs that people think they are "invested in" is a surefire loser.
SS and MW will go away after they've bankrupted the nation, causing armed revolt and a dystopian hell on Earth, and culled a chunk of the population as well...and not one second before.
No way the most active voting blocs the nation has will say yippee to a platform that says "yeah, all the old people before you got this cool free stuff, but my plan is for you not to! " Just no way. But...they also don't want him out there being "not Republican" and telling everyone the mathematical realities of Mediwelfare4ALL. Cuts won't elect him, but explaining why the expansions are absurd won't be helping the Dems much either.
As much as I want the entire welfare state demolished, I agree. A platform that includes cutting, even by a dollar, the two welfare programs that people think they are "invested in" is a surefire loser.
SS and MW will go away after they've bankrupted the nation, causing armed revolt and a dystopian hell on Earth, and culled a chunk of the population as well...and not one second before.
Russia, China and India will bankrupt us, not S.S.
Quote:
No way the most active voting blocs the nation has will say yippee to a platform that says "yeah, all the old people before you got this cool free stuff, but my plan is for you not to! " Just no way. But...they also don't want him out there being "not Republican" and telling everyone the mathematical realities of Mediwelfare4ALL. Cuts won't elect him, but explaining why the expansions are absurd won't be helping the Dems much either.
Schultz also was owner of the Seattle Supersonics basketball team, and had a big battle with local officials. He wanted a new tax-funded stadium, which he never got. He ended up selling the team (for a $130 million profit) and the team was moved to Oklahoma by the new owner.
That's probably similar experience to what Trump has had to deal with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
He wanted millions from the taxpayers but doesn't think people need a higher minimum wage...........
And this is the guy that is supposed to be attractive to Democrats?
Yes, that is going to be an issue not just for Democrats, but for conservatives who might be looking at Schultz.
It's not often mentioned that George W. Bush made most of his family fortune in such a tax-funded stadium deal. He owned the Texas Rangers, pushed through a tax-funded stadium, and then sold the team, with a $15 million profit going to W.
I have a good Republican friend who supported W Bush, and says to this day that he regrets it, and should have known better because of that stadium deal.
Yes, that is going to be an issue not just for Democrats, but for conservatives who might be looking at Schultz.
It's not often mentioned that George W. Bush made most of his family fortune in such a tax-funded stadium deal. He owned the Texas Rangers, pushed through a tax-funded stadium, and then sold the team, with a $15 million profit going to W.
I have a good Republican friend who supported W Bush, and says to this day that he regrets it, and should have known better because of that stadium deal.
Typical of those who already have. They want more wherever they can get it but when those without want a little they dismiss them.
Democrats & the MSM are scared to death of a Schultz Candidacy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
" Just no way. But...they also don't want him out there being "not Republican" and telling everyone the mathematical realities of Mediwelfare4ALL. Cuts won't elect him, but explaining why the expansions are absurd won't be helping the Dems much either.
