2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[flere-imsaho]

It's not over, though.

On this date in 2007 Giuliani still led the field with 28%, with Thompson at 14.8%, Romney at 12.7% and McCain (the eventual winner) at 12.2%. Eventually Huckabee won Iowa with 34%, then Romney with 25% and McCain & Thompson tied at 13%. In NH, McCain beat Romney 37-32 and Huckabee beat out Giuliani 11 to 9. In the end, McCain's path to victory was, in a sense, gifted to him by Giuliani, who famously ignored all the states prior to Florida, intending to make Florida a huge springboard win. This strategy failed spectacularly and McCain had enough advantages over Romney, Thompson & Huckabee to compete and win the nomination.

If there's a parallel to 2016 is comes in asking where Trump supporters would go should he "pull a Giuliani" and squander a massive December lead. Those votes, if they go anywhere, go to Cruz. So Cruz is McCain in this parallel, but furthermore Cruz has no real Romney to defeat, like McCain did.

On this date in 2011 Gingrich led with 23.2%, Romney had 21%, Cain had 18.2% and Perry had 7.7%. The story of this nomination has long been re-hashed and the path of "front-runner vs. anyone-but-front-runner" does not, I think, have a current parallel in 2015/16. Sure, there have been a few waves of challenges to Trump but, unlike with Romney, no one's exceeded his support, especially for any meaningful period.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I keep seeing this idea, but where's the evidence that the bulk of the GOP electorate doesn't want someone like Trump or Cruz?

Well, exactly. Trump + Cruz + Carson is 61% right now. The question GOP consultants should be asking themselves is where, exactly, the GOP Establishment voters, who voted for Romney & McCain back in the day and were supposed to support Bush or Rubio this go-around, are.

[albionmoonlight]

Another thing that the Establishment has going for them is that the nomination process is not fair. Each state GOP party runs its primary or caucus--which means that the elections are being run by the Establishment. And delegates are not always awarded in a one-to-one fashion with the popular vote. There are lots of little rules and procedures for actually getting your delegates to the convention--disputes over which will be resolved by GOP secretaries of state or GOP party chairpersons.

Once the Establishment settles on Rubio/Christie/Bush, I think that you will see a lot of pushing and pulling behind the scenes to make sure that that candidate wins. You are not seeing it yet because you don't have a consensus Establishment candidate.

The GOP Establishment that people are discounting here currently has control of the vast majority of state legislatures/governorships, both houses of the U.S. Congress, and a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court. It knows how to play politics and win.

Most of the "OMG Trump is going to destroy the GOP" stuff I am seeing comes from liberals who are wishing more than predicting.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Another thing that the Establishment has going for them is that the nomination process is not fair. Each state GOP party runs its primary or caucus--which means that the elections are being run by the Establishment. And delegates are not always awarded in a one-to-one fashion with the popular vote. There are lots of little rules and procedures for actually getting your delegates to the convention--disputes over which will be resolved by GOP secretaries of state or GOP party chairpersons.

Once the Establishment settles on Rubio/Christie/Bush, I think that you will see a lot of pushing and pulling behind the scenes to make sure that that candidate wins. You are not seeing it yet because you don't have a consensus Establishment candidate.

The GOP Establishment that people are discounting here currently has control of the vast majority of state legislatures/governorships, both houses of the U.S. Congress, and a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court. It knows how to play politics and win.

Most of the "OMG Trump is going to destroy the GOP" stuff I am seeing comes from liberals who are wishing more than predicting.

it's because of this that Sanders has no hope.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Well, exactly. Trump + Cruz + Carson is 61% right now. The question GOP consultants should be asking themselves is where, exactly, the GOP Establishment voters, who voted for Romney & McCain back in the day and were supposed to support Bush or Rubio this go-around, are.

They're mostly fed up with collaborators and are in the non-establishment camp. I said it the other day, I'll say it again: some of those folks better worry more about having primary opposition than about trying to manipulate the top of the ticket.


On a somewhat related note however, I'll mention seeing where there's now a movement to organize primary opposition against Paul Ryan after the budget deal. Complaints about him (from sitting Congressmen) ring very hollow with me from anyone aside from the nine GOP House members who voted against him. He was not an unknown commodity, that he struck a deal should surprise exactly no one, so any shock & horror expressed afterwards feels like absolute b.s. to me.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Well, exactly. Trump + Cruz + Carson is 61% right now. The question GOP consultants should be asking themselves is where, exactly, the GOP Establishment voters, who voted for Romney & McCain back in the day and were supposed to support Bush or Rubio this go-around, are.

Well, nobody's asked me, yet.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Another thing that the Establishment has going for them is that the nomination process is not fair. Each state GOP party runs its primary or caucus--which means that the elections are being run by the Establishment. And delegates are not always awarded in a one-to-one fashion with the popular vote. There are lots of little rules and procedures for actually getting your delegates to the convention--disputes over which will be resolved by GOP secretaries of state or GOP party chairpersons.

Once the Establishment settles on Rubio/Christie/Bush, I think that you will see a lot of pushing and pulling behind the scenes to make sure that that candidate wins. You are not seeing it yet because you don't have a consensus Establishment candidate.

The GOP Establishment that people are discounting here currently has control of the vast majority of state legislatures/governorships, both houses of the U.S. Congress, and a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court. It knows how to play politics and win.

Most of the "OMG Trump is going to destroy the GOP" stuff I am seeing comes from liberals who are wishing more than predicting.

It's good to know somebody is looking out for us.

[flere-imsaho]

We're liberals. Caring is what we do.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

We're liberals. Caring is what we do.

Caring about winning! We are the same in that regard. We just have different ideas of what to do with my paycheck.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

it's because of this that Sanders has no hope.

Nooooo, I'm pretty sure that's because even most of the loony left ain't crazy enough to back that evil motherfucker. Makes Hilary look sane by comparison.

[NobodyHere]

How is he evil?

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Caring about winning! We are the same in that regard. We just have different ideas of what to do with my paycheck.

I'd probably give you more back from your paycheck by cutting back on our over-the-top defense spending. I do get the frustration with people who abuse welfare. I have a sister-in-law who is content to be a giant leach on society and her parents. It frustrates me to no end. She is able to work. She just chooses not to.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

How is he evil?

There is no greater evil afoot than a fucking socialist.

I hold child molesters in higher regard than I do Sanders. The harm they do, while unspeakably heinous, does not threaten the very existence of an entire nation. He, and his ilk, are the most potentially destructive force in the country today.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

On a somewhat related note however, I'll mention seeing where there's now a movement to organize primary opposition against Paul Ryan after the budget deal.

I have sincere doubts that a primary challenge would gain much traction in Ryan's district. Romney took that district 51-47 in '12 while Ryan's victory was 54-43 (with a bigger margin in '14). If he was in the 5th district (James Sensenbrenner), that'd be another story. But the 1st district is not super conservative.

I get the sentiment by conservatives. But in practical terms, good luck.

[NobodyHere]

Lindsey Graham is out.

I'm guessing Patacki will be next.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Lindsey Graham is out.

I'm guessing Patacki will be next.

If Jim Gilmore forgets to drop out, does he become the nominee by default?

[Subby]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

There is no greater evil afoot than a fucking socialist.

I hold child molesters in higher regard than I do Sanders. The harm they do, while unspeakably heinous, does not threaten the very existence of an entire nation. He, and his ilk, are the most potentially destructive force in the country today.

Well the logical question is would you go back in time and kill baby Bernie Sanders?

[ISiddiqui]

It's Jon. He'd kill Sanders' parents.

[corbes]

Baby Bernie Sanders, you said?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Subby

Well the logical question is would you go back in time and kill baby Bernie Sanders?

Him, his parents, and possibly his grandparents just to be on the safe side.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Lindsey Graham is out.

I'm guessing Patacki will be next.

That would make sense, given that Pataki, like Graham, never made much of an effort in Iowa, and neither has much hope for New Hampshire.

Graham likely chose today because it's the deadline to withdraw from the South Carolina primary. Since that's his home state, he probably feels there's value to not getting embarrassed with a poor showing there.

Otherwise, there's no real value in getting out now. It's not hugely expensive to coast through Iowa and New Hampshire. The week after New Hampshire is prime getting-out time. Staying in means you get to participate in a couple more debates, and lightning may strike.

As for Sanders, without wishing him harm, I find his rhetoric troubling for a man who owns half-million dollar properties in both Washington and Vermont.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I find his rhetoric troubling for a man who owns half-million dollar properties in both Washington and Vermont.

I'm trying to figure out why that would be troubling... Is this implying he's not wealthy enough to run for president, because he only owns 2 middle class properties? Warning: LSM link

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Subby

Well the logical question is would you go back in time and kill baby Bernie Sanders?

In hindsight I probably took an oversized leap of faith assuming that everyone would get the reference that I'm pretty sure you were making ... and I answered accordingly.

We'll see if my confidence in the FOFC is rewarded or punished I suppose.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

it's because of this that Sanders has no hope.

I think he has little hope, but not for this reason.

I'm pretty sure that's because even most of the loony left ain't crazy enough to back that evil motherfucker.

Nope, not this either.

Sanders' problem is that minorities, for whatever reason, won't support him. This is an interesting situation in that he has been a supporter of most of what they want for longer and more consistently than Hillary, which has a number of uncomfortable implications. But the bottom line is that he's going to get crushed a lot of places outside of the Northeast by Hillary, and he won't survive that.

[ISiddiqui]

Sanders thinks that he's been a supporter of most of what they want for longer and more consistently than Hillary Clinton . African-American groups disagree. In addition, it isn't just minorities, FWIW, the Northeast is one of the more liberal areas in the country. It goes to figure that the South and West (with some exceptions) would back the progressive/moderate Democrat over the Democratic Socialist.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

I'm trying to figure out why that would be troubling... Is this implying he's not wealthy enough to run for president, because he only owns 2 middle class properties? Warning: LSM link

No. The opposite. He likes to talk about his disdain for accumulating wealth, yet even if he confiscated all the money and property of everyone he dislikes, it wouldn't come close to bringing the rest of the country up to his own "minimal" standard.

His wealth includes, obviously, his wife's holdings. They keep any money holdings or stock in her name so he can't be accused of hypocrisy.

I think can call him middle class in terms of wealth, but definitely toward the upper end.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

He likes to talk about his disdain for accumulating wealth,

Care to provide a quote for that?

He argues for greater taxation on the wealthy, but I've never heard him say what you're saying.

This is all part of a trend of silencing anyone who argues for anything that doesn't benefit the wealthy. Rich people can't speak about poverty without being hypocrites and poor people can't buy their way onto the stage.

[molson]

Like most rich people, Sanders puts the "evil rich" category at somewhat above where he is personally. (Though I think many of his followers do put it a lot lower, though that's just anecdotal).

[JPhillips]

Have I missed where he's said higher taxes wouldn't apply to him?

[molson]

You don't think Sanders' appeal among young people has anything to do with his inspiring anger and resentment of the rich?

Edit: Sanders uses the rich kind of like Trump uses illegal immigrants. It's a lot more tasteful in Sanders' case, but I think the goal is the same, he certainly knows how the message is being received, and it's all about class warfare. That kind of thing gets people riled up, to have an enemy. I don't think Sanders' wealth is a problem for him because he's not super-rich by major politician standards, but there is still this idea that people with less are better qualified to be president. Remember when Obama bragged that he had fewer houses than McCain, and how that became a big selling point in part of his fan-base for a while?

[stevew]

How America’s dying white supremacist movement is seizing on Donald Trump’s appeal - The Washington Post

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

You don't think Sanders' appeal among young people has anything to do with his inspiring anger and resentment of the rich?

Edit: Sanders uses the rich kind of like Trump uses illegal immigrants. It's a lot more tasteful in Sanders' case, but I think the goal is the same, he certainly knows how the message is being received, and it's all about class warfare. That kind of thing gets people riled up, to have an enemy. I don't think Sanders' wealth is a problem for him because he's not super-rich by major politician standards, but there is still this idea that people with less are better qualified to be president. Remember when Obama bragged that he had fewer houses than McCain, and how that became a big selling point in part of his fan-base for a while?

I disagree in that I think it's possible for politicians to have honestly held positions. You're dismissing the possibility that Sanders thinks a return to higher taxes for the wealthy and more power for workers is indeed better policy for the future growth of the U.S.

I don't think everything said is carefully focus tested bullshit with no sincerity.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

but there is still this idea that people with less are better qualified to be president.

Well there's a tragically comic notion.

[nol]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Care to provide a quote for that?

He argues for greater taxation on the wealthy, but I've never heard him say what you're saying.

This is all part of a trend of silencing anyone who argues for anything that doesn't benefit the wealthy. Rich people can't speak about poverty without being hypocrites and poor people can't buy their way onto the stage.

Or all poor people are imbeciles who made bad decisions and are just whining and playing the victim card, so that's why those opinions don't count. You can go with either one depending on how you're feeling any given day.

[molson]

Originally Posted by nol

Or all poor people are imbeciles who made bad decisions and are just whining and playing the victim card, so that's why those opinions don't count. You can go with either one depending on how you're feeling any given day.

See, this is exactly the product that Sanders, and to a lesser extent, other Democratic candidates, sell. If you're not with them, you're morally inferior. You hate the poor, you're racist, etc. You have to vote for them or you're literally an uncaring human being. So if you vote do for them and give them money, you get to have that feeling of moral superiority, like you're a good person, and you don't even have to actually help anyone in the real world. Simply being "enlightened" and bragging about your enlightenment on facebook and such makes you a good person.

[NobodyHere]

And if you're not with Republicans and you vote for pro-choice and gay marriage then you're going to hell to suffer for all eternity.

How's that for moral superiority?


ETA: The point I'm making is that the perceived moral high ground is not limited to the Sanders camp.

[heybrad]

Life is so much easier when we can just put everybody in a box.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by molson

You don't think Sanders' appeal among young people has anything to do with his inspiring anger and resentment of the rich?

I don't think its 'just' that - but more that many people believe in a fair society with certain things as a 'right', healthcare, education etc. ... there are a fair few of us who are happy to potentially pay higher taxes for the betterment of others.

(and I don't expect everyone present to agree with me on this - that's cool, differences of opinion are all part of living in a free democratic society etc.)

PS - I don't look down on anyone who disagrees with me, but as someone who wouldn't have had the quality of life that I have without access to free education and healthcare I think it'd be ill of me to pretend to be a self made man and ignore the leg up it gave me ..

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Care to provide a quote for that?

He argues for greater taxation on the wealthy, but I've never heard him say what you're saying.

This is all part of a trend of silencing anyone who argues for anything that doesn't benefit the wealthy. Rich people can't speak about poverty without being hypocrites and poor people can't buy their way onto the stage.

One relevant quote (and there are many):

"In the pope's view, and I agree with him, we are living... in a world which worships not love of brothers and sisters, not love of the poor and the sick, but worships the acquisition of money and great wealth."

Sanders isn't shy about his belief system. He often calls for dismantling Wall Street, even though he has no problem accumulating wealth himself through stock. I think that qualifies as hypocrisy.

You can certainly talk about poverty without hypocrisy. And you can certainly strongly disagree with Sanders without trying to silence him.

As any honest assessment of socialism will reveal, it's terrible for an economy. More dramatically in Venezuela in recent years, but throughout history and all over the world. Even in Scandinavia, where tiny and very homogeneous populations have seen their standards of living drop in comparison to the rest of the world since the implementation of socialism around 50 years ago.

We can argue whether lowering the average standard of living is worth implementing Sanders' policies, but I think he's being quite dishonest in stating that we can have everything we want, if only we confiscate the wealth of the wealthy.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I don't think its 'just' that - but more that many people believe in a fair society with certain things as a 'right', healthcare, education etc. ... there are a fair few of us who are happy to potentially pay higher taxes for the betterment of others.

(and I don't expect everyone present to agree with me on this - that's cool, differences of opinion are all part of living in a free democratic society etc.)

PS - I don't look down on anyone who disagrees with me, but as someone who wouldn't have had the quality of life that I have without access to free education and healthcare I think it'd be ill of me to pretend to be a self made man and ignore the leg up it gave me ..

Obama and Clinton would also like to tax the rich more (so would I - I think the rich are a valuable asset that we should get more from), but Sanders seems to bring something extra to the table rhetoric-wise, something Trump-like. It's something that riles up a base of supporters differently than merely advocating for a particular position does. It always feels dishonest and insincere to me, it's an appeal to emotions and human needs to scapegoat others and hold yourself up as something better. Some of that is necessary in politics I guess. But it's what I don't like about the extremes, and yes, obviously extreme Republicans do this also, and if anyone posts that you're going to go to hell if you don't vote Republican I'm not on board with that either.

With far-left liberals though, it's weirder to me. It's harder to reconcile the professed caring for poor people with the hateful dismissing of poor people who happen not to vote the correct way or who hold conservative values (there are a LOT of poor conservatives in this country). That's what makes it feel more like something that's motivated by playing politics rather than actually helping people. I don't think Sanders personally exudes that, but I think there's a lot of it on this board and among his supporters, and I think Sanders is trying to tap into that.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I don't think its 'just' that - but more that many people believe in a fair society with certain things as a 'right', healthcare, education etc. ... there are a fair few of us who are happy to potentially pay higher taxes for the betterment of others.

(and I don't expect everyone present to agree with me on this - that's cool, differences of opinion are all part of living in a free democratic society etc.)

PS - I don't look down on anyone who disagrees with me, but as someone who wouldn't have had the quality of life that I have without access to free education and healthcare I think it'd be ill of me to pretend to be a self made man and ignore the leg up it gave me ..

There's a delicate balance between providing the opportunity to excel, as you have done, and providing excessive opportunity to, well, not excel. I wish I knew where that balance point was.

What is fair? That's a tougher question than a lot of people would like to admit.

We have an incredible rise in the percentage of people who choose not to work in America. Even in Seattle, where they're in the beginning stages of implementing the $15/hour minimum wage (I think they're over $11 now), employers are finding that many workers are asking for fewer hours because they don't want to lose government benefits.

I think it would help if you explained more about the free education available in Great Britain, and the role of the A- and O-Levels. We could add in a discussion of Germany and its emphasis on education in the trades. So much of the education argument in America versus overseas is apples and oranges.

We can discuss these issues and learn more about the world without demonizing those we disagree with.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

One relevant quote (and there are many):

"In the pope's view, and I agree with him, we are living... in a world which worships not love of brothers and sisters, not love of the poor and the sick, but worships the acquisition of money and great wealth."

Sanders isn't shy about his belief system. He often calls for dismantling Wall Street, even though he has no problem accumulating wealth himself through stock. I think that qualifies as hypocrisy.

You can certainly talk about poverty without hypocrisy. And you can certainly strongly disagree with Sanders without trying to silence him.

As any honest assessment of socialism will reveal, it's terrible for an economy. More dramatically in Venezuela in recent years, but throughout history and all over the world. Even in Scandinavia, where tiny and very homogeneous populations have seen their standards of living drop in comparison to the rest of the world since the implementation of socialism around 50 years ago.

We can argue whether lowering the average standard of living is worth implementing Sanders' policies, but I think he's being quite dishonest in stating that we can have everything we want, if only we confiscate the wealth of the wealthy.

But saying Sanders is a hypocrite for talking about the poor is trying to silence him. If you want to critique proposals, have at, but it's lazy to rely on arguments based on things he hasn't said.

Speaking of which, he has never called for dismantling Wall Street. Keeping banks smaller and adding a transaction tax is not equivalent to ending stock ownership.

What is socialism? In many areas the U.S. is socialist and has been for decades. What is the level of socialism that will end in disaster? Why are no candidates from either major party calling for an end to all socialism? Maybe socialism=bad isn't a sufficient analysis.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But saying Sanders is a hypocrite for talking about the poor is trying to silence him. If you want to critique proposals, have at, but it's lazy to rely on arguments based on things he hasn't said.

It's lazy to rely on arguments that don't exist.

[JPhillips]

blacklisted-loving-it-poster/

WTF? And from the official campaign store.

[Thomkal]

that is just all kinds of wrong

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

blacklisted-loving-it-poster/

WTF? And from the official campaign store.

At the next debates that image should be put on the big screen behind him when he speaks.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It's lazy to rely on arguments that don't exist.

Coming from you, this post is practically zen.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

With far-left liberals though, it's weirder to me. It's harder to reconcile the professed caring for poor people with the hateful dismissing of poor people who happen not to vote the correct way or who hold conservative values (there are a LOT of poor conservatives in this country). That's what makes it feel more like something that's motivated by playing politics rather than actually helping people. I don't think Sanders personally exudes that, but I think there's a lot of it on this board and among his supporters, and I think Sanders is trying to tap into that.

Almost as bad as freedom-loving conservatives saying the government should get out of people's lives except for women being able to make decisions about their own bodies.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Almost as bad as freedom-loving conservatives saying the government should get out of people's lives except for women being able to make decisions about their own bodies. murder their children.

Fixed, at least from some perspectives. Keep in mind that everyone who is anti-abortion isn't anti-abortion because they're anti-women. Sure, some are. But not all.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

there are a fair few of us who are happy to potentially pay higher taxes for the betterment of others.

I don't think we have enough money to squeeze out of private citizens that will help and better others, tbh. Hell we can't even pay for what we currently get in services.

And the new thing is not, "Holy crap, let's all just pay a little bit more", it's "Let's just make the Top 1% pay for it." That's a win-win, right? Not only do I have to pay for the services I receive, but I can demand others to pay for it for me. Sounds good, I'll vote for that.

For instance, we are currently in a scenario where many people are completely unsatisfied with the amount of money that tax payers are currently giving to government. So let's work off of that argument.

We currently give the government ~$6T a year as a collective of people. Our national, state, and local debts are over $20T, but we'll work off of the National Debt which is ~$18T. That debt has some basis on war, yes, but a vast majority of it still involves taking care of people. The argument that you are making now, Marc, is that the $6T a year we currently give the government does not and has not met the demands of healthcare, education and pensions AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY SET.

Many voters say the answer to this is to simply....tax the rich more. The infamous 1%ers.

Well, let's take a look at that....and this National Debt scenario is a moment in time and ultimately miniscule compared to the annual taxes we are talking about over the long-term. But for the sake of simplicity, let's just look at taking care of our over-spending and not providing MORE services with regard to healthcare and education and pensions.

I love the national debt clock, you can use that as my reference.

We have 320 million Americans (legal immigrants if you like) in our country. Of that 150 million are tax payers. Of those tax payers, 122 million are employed full-time. (23 million of those are government workers, which means the other 100 million have to pay their salaries...but we'll include them in taxes acquired for simplicity sake).

The average debt per taxpayer (not including state and local which are growing quickly too) is $157K. Making the assumption that no part-time employees are in the "Top 1%" let's just go with the "Top 1%" of full-time workers.

The top 1% includes doctors and lawyers and typically make over $250k a year. There are ~1.5M people taxpayers that qualify for this label. If we put the national debt (and only the national debt, not annual taxes) they would each need to pay $15.7M in taxes to get us back to black. But since that would be completely unrealistic, let's target the "Top 1% of the Top 1%"...we'll call them the Millionaires.

The Top 1% of the Top 1% equates to 12.2K full-time workers.
The bill per citizen for these workers would be $1.57B. For a group I've labelled, Millionaires, that's not going to work.

So let's target the "Top 1% of the Top 1% of the Top 1%"...and we'll call them our Billionaires.

Statistically there are 122 of them (and theoretically based on my nomenclature of "Billionaires), based on the quick math.

The bill per Billionaire would be $157B per Billionaire.

But we only have 2 or 3 Billionaires with more than $50B....much less $157B.

Mathematically, none of this makes sense. But even if we all pitch in, to many voters, "Oh, I'll pay more!" are just words. They are very kind words, to be fair, and it resonates well other voters, people like to hear it, but we all know that the words have no value even when it's put into action. If the rich can't even pay off our national debt, how are the common folk supposed to be able to do it? And how can we do it while adding more to it each year?

A typical person saying they are ready to help pay for the poor reminds me of the conversation Clark Griswald (Chevy Chase) and his cousin had in the original Vacation movie when his cousin is asking for some help to pay the bills and Chevy opens up his wallet (kind gesture) and says, "Sure, buddy, I totally understand, how much will get you by?" and his cousin says "$283,000." or whatever the ridiculous number was. And so Chevy realizes only when the actual number arrives that he's simply no match for his cousin's financial problems.

I'm looking for politicians that don't tell me how much more than $6T they need to make things better, but politicians that can tell me how to better utilize the $6T we already give them.