Starbucks offers plan to fix fiscal cliff problem

If anything can bring together Democratic and GOP members of Congress, it might as well be a cup of coffee.

From today through Friday, Starbucks employees in Washington, D.C.-area stores are being told to write “Come Together” on every cup of coffee they serve.

“Rather than be bystanders, we have an opportunity — and I believe a responsibility — to use our company’s scale for good by sending a respectful and optimistic message to our elected officials to come together and reach common ground on this important issue,” Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz wrote in a letter posted on the company’s blog.

Schultz has been a critic of Washington gridlock in the past, declaring he would cease making political donations in the wake of the 2011 debt limit battle. As the country approaches the fiscal cliff — a package of tax increases and spending cuts that risk sending the country spiraling back into recession — Schultz hopes his “small gesture” can help push lawmakers toward a deal.

“It’s a small gesture, but the power of small gestures is what Starbucks is about!” Schultz wrote. “Imagine the power of our partners and hundreds of thousands of customers each sharing such a simple message, one cup at a time.”

CNNMoney reported Starbucks planned to run full-page ads in the New York Times and the Washington Post later this week with a similar message. A spokesman also told the site employees wouldn’t have to write the message if it made them “uncomfortable.”



Posted to: News Politico

How to be civil in comments:

 No name-calling, personal insults or threats. No attacks based on race, gender, ethnicity, etc. No writing with your Caps Lock on – it's screaming. Keep on topic and under 1500 characters. No profanity or vulgarity. Stay G- or PG-rated. Read the full rules here.

Thanks VP

Thanks VP for the free advertisement for Starbucks. All they had to do was write a meaningless phrase on coffee cups that won't mean one iota of difference to the drinkers, and blam, free article with their name in headlines. Got any more hard news for us? Maybe fireman rescues kitten from tree?

New Headline!

Starbucks offers a free coffee to all firemen that have rescued kittens from trees!

because cats don't get stuck

because cats don't get stuck in trees. Win for starbucks.

Expecting Hard News?

Did you really click the link expecting to see a hard-hitting article on Starbucks' solution to the swirly toilet bowl that is our current Congress?

The headline might as well said "Fluff Piece: Starbucks offers plan to fix fiscal cliff problem."

The real news is that Congress is still so ineffectual that a coffee vendor's PR stunt is now included in the political debate.

Sad. Very sad, indeed.

Also, I'll have a venti no whip mocha with that...

The sad state of the Navy

When a Master Chief is drinking a foo foo girly cup of coffee instead of hot, black and strong. You probably wash your cup also.

Just kiddin' Chief!

Small Gesture

Doing something is better than doing nothing.

they either lie now or they lied in 2004

The Democrat Party campaign slogan in 2002 & 2004 was that no party should wield the power of both Congress and the presidency.
Why is having one party wielding power of both Congress and the presidency good NOW?

The politics of personal destruction brought us gridlock. The desire to oppress the GOP has brought gridlock. The petty retribution from both parties has brought us gridlock.

The main problem with gridlock is that the problems created by mainly one party domination (that's the problem) don't get resolved.

The GOP controlled House should offer a COMPROMISE! The compromise should be spending cuts NOW with a delay of three years (unless overrode by 2/3 vote) automatic tax increases for individuals making $999,999 from any source.

This suggestion must give

This suggestion must give you great personal satsifaction, as you make it daily. All lucid observers know that any "compromise" proposing zero current revenue increase faces the same likelihood of acceptance & adoption.

so what have you offered as a compromise?

I have only seen one thing offered by President Obama and those who follow him without question or waive - increase taxes on those making at least $250,000 a year.
That SAME uncompromising entry does not address what will happen when the tax rates have been increase and are not enough to match spending to expenses. Is there some personal satisfaction with focusing only on increasing taxes on those making at least $250,000 a year without addressing spending?

So far, the only spending cuts addressed by liberals is: "what specific spending cuts are the GOP calling?".

Why not cut spending NOW with a promise set by a 2/3 overide vote to increase taxes? Isn't that COMPROMISE?? Everyone doesn't win and everyone loses.
What are YOU offering?


match spending to revenue (instead of expenses)

Your tally is at twice now

Your tally is at twice now with the same meaningless proposal. The President dropped his revenue proposal from 1.6 to 1.4 trillion and put Medicare on the table to the dismay of his base. He's negotiating against himself. Not only have Republicans refused to identify which deductions would produce any revenues, they have been unable/unwilling to organize themselves sufficiently for others trust their leadership in any negotiating process. They have simply tossed the ball back to the President in hopes that he will continue to negotiate against himself.

the illusion that fools so many people

As stated by another poster - it isn't $1.6 trillion in ONE year, it is over a TEN YEAR plan. (Likewise it isn't $1.4 trillion each year).

We have a SPENDING problem.

You again failed to address the issue - what is going to happen and who else is going to be taxed the following year when the president's failed plan only funds ONE YEAR (actually a lot less).
Why did you fail to address the trillion dollar plus deficit between SPENDING and taxes? What is your COMPROMISE to address the deficit between SPENDING and taxes that will solve the issue sooner than some forecast of maybe ten years?

The COMPROMISE solution of cutting spending NOW with a promise to raise taxes (as needed) in three years with a 2/3 vote override needed will work.

Wow! Reason doesn't get

Wow! Reason doesn't get through to you. It's not going to happen.

what are you missing to show reason?

Please explain in rational and reasonable terms how increasing taxes to raise between $1.4 trillion and $1.6 trillion over a ten year period will deal with the deficit between spending and taxes?

Please make sense of how collecting increased taxes on the rich to gather about $160 billion more each year when even this year's deficit (accrued debt) is more than $1.5 TRILLION?

We have a spending problem. Why does it seem to most people for you to understand that we must cut spending to begin to put a value of how much taxes are needed BY ALL?
Taxes ARE ESSENTIAL! We must know how much is needed first.
Cut spending then raise taxes if needed (which it will).

What you & your tea party

What you & your tea party friends refuse to acknowledge is that our spending problem has built up over multiple decades & will not be solved overnight. Current spending cuts alone will not address the problem w/o accompanying additional revenues unless (i) you slash defense spending or (ii) you adopt draconian measures such as immediate cuts in Medicare, Medicaid & non-retirement Social Security are made to individuals already collecting benefits under those programs or approaching age or conditions which make them eligible for benefits. Other "immediate" spending cuts do not create sufficient savings - though they may satiate your conservative agenda. 70% of the American people openly acknowledge this fact. You're whistling into the wind.

a lot of assumptions and most are wrong

I am not and have not been a member of any Tea PartIES. I believe in their cause of cut, cap, and balance.

Part of the answers are "lock boxes". We need to change how we allot money (budget departments by the month for the year to stop year end spending sprees). We need to increase FICA limits to $200,000 of income and also raise the income level for recipients before they are taxed on SS. We need to change the stock exchange to make it for INVESTMENT not speculation (base taxes on holding lengths and for SHORTS).

BTW - why would you suggest to reduce current SS and medicare payments? Don't you think that is very harsh?

BTW - how can 70% of people know what is suggested except by a poll telling them untruths?

Cut, cap, and balance.

Your spending cut suggestion

Your spending cut suggestion does not rise to the level of a drop in the bucket. By design, tea party & similar far right positions lack specificity not only as to which deduction elimination would produce revenue but which specific entitlement or other cuts would sufficiently reduce spending. Your comments simply continue that design. You & they fear the backlash of specificity. No specific plan such as you suggest provides an immediate "balance" as culmination to your cut, cap and balance. You have failed to respond to the utter failure of any proposal to work w/o a revenue component. Suggestion that any overwhelming majority support of a revenue component is part of some conspiracy is laughable.

you forgot to make sense with cents

My specific reductions:
- do away with federal funding to NPR. Sesame Street makes billions off brand sales.
- go to FairTax (after repealing the 16th amendment) which will make the Treasury dept a lot less.
- raise retirement age to 68 and remove minimum retirement age for all those under 55.
- make lock box for SS and one for medicare.
- allocate federal funding to monthly based on average daily spending to reduce end of the year wasteful spending.
- make each contracting officer personally responsible for errors and ommissions on the fault of the government.
- increase direct funding to local health departments from money spent on Planned Parenthood. (no cut in spending)
- cut duplication of military - make joint forces joint.

and More!

NPR, PBS, Planned Parenthood

NPR, PBS, Planned Parenthood combined are less than pennies. Fair Tax results in a substantially more regressive tax system vs increasing taxes on the wealthy - not likely. Raising retirement age on those < 55 will result in savings only 10 years down the road - contrary to what you started out complaining about. Any savings from placing a lock box on Medicare are based on one's take on whether savings result from ACA. Making civil service contracting officers personally responsible for government E&O on the fault of the government makes no sense at all. No one would be fool enough to apply for that job. Consolidation of military services makes sense but minimal savings.

These won't get you into the ballpark of sufficient current savings.

my father told me that if you don't know, don't prove it

Obviously you do not know very much about the FairTax. If you haven't read the four books from John Linder and Boortz then you are only reading from detractors who also don't know. Ask the horse what he is saying.

A point that is true - an iron worker's body is worn out a lot earlier than an office worker so maybe a graduated scale for retirement age would not be bad.

Locked boxes force alloting and authorization of revenue based on its declared use. The fuel tax is for transportation but is placed in the general fund. SS is also in the general fund and gets an "IOU".

Did you know that in Virginia that Treasurers are personally responsible for the localities' treasury? The point was to make sure contracts cost what they are written.

raising retirement ages seems to make sense

until you realize there is a difference between an office worker and a framer.

Or and accountant and an iron worker.

Some jobs just wear a body down more than others.

Something to at least think about.


but no meaningful spending cuts have the same results.we have had budget deficits over a trillion dollars each year since the democrats took control of congress in 2007.obama wants to raise taxes and increase revenue by 1.6 trillion over a ten year period, that's 160 billion a years,now i ask a serious question.what good will that 160 billion do when we have a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit every year? basically the entire 10 year period will only cover 1 year of the deficit,that leaves 9 more years of 1.5 trillion dollars added to the debt. or an additional 13.5 trillion .we do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.anybody who thinks raising taxes on the rich to generate 1.6 trillion in 10 yrs is delusional

well i see

at least 7 people are delusional

Church offers plan to avoid

Church offers plan to avoid fiscal cliff......PRAY.

a different plan

--instead of something to get your self more money,--how about you putting out two different cups.

--one cup plain!

--the second cup with the presidents mug on it and a ten cent surcharge on it ,with the money on it going to the people suffering from that storm sandy,--without power still.

--he got a free publicity shot from them,--how about giving something in return?--after all they are still homeless--no heat--no power no help from that snake oil salesman.--divide the money between the different private people helping them--anything is better then what the government has done for them.--frank in va.bch.

frank, you got a solution

How about Buffett, Gates, Soros, and other rich who earn from capital gains instead of salary, donate all but $10,000,000 (let them keep their lifestyle) to the Treasury right now - before the end of the year?

They only need one house and maybe a couple cars (at least one per family member living at home) and all of them can fly first class or ride in an Amtrack sleeper train car. Why can't they stroke a check to the Treasury to match what they want the "rich" to do?

You are very right about having different cups to see what the Starbucks consumers want. A cup with President Obama and Senator Reid's photo that cost 37% of the coffee added; a cup with nothing but the label; and a cup with a nickel donation to a LOCAL charity (not church).

New Flavor

May I suggest a new coffee flavor for Starbucks in honor of our President. Call It the Barakolatte. It comes overpriced, has a high tax surcharge, and everyone who gets one gets creamed.

Fiscal Cliff

It is nice of Starbucks to solve this fiscal cliff thing. Things are getting so bad now that Obama is having to take
a vacation form his vacation.

Hadn't realized Congess

Hadn't realized Congess stayed in DC for Christmas.

I'm chock full of nuts

Nice way to expresso yourself, but this is nothing to get frothed about.

Better latte than never, give it time to filter and Sanka in.


Stupid....merely stupid!

Give Me a Break

This does nothing but give Starbucks some free advertising. This is a worthless campaing and a worthless article. Writing a message on a cup does absolutely nothing to help our fiscal problems. Employees may not even do it! If Starbucks wants to do something, they could donate money for each cup sold to starving families.

More than a message

Maybe if more VP's and CEO's were to stop ALL campaign contributions until the budget is worked out something would definitely change in DC.


Why don't Starbucks worry about their crappy coffee and terrible service.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Please note: Threaded comments work best if you view the oldest comments first.

Daily Deal |  | Promote your business