The Democrat Thread

[Jake]

IIRC, Carson got the first question at the first Republican debate. It was from Megyn Kelly and it was devastating in terms of the way it questioned his raw competence to be POTUS. I thought he looked uncomfortable when he answered it and assumed he'd fade away shortly thereafter.

[StrangeSox]

He also yesterday made clear he doesn't understand what the debt limit is.

 

Just a weird dude.

 

Wasn't sure what this was referring to, but wow:

 

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/election...-carson-economy

 

Ryssdal: All right, so let's talk about debt then and the budget. As you know, Treasury Secretary Lew has come out in the last couple of days and said, "We're gonna run out of money, we're gonna run out of borrowing authority, on the fifth of November." Should the Congress then and the president not raise the debt limit? Should we default on our debt?

 

Carson: Let me put it this way: if I were the president, I would not sign an increased budget. Absolutely would not do it. They would have to find a place to cut.

 

Ryssdal: To be clear, it's increasing the debt limit, not the budget, but I want to make sure I understand you. You'd let the United States default rather than raise the debt limit.

 

Carson: No, I would provide the kind of leadership that says, "Get on the stick guys, and stop messing around, and cut where you need to cut, because we're not raising any spending limits, period."

 

Ryssdal: I'm gonna try one more time, sir. This is debt that's already obligated. Would you not favor increasing the debt limit to pay the debts already incurred?

 

Carson: What I'm saying is what we have to do is restructure the way that we create debt. I mean if we continue along this, where does it stop? It never stops. You're always gonna ask the same question every year. And we're just gonna keep going down that pathway. That's one of the things I think that the people are tired of.

 

Ryssdal: I'm really trying not to be circular here, Dr. Carson, but if you're not gonna raise the debt limit and you're not gonna give specifics on what you're gonna cut, then how are we going to know what you are going to do as president of the United States?

 

Carson: OK, let me try to explain it in a different way. If, in fact, we have a number of different areas that are contributing to the increasing expenditures and the continued expenditures that are putting us further and further into the hole. You're familiar I'm sure with the concept of the fiscal gap.

 

He also seems to be expressing some goldbuggery:

 

Ryssdal: Why don't you explain that a little bit, though.

 

Carson: OK, well, the fiscal gap is all of the unfunded liabilities that the government owes. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, all the departmental programs, all the agency and sub-agency programs extending into the future, which is a lot of money, versus the amount of revenue that we expect to collect from taxes and other revenue sources. Now if we're being fiscally responsible, those numbers should be fairly close together. If we're not, a gap begins to occur. We bring that forward to modern day today's dollars, and that's the fiscal gap, which sits at over $200 trillion and is continuing to grow. Now the only reason that we can sustain that kind of debt is because of our artificial ability to print money, to create what we think is wealth, but it is not wealth, because it's based upon our faith and credit. You know, we decoupled it from the domestic gold standard in 1933, and from the international gold standard in 1971, and since that time, it's not based on anything. Why would we be continuing to do that?

 

Ryssdal then presses him some more on what he'd actually cut instead of his generic "3-4% from everything"

 

Ryssdal: Yes. You keep saying we're doing things in the government we don't need to do, but when I ask you what you're gonna stop doing, you don't tell me.

 

Carson: Because you don't understand the concept of what I'm talking about. The concept of across the board cutting of fat, because there's so much of it in so many different departments.

 

Ryssdal: So will we stop health services for the poor? Will we stop supplementing nutrition programs? Will we stop corporate tax breaks? Will we stop the offshoring of corporate profits? Those kinds of things. What are we gonna stop?

 

Carson: See that's what certain people always say. They come out and they pick things, and they say, particularly they try to pick things that, you know, might upset people. You remember a couple of years ago? "Well if we can shut down White House tours, and we can close the national parks, and we can do this." You know, whatever you can do to get people's emotions stirred up. And what I'm talking about is across-the-board everything. You cannot convince me that there isn't any department that is completely 100 percent efficient and you can't find fat.

 

He flatly admits to not specifying anything he'd actually do because people would be opposed to it.

 

eta:

Carson: No, reality is that we need to drive down our national debt. Get that GDP ratio below 90 — that GDP-to-debt ratio. Many economists will tell you that as soon as it gets beyond 90, you get great sluggishness.

 

Nah, that's been pretty conclusively refuted.

Edited October 8, 2015 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

Nah, that's been pretty conclusively refuted.

Just because it was a flaw in Excel coding doesn't mean that it will ever stop being repeated.

[StrangeSox]

It wasn't just that. It was also the data set they selected, what they left out, the very limited data some of their comparisons came from, and whether they actually got the causation in the right direction in the first place (does high debt/GDP ratio lead to sluggish growth, or does sluggish growth/global recession lead to high debt/GDP ratios?)

 

But you're right, it's just another part of the Zombie Economics that will never die.

[Balta1701]

It wasn't just that. It was also the data set they selected, what they left out, the very limited data some of their comparisons came from, and whether they actually got the causation in the right direction in the first place (does high debt/GDP ratio lead to sluggish growth, or does sluggish growth/global recession lead to high debt/GDP ratios?)

 

But you're right, it's just another part of the Zombie Economics that will never die.

And even with all that, it all vanished if you corrected the excel coding.

[StrangeSox]

Carson, Trump and Bush have all benefited from MLM scam companies.

 

 

Much has been made of the fact that the two leading contenders in the Republican presidential primary, Donald Trump and Ben Carson, lack any experience in elected office. Much less attention has gone to something else the two men share: a history of entanglements with companies that have been rightly criticized for hawking get-rich-quick schemes to the broke and desperate. The business model, which is perfectly legal, is called multilevel marketing.

 

[…]

 

Of course, common sense would say people realize their chances of achieving millions of dollars in sales via these companies aren’t exactly high. There can’t be that many people who want to buy and sell large amount of vitamins, weight-loss supplements, cellphones, cleaning supplies, energy drinks, and other staples of the MLM business, right? But common sense, never in abundant supply in the best circumstances, all too often flies out the window when people are broke, desperate to get ahead, or simply unhappy with their current work or life situation. And the promises that companies like ACN peddle, sometimes with an extra push from someone like the Donald, can begin to sound pretty good.

 

So why haven’t the other Republican presidential candidates called Trump and Carson on this stuff? Well, bashing the multilevel marketing business model isn’t good for another business—raising money running for political office. Supporters of Mitt Romney’s presidential runs have included honchos from companies like Amway, Nu Skin, and Xango, yet another health care supplement company. Before Scott Walker withdrew from the 2016 race, Richard DeVos, the co-founder of Amway, along with two other family members, gave $25,000 apiece to Walker’s political organization Our American Revival. They’ve also provided financial support to Jeb Bush’s super PAC, Right to Rise.

 

And maybe the other candidates see nothing to criticize here. It’s not like economic magical thinking isn’t rewarded in Republican politics. Remember that thing about raising revenue by cutting taxes?

 

A good time to repost Perlstein's The Long Con.

[southsider2k5]

Carson, Trump and Bush have all benefited from MLM scam companies.

 

 

 

 

A good time to repost Perlstein's The Long Con.

 

On the bright side, they are qualified to run Social Security.

[StrangeSox]

har har har

 

edit:

 

First, let me assure you that this is not one of those shady pyramid schemes you've been hearing about. No, sir.

 

 

Our model is the trapezoid!

Edited October 13, 2015 by StrangeSox

[greg775]

On the bright side, they are qualified to run Social Security.

This may be the wrong thread, but along with all the murders in our country (at least according to me; you guys say crime is dramatically down and you don't all seem to stressed about crime), the next embarrassment and potential disaster (old people dying in the streets homeless) is Social Security. I was just reading yesterday how the people in Switzerland I believe it was or Norway have it made in retirement. They get WAY more benefits than we do and they have some deal where they have this big nestegg to retire on.

In America a lot of older people (I mean a ton) are still living paycheck to paycheck or two, basically with no nestegg. Now with medical costs so high one illness can put you in debt as fast as a Chris Sale fastball, we're talking about TONS of Baby Boomers having no money for housing, food, clothing, transportation when they "retire." And nobody's hiring anybody over 50 except for fast food jobs so we are looking at a BIG PROBLEM!

As much as I love Trump, the rich Republicans don't give a s*** about the little guy who is gonna retire and be broke. At least the Hillary-ites always want bigger government.

 

My point to you is ... how are we gonna avoid the disgusting, sad, un-American Dream aspect of all these paycheck to paycheck people retiring with no money to LIVE??? I am anxious to hear your response.

[StrangeSox]

fwiw Trump has actually gone against Republican (and centrist Democrat) orthodoxy on Social Security and opposed cutting it. Guys like the clowns in the House Freedom Caucus insist that both Social Security and Medicare be cut in exchange for not blowing up the world economy (debt ceiling).

 

eta: The three main Democratic Presidential candidates at this point (Clinton, Sanders, O'Malley) all favor expanding Social Security.

Edited October 13, 2015 by StrangeSox

[greg775]

Please, everyone admit Bernie Sanders is one, helluva man! What he said about Clinton's email controversy was the greatest moment in any election in history! Bernie Baby, no matter what happens, you now will go down in infamy as CLASS.

 

If Bernie beats Trump, fine! Bernie baby for President!

 

p.s.: I just read the reviews. Clinton the slam dunk winner. LOL. The media is so predictable. My gosh the media ONLY wants a democratic president and they want Hillary badly. I don't get it sometimes. The media realizes that if their candidate is to win, they need to give 'em that life by proclaiming them runaway winners of debates. And they are fawning over Hillary. Did she really say much of anything interesting??

Edited October 14, 2015 by greg775

[caulfield12]

Please, everyone admit Bernie Sanders is one, helluva man! What he said about Clinton's email controversy was the greatest moment in any election in history! Bernie Baby, no matter what happens, you now will go down in infamy as CLASS.

 

If Bernie beats Trump, fine! Bernie baby for President!

 

p.s.: I just read the reviews. Clinton the slam dunk winner. LOL. The media is so predictable. My gosh the media ONLY wants a democratic president and they want Hillary badly. I don't get it sometimes. The media realizes that if their candidate is to win, they need to give 'em that life by proclaiming them runaway winners of debates. And they are fawning over Hillary. Did she really say much of anything interesting??

 

 

Lloyd Bentsen to Dan Quayle was a lot more memorable...in any election in history?

 

Beating Lincoln/Douglas, Dewey/Truman, Wilson/Taft/Roosevelt, Kennedy vs. Nixon, etc.?

 

Sanders just gift-wrapped the nomination. Can America elect someone who honeymooned in Russia, supported the Sandanistas in Nicaragua and tried to visit Castro in Cuba?

Edited October 14, 2015 by caulfield12

[StrangeSox]

Lincoln - Douglas wasn't really a debate the way we think of it. It was just a series of long, prepared speeches of alternating view points. There weren't questions or back and forth interactions.

[caulfield12]

Lincoln - Douglas wasn't really a debate the way we think of it. It was just a series of long, prepared speeches of alternating view points. There weren't questions or back and forth interactions.

 

I was just responding to the any moment in any election in history.

 

Like Greg's ticket was the biggest travesty in the history of motorized vehicles...

[GoSox05]

Lloyd Bentsen to Dan Quayle was a lot more memorable...in any election in history?

 

Beating Lincoln/Douglas, Dewey/Truman, Wilson/Taft/Roosevelt, Kennedy vs. Nixon, etc.?

 

Sanders just gift-wrapped the nomination. Can America elect someone who honeymooned in Russia, supported the Sandanistas in Nicaragua and tried to visit Castro in Cuba?

 

Damn Sandanistas! He should have supported the Contras!!!!

 

 

I would love to know how many people in this country under the age of 40 even know that Nicaragua is a country. Let alone it's history.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Watched the last hour of the debate. Need to go back and watch the first parts. Quick impressions...

 

--Lincoln Chafee was in over his head in a way bigger than any candidate for either party I can remember for a long time. Just clearly didn't belong on that stage. Laughable. Won't make it to the first primary.

 

--Jim Webb is a courageous guy, he's honest, and he's the most centrist of the bunch (a centrist Dem today is of course a mainline GOP'er from 20 years ago). Normally that might make me like him. But he's also a guy whose approach and bearing scream litigator and legislator - not executive. His complaints about unequal time came off badly too (even though he was right). Didn't show terribly well, though I did like that he basically said he killed his biggest enemy, haha.

 

--Clinton was certainly the most Presidential on the stage, was the most comfortable and smoothest. Not a surprise, but there it is. She was pretty wishy-washy on a lot of policy points though, and deflected a LOT of questions (they all do some of that, she just did it more). Basically the debate didn't change my view of her, good or bad.

 

--Sanders is certainly interesting. I think he may be the most honest, and earnest, candidate in either party. A little like Kucinich was. Similarly though, he's attempting to campaign for getting from A to C, skipping B. He's willing to point out things other candidates are not, about the money in the system for example, and even that voters themselves are partially responsible for the mess. But his ideas would involve substantial tax increases and siesmic shifts, and I just don't think he can get any of that done. He's likely to make gridlock worse. But he's got my attention. Whereas Clinton is too wishy washy, Sanders is too overreaching.

 

--O'Malley has my attention now as well. He's optimistic and positive in a way almost no one else is, and I like his policy ideas in a lot of cases. I am not sure he can make a real run at it, but I do think he'll get a bump from his very nice performance in the debate (from what I saw of it). I wouldn't write him off just yet.

 

[StrangeSox]

I think O'Malley's in it to be the fall-back candidate in case something happens with Clinton (an actual scandal for once, health issues, hit by a bus etc.) and maybe to get the VP slot. The character of Carcetti from The Wire is heavily based on him, and some of his policing policies there were terrible, but overall he seems like a slightly-more-to-the-left version of Clinton.

[StrangeSox]

Huckabee confirms yet again that he is a piece of garbage

 

https://twitter.com/govmikehuckabee/status/...114071336189952

[caulfield12]

She has to testify before Congress on e-mails/Benghazi October 21st.

 

Biden has to be waiting to see how that plays out first.

[Jenksismyhero]

I saw bits and pieces and "followed" it on Twitter. It doesn't seem like any of the candidates went after Clinton. Sanders made a stupid mistake but saying everyone is sick of the email scandal. He essentially supported Clinton on it and now cannot use that against her. Is he trying to win an election? That's the point of campaigning. All of the candidates seemed incredibly afraid of disagreeing with her or speaking out against things she has done. I thought Cooper offered up some softballs to elicit those types of responses, but no one took the bait.

 

Seems like they all are conceding defeat and are playing for the VP spot.

[StrangeSox]

Sanders was right to point out how stupid the never-ending email server drama is, and good for him for doing that rather than making dumb and pointless political attacks out of it. He'd rather go after her on economic issues.

 

On the other hand, I think he's also right that most people are sick of it/don't give a s***, so it's not a useful line of attack anyway.

[Jenksismyhero]

Sanders was right to point out how stupid the never-ending email server drama is, and good for him for doing that rather than making dumb and pointless political attacks out of it. He'd rather go after her on economic issues.

 

On the other hand, I think he's also right that most people are sick of it/don't give a s***, so it's not a useful line of attack anyway.

 

Well, disagree on the email mess. It shows incredibly poor judgment, an opinion Dems and Repubs hold. I can agree that it's played out at this point, but it's still an issue to talk about when you're debating why she's not a good fit for President and you are. You don't win campaigns by being the "good guy," especially when the person who should be attacked/criticized is the favorite that everyone knows.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, disagree on the email mess. It shows incredibly poor judgment, an opinion Dems and Repubs hold. I can agree that it's played out at this point, but it's still an issue to talk about when you're debating why she's not a good fit for President and you are. You don't win campaigns by being the "good guy," especially when the person who should be attacked/criticized is the favorite that everyone knows.

I definitely fall in the camp that, at best, Clinton was industrial-grade stupid to get into that email mess. At worst, it was a way to more easily hide stuff.

 

[lasttriptotulsa]

Well, disagree on the email mess. It shows incredibly poor judgment, an opinion Dems and Repubs hold. I can agree that it's played out at this point, but it's still an issue to talk about when you're debating why she's not a good fit for President and you are. You don't win campaigns by being the "good guy," especially when the person who should be attacked/criticized is the favorite that everyone knows.

 

Sanders would rather lose the election than lose his integrity. That is why I think it was a good move on his part last night. He just goes to show that he is 100% authentic and that can sway a lot of people's opinions. He really wasn't saying that the whole Hillary email thing should be forgotten, he is just saying that there are much bigger fish to fry and that the countries attention is better off suited somewhere else.

Edited October 14, 2015 by lasttriptotulsa

[southsider2k5]

Sanders was right to point out how stupid the never-ending email server drama is, and good for him for doing that rather than making dumb and pointless political attacks out of it. He'd rather go after her on economic issues.

 

On the other hand, I think he's also right that most people are sick of it/don't give a s***, so it's not a useful line of attack anyway.

 

Democrats don't care about it. This was designed to score some points with those people. The people that do care about it, aren't going to be voting for Sanders or Clinton anyway.