2016 Presidential Race AND POLL

[Cavatt]

Agreed. There's just no need for that level of taxation. Society has to find another way to raise funds rather than essentially robbing the wealthy.

This is one of the reasons that I believe the federal government should have some socialistic programs that raise revenue - for example - there is no reason the Post Office, a long standing institution, can't compete and profit against UPS and FedEx. It should be run as a for-profit business. Many government services should be retooled to run as for-profit businesses with their net operating profits returned to the federal government as a form of revenue generation.

This is how Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid should work as well in my opinion; and yes, that would require some level of partial privatization (yet with complete government oversight and regulation).

I just feel that the government too often gives away services that it could charge a fair and effective rate for, causing shortfalls.

they should just get some scientists and economists in there and go through all the programs. This works keep it. This doesn't kill it. Everything is so stupidly based on philosophy instead of practicality.

Punitive taxes don't work. People just start hiding their cash or moving. John Lennon super Liberal didn't pay his 80% rate in England. It is just foolish. I have always been a fan of getting rid of all loopholes except kids. Just collect the taxes that large companies aren't paying and we automatically go in the black.

 

[macbdog]

This needs to end up as Diamond Joe vs. The Don. I would then seriously wonder if we are in some cosmic version of The Truman Show, with an alien audience tuned in. The one liners from these guys would be amazing.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Personally I've become more liberal.

But I refuse to vote for Hilary.

Whatever Republican opposes her has my vote.

Unless that person is named Rick. (Santorum or Perry). Then I'm moving back overseas.

I have spent enough time with Rick S. to confirm that he's barely bright enough to tie his shoes.

 

[Maximus]

What's the most important issues for some of you? I'm honestly confused by what I'm reading.

No one has really touched on @natedagg first post, specifically his 2nd paragraph. Ok,dems hate all the Reps...Reps hate all the Dems. Who's going to break the cycle?

For me...I'll vote for the person with the best solution to economy, debt and jobs. What else could possibly be as important as those issues?
This country is dying fast. The next collapse will be unprecedented. It won't just be high unemployment. It will be anarchy. It's going to be that bad. So who do you trust to save us and bring us back? Both sides are to blame...who breaks the cycle as Dagger asked?

 

[Zog]

I agree with Max on the issues... who's going to improve the economy, quit spending so much money (raising taxes so we can spend more should not be an option), and create good jobs (right now the job market sucks for good, high paying jobs, except in a few fields like engineering, accounting, computer science, from what I have seen)?

I'm interested to see how Ben Carson performs Thursday night. He seems to have some good ideas but also makes some crazy remarks and needs to censor himself on some issues to prevent himself from looking like an extremist. I guess I'm most interested in him because he's not a typical politician. Right now I really don't have a candidate that I'd want to run out and vote for, but I no that I really have little interest in electing a life-long politician.

 

[Maximus]

I agree with Max on the issues... who's going to improve the economy, quit spending so much money (raising taxes so we can spend more should not be an option), and create good jobs (right now the job market sucks for good, high paying jobs, except in a few fields like engineering, accounting, computer science, from what I have seen)?

I'm interested to see how Ben Carson performs Thursday night. He seems to have some good ideas but also makes some crazy remarks and needs to censor himself on some issues to prevent himself from looking like an extremist. I guess I'm most interested in him because he's not a typical politician. Right now I really don't have a candidate that I'd want to run out and vote for, but I no that I really have little interest in electing a life-long politician.

I'm invited to an event at House of Blues by Ben Carson's camp...declined for now. I like him a lot, but think he's unelectable. Sitting this election out for a bit....I think they are all unelectable. That said, I'm intrigued by Trump tomorrow night. Worried he will shoot himself in the foot. But, I'm interested. I like Rand, just don't think he can pull it off.

 

[Pioneer10]

What's the most important issues for some of you? I'm honestly confused by what I'm reading.

No one has really touched on @natedagg first post, specifically his 2nd paragraph. Ok,dems hate all the Reps...Reps hate all the Dems. Who's going to break the cycle?

For me...I'll vote for the person with the best solution to economy, debt and jobs. What else could possibly be as important as those issues?
This country is dying fast. The next collapse will be unprecedented. It won't just be high unemployment. It will be anarchy. It's going to be that bad. So who do you trust to save us and bring us back? Both sides are to blame...who breaks the cycle as Dagger asked?

No one is going to break the cycle. Presidents dont have power like that on our system. Essentially the US is coalescing around a polarized two party system. Broad coalitions died along with the racial dynamics that created Southern Democrats and Rockefeller Republican. Only way anyone breaks this will be crisis elections that will cause sweeps like 08 or that cause structural changes that make it difficult for one party to win like the census 10 leading to gerrymandering.

Where this will lead is I'm not sure but eventually likely it will to more parliamentary like system where the president will have the power to set the agenda like a prime minister: somebody will eliminate the filibuster, more executive decisions etc

Sent from my Lenovo TAB 2 A10-70F using Tapatalk

 

[Sebastian]

No Democrat will lose this election @godfather. It would be extremely difficult for the GOP to get the required number of electoral votes.

In order to understand this, just ask yourself; what states does Jeb Bush or Chris Christie or John Kaisich carry that gets them into the White House?

Bush wins Florida? Great.. But he'll lose Iowa, Colorado, Nevada and Virginia.

Christie won't win Jersey. So he has no angle. Against Clinton or Sanders he has no shot in the Northeast, and he won't garner votes in Virginia and he virtually eliminated himself from contention in Colorado this week.

Rubio? Latinos actually prefer Bush over Rubio.. He wins Florida? Great.. but then what?

The Republican Party simply doesn't have a way to win a national election.

Hillary is showing substantial weakness is a number of crucial battleground states. The Democrats need to find a solid Plan B that isn't Sanders.

As for Sanders, I don't think Socialism is the bogeyman it once was. In particular, I think voters under 35 are far more skeptical of an economic system that perverted higher education finance programs in this nation from one which was designed to assist people afford a university education to one whose sole goal is to fleece an entire generation. Whereas only 20 years ago one could point to the repressive systems of the Iron Curtain as an example of how socialism is evil, now it is harder to contrast our unregulated free market system that led to collapse in 2008 (especially when it is clear the banks really just tried to fuck everyone over and those who enabled that behavior got away with it) with the successful Nordic nations where social democracy thrives.

Imagine, and I believe many on the boards are the right age, graduating college in 2008, not being able to find a job because some asshole rich bankers drove the economy over the cliff (knowing full well that would happen and aided by Congress), living at home because their salaries go to paying off absorbent student loans because funding for public education was slashed (because someone finally figured out how to get rich off kids with little choice but to, and fewer means, to attend college and convinced Congress to go along with it), having no job security, not even being able to contemplate a retirement fund, putting off marriage all the while watching assholes like the Koch Brothers poor billions into campaigns to what amounts to buying legislation meant to make them even richer while fucking everyone else. Yeah, all of a sudden Bernie's mantra about not making Student Loans a for-profit business, regulating an unscrupulous Wall Street and campaign-finance reform doesn't sound so crazy.

Not that I necessarily agree, but I think his message is finding fertile ground.

 

[NasstyNate]

To those interested in the economy, both sides are not to blame. Well, they are, but one much more disproportionately so. There's actual factual data out there that shows which presidential party produces the best results in office. Take a look for yourself.

"We begin in Section 1 by documenting this fact, which is not at all “stylized.” The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics. By some measures, the partisan performance gap is startlingly large--so large, in fact, that it strains credulity, given how little influence over the economy most economists (or the Constitution, for that matter) assign to the President of the United States."​

Now for jobs, the world market has spoken, and 20th Century middle class jobs that were once the backbone of our economy are simply not going to exist at those levels in the future. Education on a massive scale is the only answer to this problem, or we are going to see the continued trend of a widening chasm between the top and bottom earners. Our present path is leading to a near total service economy, which concentrates wealth at the top and leaves the vast majority of the population fighting for unskilled jobs, resulting in lower and lower wages. I'm interested in the person who understands this and will promote larger investments in education and infrastructure. Yes, that means more government spending in those areas. If you are a middle class earner and vote for a person who wants to cut such government spending, you are voting for your own eventual paycut or pink slip. I understand voting that way based on ideological grounds, but it has real world, factual consequences.

I'll be watching tonight for a candidate who agrees or who can articulate a different cogent argument based on sound economic policy and data. Here's to hope.

 

[spydy13]

I agree with Max on the issues... who's going to improve the economy, quit spending so much money (raising taxes so we can spend more should not be an option), and create good jobs (right now the job market sucks for good, high paying jobs, except in a few fields like engineering, accounting, computer science, from what I have seen)?

I'm interested to see how Ben Carson performs Thursday night. He seems to have some good ideas but also makes some crazy remarks and needs to censor himself on some issues to prevent himself from looking like an extremist. I guess I'm most interested in him because he's not a typical politician. Right now I really don't have a candidate that I'd want to run out and vote for, but I no that I really have little interest in electing a life-long politician.

I agree that we already spend enough, we just need to redistribute how that money is spent (I'm sorry Lima and places like it, but we don't need to build tanks anymore). If we were to raise taxes that money needs to go exclusively to pay in down the debt.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

That said, I'm intrigued by Trump tomorrow night. Worried he will shoot himself in the foot. But, I'm interested. I like Rand, just don't think he can pull it off.

Trump strikes me as the ultimate style over substance candidate. It seems his supporters don't care about the substance of what he says in terms of policies. They just like the way that he says it, and the fact that he's "not a politician."

I actually find it incredibly depressing that otherwise intelligent people get sucked in so easily by that schtick.

I'm not yet fixed on any one particular candidate. The way I'm doing it is to find those candidates with whom I generally agree on policy, then pick which of those is the most electable.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The best way to solve the student loan problems would have been to cancel government involvement in student loans. No grants, and no government guarantees of student loans made by the private sector.

That would have significsntly reduced the huge boondoggle that is higher education, and cratered the cost of going to college. Basically, a lot more colleges would have started to do what community colleges are doing today.

 

[NasstyNate]

The best way to solve the student loan problems would have been to cancel government involvement in student loans.

Which means students who do not come from wealthy families will either get loans at insanely high interest rates, or, more likely, not at all. Education is not best solved in the free market.

 

[David.]

And then cost of tuition goes down

Which means students who do not come from wealthy families will either get loans at insanely high interest rates, or, more likely, not at all. Education is not best solved in the free market.

 

[NasstyNate]

And then cost of tuition goes down

How so?