2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[Butter]

Trump 2016: I'm better than you.

Print it up.

[NobodyHere]

The moderators are absolutely horrible.

[tarcone]

Tequila? Colorado brownies? Go Ted Cruz!

[JonInMiddleGA]

The moderators are absolutely horrible.

If my Facebook feed is any indication Rubio scored big when he took a shot (or two?) at the moderator.

[wustin]

If my Facebook feed is any indication Rubio scored big when he took a shot (or two?) at the moderator.

Almost all of the candidates attacked the moderators (for their horrible questioning and blatant lying) and the leftist media.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Almost all of the candidates attacked the moderators (for their horrible questioning and blatant lying) and the leftist media.

Interesting.

If you go by both the personal comments and now the various links that are being shared, it was him that stood out to the apparent exclusion of everyone else. Even a couple of my biggest Trump backers are giving him the win for tonight.

[wustin]

Interesting.

If you go by both the personal comments and now the various links that are being shared, it was him that stood out to the apparent exclusion of everyone else. Even a couple of my biggest Trump backers are giving him the win for tonight.

Rubio and Christie did very well. Rubio pummeled the media the most and handled scrutiny from the moderators splendidly. Christie debunked the whole "free stuff" propaganda from the left and gave a great response to handling climate change.

Edit: My two cents. This debate was pretty much just candidates vs moderators.

Edit again: Got Cruz confused with Christie

[JPhillips]

The birthplace of the Tea Party is now left wing media?

[Solecismic]

Thoughts on the varsity debate...

John Kasich came out, as advertised, trying to make his mark with strong statements against Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson. The moderators were pleased, and gave him plenty of time.

CNBC led with a question no politician should or would answer directly - the job interview question even a high school senior knows how to answer. What is your greatest weakness? Only the moderator tried to take away the only right answers. No one fell into the trap, though.

Then came a series of questions designed to pick at the flaws of individuals. Some warranted, some unwarranted. And it was working.

Ted Cruz, however, changed the debate by turning his gotcha question around on the moderators. The crowd responded with enthusiasm. From then on, the debate was more a collective Republicans versus the mainstream media event.

The candidates did a good job keeping that narrative in mind the rest of the way and I think it was very effective. Was Ted Cruz's moment the moment that the Republicans stopped what seems to be a month-long losing streak? Was this the moment that this became a presidential campaign rather than 14 Republicans in search of an identity?

I don't know. It felt like something, though.

Individual thoughts:

John Kasich: What I noticed about Kasich was physical. He was shaking. He had some sort of nervous tic with his facial muscles. He was turning red. I asked my wife, who is in Ohio right now (where she works) if he has a medical issue. She doesn't know. He is a very popular governor in Ohio. My wife is a Democrat and she thinks he's a decent person. My thoughts are that he seemed a little more focused tonight, but angry and nervous and not presidential. I would love to have his experience and understanding somewhere in the process, but not at the top. I think he hurt himself more than any other candidate.

Mike Huckabee: He came off, as he always does, as a genial and reasonable defender of the people. Because the debate focused on the economy, his grandstanding on social issues didn't emerge. So he did well.

Jeb Bush: His attack on Marco Rubio, where he turned to face Rubio and called for him to leave the race, was the low point of the evening. Rubio handled it smoothly and Bush's remarks didn't take into account the pieces Rubio had already addressed. Bush didn't have a moment during the debate, so all I'll remember is the way he acted contrasted with how Cruz answered his gotcha question. Bush hurt himself tonight, maybe even more than Kasich.

Marco Rubio: He did a great job maintaining an even demeanor and advancing his own cause. I don't think he changed the game, but he made a case for being the moderate choice over the other moderates. He is very likable. I can see him jumping considerably in the polls.

Donald Trump: The problem with being a bit of a circus act is that when people have already seen the act, they need something new. So he's a kinder, gentler Trump lately, which is necessary. But he still isn't providing substance. He's the guy who runs the mile by setting a ridiculous pace in the first lap, then he's out of the race by the third lap. He didn't hurt himself, but this is the point where he needs to parlay all the attention he has received into something substantive. I don't remember a single thing he said all night.

Ben Carson: To me, he's still a guy who can provide great insight into the problems that face our country, but I don't see him as leading our way through these problems. He helps himself by not responding to obvious bait. He's an asset to the entire party. But nothing suggests he's all that interested in having a leadership role. This wasn't a foreign policy debate, so I think that helped him.

Carly Fiorina: She had another strong performance, but the moderators were perhaps tougher on her than anyone. That hurt. At some point, she has to stop telling us that she can lead and start showing us how she will lead. I don't think this debate hurt her that much, but it didn't help, and at some point people will start to coalesce around the anti-Washington candidates. I think they would choose Carson or Trump right now.

Ted Cruz: He had his moments tonight. Like Huckabee and Santorum, the lack of social issues in the debate helped him. He was focused, and tried to make the case that he can take on Washington from within. But his response about having a beer and poking fun at the marijuana law in Colorado, while intellectually compelling, didn't sound very presidential. It will be interesting to see if he can gain traction as the right-wing choice. I think his ceiling is limited.

Chris Christie: The negatives here are the physical. He was leaning on the podium, which is good advice as long as you're not televised from the side - which CNBC did far too much. It's a shot that would be played in every Democratic ad if he won the nomination. He had a very good debate, though. Maybe the best of everyone in terms of issues answers and making a case for the general. It will be interesting to see if he can revive a broken candidacy.

Rand Paul: He appeared less angry tonight, which is a good thing for him. But he didn't move his candidacy forward very well. All I can remember is his promise to filibuster the budget agreement. This is not an issue that makes people think of the presidency. I don't see how he can remain in the race that much longer.

CNBC: Not a good performance. The moderators appeared smug, interrupted far too much, focused on gotcha questions rather than the issues. They may have given the Republicans the moment they desperately needed.

[Dutch]

I think Rubio is proving to be a qualified leader. Those big ears will be satired to death though if he were to be Prez.

[Subby]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes">@nytimes</a> Can't read the article because I don't have a subscription, but I can tell you this - I am not going anywhere.</p>&mdash; Chris Christie (@ChrisChristie) <a href="https://twitter.com/ChrisChristie/status/659804440036265984">October 29, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">if you can't find your way around a paywall, how can you possibly defeat ISIS <a href="https://t.co/YbwWrCowJm">https://t.co/YbwWrCowJm</a></p>&mdash; Caitlin Kelly (@atotalmonet) <a href="https://twitter.com/atotalmonet/status/659809911497482240">October 29, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[tarcone]

With all the issues facing this country, the moderators ask about fantasy football. What a bunch of stooges.

[JPhillips]

With all the issues facing this country, the moderators ask about fantasy football. What a bunch of stooges.

Yeah, but...

Christie led the push for in state electronic gaming in NJ and a sizable portion of the US population plays daily fantasy sports. There are a lot of people that would make some portion of their voting decision based on a position on daily fantasy.

[tarcone]

I guess. kind is a sad statement. But I don't play the daily fantasy sports. I have a friend who does. I'm going to ask him if that is an issue that would sway his vote.
Maybe I'm out of touch on that issue.

[JPhillips]

It's not like they asked who to start at RB this Sunday. The daily fantasy stuff has been a big story for the past few weeks. It certainly isn't the most pressing issue, but how many times should "What would you do about ISIS," be asked?

[tarcone]

Maybe it was the format. Only 30 second responses. Not enough topics.

A better question would have been about the football coach in Washington that just got suspended for praying. That would have given more insight into the candidates than fantasy sports.

[Butter]

If it's such a non-issue, then they should just legalize sports betting and gambling online at a federal level and be done with it.

Oh, what's that? This is a legitimate issue, it was just framed a little poorly? Got it, thanks disembodied voice.

[Ryche]

Personally the online gambling thing is a much bigger deal than abortion. Everyone has their trigger issues.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If it's such a non-issue, then they should just legalize sports betting and gambling online at a federal level and be done with it.

Oh, what's that? This is a legitimate issue, it was just framed a little poorly? Got it, thanks disembodied voice.

I'm not sure how legitimate it would be as an issue of importance for a 2 hour Presidential debate. For a Congressional candidate? Okay, maybe. They at least deal with legislation that could have an impact.

But if it's an issue within the first two hours of Presidential topics for someone then I hope & pray they aren't planning to vote. And no matter how low my regard is for the average voter, I don't believe for a second it's in the top 120 minutes for 99.5 % of them either.

It's better than "boxers or briefs" as questions go ... but not by a huge amount.

[flere-imsaho]

It's better than "boxers or briefs" as questions go ... but not by a huge amount.

Oh for chrissake Jon, don't give the moderators any more ideas....

[JonInMiddleGA]

Oh for chrissake Jon, don't give the moderators any more ideas....

Relax, they already thought of it.

It was rejected on the grounds that the question might be deemed insensitive to those who go commando.

[JPhillips]

I'm not sure how legitimate it would be as an issue of importance for a 2 hour Presidential debate. For a Congressional candidate? Okay, maybe. They at least deal with legislation that could have an impact.

But if it's an issue within the first two hours of Presidential topics for someone then I hope & pray they aren't planning to vote. And no matter how low my regard is for the average voter, I don't believe for a second it's in the top 120 minutes for 99.5 % of them either.

It's better than "boxers or briefs" as questions go ... but not by a huge amount.

But it isn't the first two hours, we're on hours six and seven. That's part of why it didn't bother me. Should every debate just be the same questions?

[JonInMiddleGA]

But it isn't the first two hours, we're on hours six and seven. That's part of why it didn't bother me. Should every debate just be the same questions?

If that's what we're down to for questions/topics then they probably shouldn't have bothered with another debate in the first place afaic.

Which, y'know, I'd be on board with frankly.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, but then how would CNBC get it's ratings? :D

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yeah, but then how would CNBC get it's ratings? :D

That's actually been one of my (largely sarcastic) theories about their crew's performance the other night: stage fright.

They basically had a two-hour audience that was almost equal to their typical monthly viewing.

[JPhillips]

And they had too many questioners that aren't used to research and facts. Santelli and Cramer rant and rave well, but they aren't the people to ask probing questions about important topics.

[JPhillips]

If that's what we're down to for questions/topics then they probably shouldn't have bothered with another debate in the first place afaic.

Which, y'know, I'd be on board with frankly.

At least 50 million people play daily fantasy. Lots of other questions effect far fewer people.

[JonInMiddleGA]

At least 50 million people play daily fantasy. Lots of other questions effect far fewer people.

Umm ... they just had their single biggest day (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/fanduel-draftkings-score-record-weekend-controversy/story?id=34423381)ever a couple of weeks ago.

There were 7.52 million entries to the two sites' tournaments

And that doesn't account for how many were multiple entries, dopplegangers, etc.

There's your core audience for this. Counting some other number is like counting me among "online poker players" 'cause I played $20 worth over several months about a decade ago.

[larrymcg421]

I actually think questions about gambling or other issues without a clear partisan dividing line like that are very useful, especially in a primary debate where there's often lots of circle jerking.

[ISiddiqui]

At the very least, it is an interesting question to see how candidates can think on their feet.. as I doubt anyone prepared for that one ;).

[TroyF]

I did not see the debate, but have read enough to know what happened. MSNBC was very stupid and shortsighted in how they did this. They tried to treat this debate as though the democrats were voting on one of these guys. That's not how it works. This is for the Republican Party to pick their candidate, not for the dems to go "GOTHCA"

There will be plenty of time for that during the year long election cycle. Asking Trump about his "clown" campaign? Seriously? ok, he's running one, he has zero chance the further we get. I don't think anyone believes otherwise. All of that said, how can a "respected" news anchor ask such an unprofessional, idiotic question? You don't put yourself down the level of the guy you are asking.

Really stupid. Really unprofessional. Really bad.

[JPhillips]

I did not see the debate, but have read enough to know what happened. MSNBC was very stupid and shortsighted in how they did this. They tried to treat this debate as though the democrats were voting on one of these guys. That's not how it works. This is for the Republican Party to pick their candidate, not for the dems to go "GOTHCA"

There will be plenty of time for that during the year long election cycle. Asking Trump about his "clown" campaign? Seriously? ok, he's running one, he has zero chance the further we get. I don't think anyone believes otherwise. All of that said, how can a "respected" news anchor ask such an unprofessional, idiotic question? You don't put yourself down the level of the guy you are asking.

Really stupid. Really unprofessional. Really bad.

You should check which network hosted the debate.

Hint: The Tea Party was born there.

[Solecismic]

What's frustrating is that in the stories that have been written about CNBC's reaction to this criticism is that they're still proud because they feel the moderators may have changed the presidential race.

That's the so-called liberal media arrogance that frustrates so many people. It's not their job to change the race, it's their job to inform the public about the race.

So they ask tough questions and let the candidates differentiate themselves with their answers. Instead, at times Wednesday, the moderators were more playing the role of the Democratic opponent delivering an attack ad on television.

Meanwhile... Rand Paul promised us a filibuster to stop the bipartisan agreement to add untold trillions to our national debt....

It lasted 20 minutes. Poor tired Rand Paul. Probably time to retire the campaign.

[JonInMiddleGA]

My Way News - GOP suspends partnership with NBC News for February debate (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20151030/us--gop_2016-debates-nbc-aedea8a2db.html)

[ISiddiqui]

Liberal media? As pointed out earlier in this thread, wasn't CNBC the birthplace of the Tea Party? Santelli's rant, anyone?!

[Kodos]

Who watches CNBC?

[JPhillips]

So far the liberal media attacking the GOP has consisted of Fox News, CNBC, and a CNN panel with Hugh Hewitt.

If that's not good enough, what is?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Liberal media? As pointed out earlier in this thread, wasn't CNBC the birthplace of the Tea Party? Santelli's rant, anyone?!

Long time between there & that debate.

[ISiddiqui]

He's still on the network.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Who watches CNBC?

Virtually no one.

Even ratings-challenged CNN routinely drubs them on a daily basis.

For some perspective their typical audience is a bit larger than TNA Impact gets each week but not by a crazy amount. (and actually not better than the ratings Impact used to get)

[JPhillips]

Will you say anything to get elected?

Just a reminder of the liberal media's first question to Hillary.

[Solecismic]

I thought the first two debates were good. Tough questions, but fair.

CNN was soft on the Democrats. The tougher questions were all obvious. Hillary has an easy answer to that opening because it leads straight into an opening statement.

The CNBC moderators, and if you didn't see it this way I don't know what to say, seemed to approach the debate like they felt they had a duty to derail each campaign.

Crowdpac showed the extent of the media bias in terms of their personal donations to politicians. It's rather extreme.

[Thomkal]

I'm sorry but what were the Republicans thinking-having the debate on CNBC where they are put down and made fun of every chance they get? They are the liberal "twin" to FoxNews, and it shouldn't have come as a surprise or shock as to the type of questions they would be asked. Trump even criticized Megyn Kelly on Fox-they don't like any media, liberal or not, and just want to make it look like the media is to blame, not their own opinions.

[Solecismic]

I think you're confusing MSNBC with CNBC, which is understandable - same ownership and all. But CNBC does have respected financial programming. People who follow this stuff know Harwood, for example, is a strong Democrat, but still were shocked by his behavior on Wednesday.

People are saying this came from the top at CNBC.

I don't think this hurts the Republicans. Though it would if it were repeated a lot. Cruz articulated in 20 seconds, beautifully, what Republicans have been saying for years - there's a bias in the media and it makes a huge difference.

Cruz has gone from pretty much out of the race to possibly a front-runner (his politics are much too far to the right for my vote, though) because he recognized the moment and changed the debate just that quickly. Even people who know they won't vote for him are calling him a hero.

And Trump is Trump. The Fox and the CNN debates were fair - and it was fair for Kelly to bring up the sexism question. Most Republicans, I think, had no problem with it. The difference between those debates and Wednesday's debate was extreme.

[Senator]

Interesting thread and insights, everyone.

[miked]

I thought they were gotcha questions, and some were irrelevant (I don't think Marco Rubio's personal bumps in finance matter much, they really belabored it). I do think Carson's relationships do matter...people talked about Rev. Wright out the wazoo, whether Michelle Obama stood for the anthem, etc. The fact that Carson is on the take from shady companies is a big deal. Also, he flat out lied. He has appeared in videos for that company, pushed pseudo-science (even pushed it on stage), and told us that he could not imagine why his picture was on the site. Silly.

Clearly they are having trouble with these 10 person formats where it's very difficult to get anything of substance. I actually thought Kasich made some good points, especially about these phantom tax plans. Cut taxes and revenues will sky rocket because of...ECONOMICS!

[flere-imsaho]

Cruz has gone from pretty much out of the race to possibly a front-runner (his politics are much too far to the right for my vote, though) because he recognized the moment and changed the debate just that quickly. Even people who know they won't vote for him are calling him a hero.

Was Clinton a hero when she called out the "vast right wing conspiracy"?

[JPhillips]

I'm fine with the assertion that the debate was poor.

But why does the GOP have to go to conspiracies about everything that goes against their wishes?

The liberal media is out to get them
Obamacare was unfairly rammed down our throats
The Supreme Court is liberally biased
Boehner and McConnell could pass the conservative agenda if only they weren't RINOS
Inflation is secretly out of control
The unemployment rate is five to ten times what is reported
Polling organizations are skewing the polls to benefit liberals
The WMD are still out there

And on and on and on.

[BillJasper]

The unemployment rate is five to ten times what is reported



They are every bit as responsible for this one as the Democrats are. They may want to be quiet about it. :lol:

[TroyF]

You should check which network hosted the debate.

Hint: The Tea Party was born there.


I guess you are mistaking me for someone who gives a crap who hosted the debate. I don't judge a network by liberal, conservative or if they have little green men asking the questions.

I'm so sick of the garbage with "biased" networks. Whatever network you watch, it's biased as all hell. Fox for the reps, MSNBC for the; dems, CNN for whomever they feel like on a given day (they have been so far up Hillary's ass this campaign, I think it's fairly clear who they want to win) This network birthed the tea party, that network birthed the 1% movement.

I don't give a rats ass. All I know is that the questions were ridiculous and unprofessional. You don't ask a presidential candidate about his "comic book campaign" You don't bring up facts and forget where you got them. I would have fired a member of my junior college staff for being that sloppy.

It was a shameful journalistic display, even in this day and age of constant horrific journalistic displays.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The liberal media is out to get them

If there's anyone who questions that I honestly don't know what to say.

[BillJasper]

If there's anyone who questions that I honestly don't know what to say.

Maybe? But it makes them look bad when they cry about it incessantly. This is suppose to be a party that projects strength but are the whiniest dudes (and dudettes) that I've ever seen.

How are you suppose to take on Russia, Iran and Iraq when you're flustered by mean ol' liberal debate moderators?

[Dutch]

Do you think the Dems would complain if the media was biased to the right?

[BillJasper]

Do you think the Dems would complain if the media was biased to the right?

Not in the same way this particular group of Republicans have. They simply come across as weak and a bunch of complainers. Most seem more interested in tea baggin' the Tea Party.

This is also the least telegenic group of Republicans since Nixon.

I say this as someone who can vote for someone that leans to the right on issues if they're a quality candidate. A shame someone like Kasich hasn't gained more traction thus far. Heck, I was even considering Trump until he signed the 'no 3rd party run' pledge, which made him look weak in my eyes.

[Dutch]

Lucky for them, we'll never know how they would face adversity. I agree the GOP should handle it better. GWB was great at it. I think Rubio will do fine as well.

[JPhillips]

I guess you are mistaking me for someone who gives a crap who hosted the debate. I don't judge a network by liberal, conservative or if they have little green men asking the questions.


You said it was hosted by MSNBC and that because of that network's liberal bias the debate was biased. CNBC isn't MSNBC.

Now on the second part about the journalists being unprepared, I'm with you. Bad journalism, though, does not equate to liberal bias.

[Dutch]

You said it was hosted by MSNBC and that because of that network's liberal bias the debate was biased. CNBC isn't MSNBC.

Now on the second part about the journalists being unprepared, I'm with you. Bad journalism, though, does not equate to liberal bias.

Agreed they are afflicted with two totally separate problems there. :)

[wustin]

Maybe? But it makes them look bad when they cry about it incessantly. This is suppose to be a party that projects strength but are the whiniest dudes (and dudettes) that I've ever seen.

How are you suppose to take on Russia, Iran and Iraq when you're flustered by mean ol' liberal debate moderators?

I would be whiny too if Americans are constantly wanting the government's help with social issues. Also republicans have been put into a caricature of old white people or rich CEOs. And if anyone has been following social media, we all know what it means if you're rich and/or white living in the US...

As for the whole liberal media and press bias, I can't say for sure what CNBC's agenda is (except for John Harwood's of course) during the debate but it does exist.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-democrats-got-88-percent-of-2008-contributions-by-tv-network-execs-writers-reporters-updated/article/130902

I also want to point out that if you're living in Iowa or any swing state right now, they're swamped with Hillary Clinton advertisements on TV and paper.

[JPhillips]

Rich and white...

It's hard out there for a pimp.

[Kodos]

Those poor oppressed rich white people. Why can't they be left alone?!

[BillJasper]

Those poor oppressed rich white people. Why can't they be left alone?!

+1

[wustin]

You're white? That means you're privileged! Oh you're rich too? Give everyone else some money too man we don't like improving, it's too hard.

[BillJasper]

It is just insane how greedy Americans have become. It isn't like you can take those resources you've hoarded in life into the afterlife.

Mark 10:25 - "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

[flere-imsaho]

Also republicans have been put into a caricature of old white people or rich CEOs.

The 10 most loyal demographic groups for Republicans and Democrats - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/04/08/the-10-most-loyal-demographic-groups-for-republicans-and-democrats/)

[Dutch]

It is just insane how greedy Americans have become. It isn't like you can take those resources you've hoarded in life into the afterlife.

Mark 10:25 - "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

Exactly who are you referring to as greedy? All white people?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Mark 10:25 - "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

Thou shalt not steal. -- Exodus 20:15

[flere-imsaho]

Taxes aren't theft* - Me

*Except for Cook County, Illinois

[Solecismic]

I think it's easy to be quite generous with someone else's money.

I posted a link before to an analysis of where various professions, including the media, make their political donations. The argument that the mainstream media isn't far more liberal than the average American simply doesn't work.

So, if you're running for president, assuming that you actually care whether you win or lose, this is a big deal. A lot is at stake. If, on one side, you have a friendly set of moderators who are trying to help the candidates, frame the controversial issues so that the answers are easily prepared, that's a big edge. And on the other side, you have an unfriendly set of moderators who would like nothing more than to derail your campaign, that's a potential problem.

Sure, we need a candidate who can handle a hostile media. But it isn't a level playing field out there and it's not whining to point that out, or exclude networks that don't even bother to pretend they're not biased.

Was it weak for Trump to sign the pledge? I don't think so. With the two party system and the electoral college, a third party can't win without taking a large chunk from both sides. But there's no stance that will take that chunk from one side and get much of anything from the other side.

I think he finally listened to someone who understands the math, and realized that if he runs as a third party, even though his own candidacy does have elements that would appeal to some Democrats, that he couldn't make a case to enough Democrats to make a big difference. All he could do is ensure that the Republican loses.

Now Trump is a petty individual, no doubt. If the RNC isn't "nice" to him, he loves the idea of punishing them. But somewhere in the last couple of months, he finally got it into his head that the presidency is too important to decide over something that petty. Credit to him. Still not enough credit to consider supporting his candidacy. There's still no substance in his issues arguments, and I don't see that changing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Taxes aren't theft* - Me

When income redistribution is the objective, I cannot disagree more.

They're the taking of property from its rightful owner at gunpoint. That's theft afaic.

[JonInMiddleGA]

But somewhere in the last couple of months, he finally got it into his head that the presidency is too important to decide over something that petty.

And I lost respect for him over that capitulation. Probably gave me more pause about his credibility than anything he's done or said during the entire campaign.

He owes the RNC exactly nothing, because that's what a large portion of it has done of value ... nothing.

[JPhillips]

I'd like to see the questions published a week before the debate, then allow moderators to ask spontaneous follow-ups. The whole surprise question format is odd and not at all how they will need to react in the job.

[panerd]

I was watching a Charlie Brown special with my son this morning where Linus was running for class president and some of the "adult" jokes involved his complaints about the decline of moral values in this country and the media being against his campaign. This cartoon was likely made in the 1960's making the current diatribe of the GOP from both the candidates and the members of this board laughable. It's politics. I'm sure the media was "biased" in the 1700's as well. Like someone said in this thread you are going to be dealing with Putin and ISIS and lord knows what else and you can't handle some jackass from CNBC?

[BillJasper]

Like someone said in this thread you are going to be dealing with Putin and ISIS and lord knows what else and you can't handle some jackass from CNBC?

This is what it comes down to for me.

Plus, I don't see any of these guys complaining when they're lobbed softballs by the gang at Fox News.

[molson]

It is just insane how greedy Americans have become. It isn't like you can take those resources you've hoarded in life into the afterlife.

Mark 10:25 - "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

Do you plan on leaving anything to your kids? Would you leave more if you could? What's the threshold where that becomes greedy?

And what's the threshold for "rich?" If you make the U.S. medium household income (around $50k), you're in the top 0.31% of the world by income.

One of the problems with class warfare and demonizing the rich. Everybody defines the rich and greedy as those who have more than them. It's similar with racial issues. People know the stats and evidence of white privilege, but I don't think anyone believes that they're contributing to the existence of that privilege, it's always somebody else. Hell, that's kind of what politics has become generally - identifying who is to blame for everything, and it's always someone else.

[JPhillips]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51e-FZNgVIL._SX328_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

[BillJasper]

Do you plan on leaving anything to your kids? Would you leave more if you could? What's the threshold where that becomes greedy?

If I've done my job right as a parent, I shouldn't need to leave them anything at all. But, I'm not of the mind that I'm doing them any favors in life leaving them a pile of cash.

You guys don't even know what you're arguing here. Everyone should be self-sufficient, but I need to leave my kids so much wealth they never need to work.

And what's the threshold for "rich?" If you make the U.S. medium household income (around $50k), you're in the top 0.31% of the world by income.

My threshold? When you have enough to not only take care of yourself comfortably, but your kids and grandkids and their kids.

One of the problems with class warfare and demonizing the rich. Everybody defines the rich and greedy as those who have more than them.

I don't care if someone has more than me, but I do tend to judge them based on what they do with that wealth.

It's similar with racial issues. People know the stats and evidence of white privilege, but I don't think anyone believes that they're contributing to the existence of that privilege, it's always somebody else.

I do believe that I contribute to it. But that's neither here nor there.

Hell, that's kind of what politics has become generally - identifying who is to blame for everything, and it's always someone else.

So we should never identify problems and deal with them accordingly? I don't think having a few people sitting on all the wealth is a good thing for society. YMMV.

[TroyF]

You said it was hosted by MSNBC and that because of that network's liberal bias the debate was biased. CNBC isn't MSNBC.

Now on the second part about the journalists being unprepared, I'm with you. Bad journalism, though, does not equate to liberal bias.

Ok, so reread my post and take away msnbc and replace it with cnbc. Now tell me where I am wrong. The moderators were not taking it easier on tea party candidates. They were acting as though this were a general election debate and catering it to the wrong crowd. Not only that, they did it incredibly poorly.

I stand by everything I said in that post. I also didn't mention one time a liberal bias. I said the moderators were framing their questions to a liberal audience when that was not the target audience for the debate.

Again, I stand by my opinion.

[cuervo72]

Do you plan on leaving anything to your kids?

I'm not sure what I'll have, really. And I make a decent living. But I don't plan on retiring, so...

I don't plan on getting anything from my parents. My mom shares a charming house with her husband, but I doubt she has much more to give. My dad...I kind of hope he doesn't leave me anything. I don't want to deal with a house in Hawaii (if it hasn't been eaten by lava).

My wife's family? Yeah, they might have money to pass down. I personally wouldn't fault them for spending it all before they go though. I don't know what my wife's stance is on it, but I figure their money is none of my business. I know that they aren't keen on having the gov't dip into it though (they were certainly concerned when her grandmother passed).

[cuervo72]

I don't think having a few people sitting on all the wealth is a good thing for society. YMMV.

Feudalism rocked, yo.

[Solecismic]

So, the best thing you can do in life is spend everything you can and rely on the government to take care of you and your children in your old age?

Who supports the government, then? Who would want to?

[BillJasper]

So, the best thing you can do in life is spend everything you can and rely on the government to take care of you and your children in your old age?

Who supports the government, then? Who would want to?

Why are they taking care of my children in my old age?

[cuervo72]

I'd like to have some money around when I die, but our spending habits are such that I don't know that I can count on that. Where does it go? I don't know. Probably to Comcast, AT&T, and for a bunch of stuff that we don't really need. But it's not like we'd be amassing some huge fortune either way. I'm no Walton.

How Wal-Mart’s Waltons Maintain Their Billionaire Fortune: Taxes - Bloomberg Business (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-09-12/how-wal-mart-s-waltons-maintain-their-billionaire-fortune-taxes)

I just find it funny that so many are worried about things like this:

A 40 percent tax is levied at death on estates of more than $5.25 million for an individual or $10.5 million for a couple.

10.5M? Really? All you folks that are concerned about estate taxes have racked up 10.5M in assets. Guess I am really doing it wrong.

[SackAttack]

Thou shalt not steal. -- Exodus 20:15

something something Mark 12:13-17

[JonInMiddleGA]

10.5M? Really? All you folks that are concerned about estate taxes have racked up 10.5M in assets.

What I have in the bank (or don't have) doesn't make that atrocity any less wrong.

[cuervo72]

I'll admit that some of what rankles me about folks like the Waltons stems from envy. Why do some of these branches on the family tree get to benefit by doing jack squat beyond having rich ancestors? Why should I want to see them sitting on billions (or amassing more billions) doing nothing besides passing it down and building shrines to themselves? They're sure as shit using the government to get their way and there's like, a couple dozen of them. There are what, 300 million of the rest of us? It's in our benefit to get some of that. Who doesn't want more money? They have billions and they still do. They'll gladly steal from us. If the populace can steal from them via taxes, go for it. Better to do it peacefully than by storming their castle.

[cuervo72]

I mean, boiled down to it my view of what one of the prime functions of a government should be is for the people to collectively say "look, if any of us fucks over the rest of us, there will be consequences." That's basically why we have law enforcement, right? Rob or rape or kill and you screw others over - so don't do it. This isn't a free-for-all, because a true free-for-all would be chaos and that's not good for anybody (or it is good for the very few with the most power). Why shouldn't the same hold economically? Sitting on huge piles of cash and doing nothing with it (again, I have no problem with making money, but spend it) is leaving others screwed.

[Solecismic]

I think we'd find, though, that if we encourage a society where we can pass judgment on someone solely because he or she has more money than we do, that someone else will pass judgment on us for much the same reason. And that person may not be kind enough to do so with the written word alone.

It reminds me of the old joke we used to tell about the Moral Majority...

"Puritanism... that haunting feeling that somebody, somewhere, is having more fun than you are."

[panerd]

Molson already touched on it but it bears repeating. Most members of the board are the 1% compared to the rest of the world. So using the logic applied by many in this thread why should we leave money to our kids when there are poor starving people who can't? The death tax should be all Americans right? However politicians are more shrewd than that and realize it's not about that at all it's about eating the rich so they make it a number that most people aren't at (and now amazingly support). Pure envy... nothing else. And I have about two cents to leave right now so I have no horse in this race anyways.

[Dutch]

I mean, boiled down to it my view of what one of the prime functions of a government should be is for the people to collectively say "look, if any of us fucks over the rest of us, there will be consequences." That's basically why we have law enforcement, right? Rob or rape or kill and you screw others over - so don't do it. This isn't a free-for-all, because a true free-for-all would be chaos and that's not good for anybody (or it is good for the very few with the most power). Why shouldn't the same hold economically? Sitting on huge piles of cash and doing nothing with it (again, I have no problem with making money, but spend it) is leaving others screwed.

The only true financial equality is the 3rd world. Be careful what you wish for, no matter how kind it sounds.

[flere-imsaho]

When income redistribution is the objective, I cannot disagree more.

I couldn't agree more. (http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/)

[flere-imsaho]

I think we'd find, though, that if we encourage a society where we can pass judgment on someone solely because he or she has more money than we do, that someone else will pass judgment on us for much the same reason. And that person may not be kind enough to do so with the written word alone.

Well, we're a society that already has the second half of your statement, so....

[flere-imsaho]

So, the best thing you can do in life is spend everything you can and rely on the government to take care of you and your children in your old age?

As usual, I'm not sure anyone here's making that argument. Some might be saying it's ok to not leave something to your kids, but "the best thing"? That's just creating other people's arguments for them.

[Dutch]

As usual, I'm not sure anyone here's making that argument. Some might be saying it's ok to not leave something to your kids, but "the best thing"? That's just creating other people's arguments for them.

You may not be making that argument, but Cuervo is and has many times before.

[Dutch]

I couldn't agree more. (http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/)

About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies.

So the argument is that we should spend more on traditional welfare than corporate welfare. I understand that point of view.

Corporate welfare is keeping our automakers, airplane, oil, and farming businesses afloat. Pretty scary really, but hardly lining the pockets of the 1% of the 1%. Well, probably it does, but that's a drop in the bucket for what it's purpose is. Without those subsidies, those businesses would be decimated. A major contribution of those subsidies is to keep a lot of people employed. One could argue that the labor unions turned the balance of power upside down and has made it incredibly hard for these businesses to stay afloat in the global economy...so now they need assistance. But the government doesn't make that money, the poor aren't making that money. It's coming from the middle and upper classes (or from floated checks).

The benefit of pulling back corporate welfare and giving it to social welfare is that when people start losing their jobs we'll be able to support them with traditional welfare. Well...until the money stops flowing in because the corporations can't fund their own subsidies much less the traditional subsidies. (read: Detroit, MI).

[JPhillips]

I didn't realize the NBC debate that's been cancelled by the RNC was to be hosted on Telemundo. I bet the shitshow that was likely to happen at that debate had more to do with cancelling it.

[JPhillips]

One could argue that the labor unions turned the balance of power upside down and has made it incredibly hard for these businesses to stay afloat in the global economy...so now they need assistance.

But one would be incorrect.

http://www.oftwominds.com/photos2015/wages-GDP9-15.png

[Dutch]

But one would be incorrect.

http://www.oftwominds.com/photos2015/wages-GDP9-15.png

So the Corporate Subsidies aren't high enough?

[panerd]

But one would be incorrect.

http://www.oftwominds.com/photos2015/wages-GDP9-15.png

Nice misleading graph. A 20% drop hidden in a graph with a slope of -1.

[JPhillips]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Goodwin2_fredgraph.png/250px-Goodwin2_fredgraph.png

Then take the longer chart.

[Dutch]

Opens up wallet...okay, how much do you need?

[cuervo72]

Dutch - I'm not looking for equality. I'm advocating for those with the absolute most to not break the whole system by sucking as much out of it as they possibly can and never giving any of it back.

I mean yeah ok - Mother Jones. But man, would I like to see the chart for this:

The Walmart Heirs Are Worth More Than Everyone in Your City Combined | Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/walmart-walton-heirs-net-worth-cities)

In 1983, the Walton family's net worth was $2.15 billion, equivalent to the net worth of 61,992 average American families, about the population* of...Peoria, Arizona


In 1989, the Walton family's net worth was $9.42 billion, equivalent to the net worth of 200,434 average American families, about the population of...
Albuquerque, New Mexico


In 1992, the Walton family's net worth was $23.8 billion, equivalent to the net worth of 536,631 average American families, about the population of...
San Antonio, Texas


In 1998, the Walton family's net worth was $48 billion, equivalent to the net worth of 796,089 average American families, about the population of...
The State of New Mexico


In 2001, the Walton family's net worth was $92.8 billion, equivalent to the net worth of 1,077,761 average American families, about the population of...
Chicago, Illinois


In 2010, the Walton family's net worth was $89.5 billion, equivalent to the net worth of 1,157,827 average American families, about the population of...
The State of Arkansas


In 2013, the Walton family's net worth was $144.7 billion, equivalent to the net worth of 1,782,020 average American families, about the population of...
The State of Louisiana


At what point is it ok to but a brake on this sort of trend?

[JPhillips]

And too much wealth concentrated in too few hands hurts the economy. Almost all of that 144 billion is sitting largely unproductive. We want money moving through the system, not sitting in unproductive investments. Over time the concentration of wealth has a negative effect on the whole economy.

[Solecismic]

Money is just paper, except when it's my money.

[Warhammer]

And too much wealth concentrated in too few hands hurts the economy. Almost all of that 144 billion is sitting largely unproductive. We want money moving through the system, not sitting in unproductive investments. Over time the concentration of wealth has a negative effect on the whole economy.

Define unproductive, if that money is in stock, that means the company it is invested in is using it for their operations.

That said, one of my issues with the state of the economy is the importance of Wall St. Many companies strip R&D to increase profitability and short term profits at the expense of future profits.

[cuervo72]

When the Waltons have all the money in the US, I wonder how many copies of FOF they'll buy.

[JPhillips]

Define unproductive, if that money is in stock, that means the company it is invested in is using it for their operations.


At offering, yes, but after the company gets the initial cash influx, the stock profits go to the owners and the financial sector. I don't have any problem with investing in companies, but stock trading generally isn't about investing in companies, it's just daily fantasy for the financial sector.

[JonInMiddleGA]

At what point is it ok to but a brake on this sort of trend?

Never, not through governmental interference at least.

If the marketplace chooses to do so, fine & dandy.

[cuervo72]

So we need to rely on people individually all deciding to put a stop to something, rather than collectively putting a stop to something. We've already established that a good chunk of people aren't smart enough to not work against their own interests, so good luck with this. Eventually if this trend continues fewer people would have money to buy things from Wal*Mart so I guess they wouldn't have as much coming in (well, they'd still need necessities - I notice that they are having grocery-only stores popping up) but what would they care, they'd have all the cash already anyway.

(The Waltons are basically set up to be insanely rich in perpetuity. I really dislike the idea familial dynasties - royal, political*, financial - which is why I really don't care if the bulk of their wealth is passed along.)

* If another Kennedy never got elected to office, it would be too soon.

[JonInMiddleGA]

* If another Kennedy never got elected to office, it would be too soon.

As long as they're aligned with the Ds and/or liberalism I agree wholeheartedly :)

As for the Waltons, they've provided goods/services in return for payment and typically at a better/much better value than virtually anyone else. That they've done it on a larger scale & been more successful at it should not be punished. Less whining, less jealousy, more aspiration to be as successful as they've been is what this country needs, what it should stand for, damned near the ideal afaic. That they, and other successes, aren't role models instead of being villified out of jealousy is a disgraceful example of why we're swirling the bowl.

I'd take them -- or countless other people smart enough & capable enough to create success -- over the sum total of all their detractors and the nation would be exponentially better off. The latter represent a great deal of what's wrong with American today afaic.

They're an enormous pain in the ass to do business with (dealt with them from a business standpoint for a client, slotting fees, marketing, etc) but then again who isn't?

[Solecismic]

When the Waltons have all the money in the US, I wonder how many copies of FOF they'll buy.

Or if the government makes all the decisions in the US, how do I lobby the government to convince our benevolent leader that FOF is a necessity on everyone's computer?

[cuervo72]

Is there any room for admiring what Sam and Bud did (and that Rob continued, even), but being jealous of the branches of the family tree (http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-waltons-wal-mart-family-tree-2013-10)? Josh Kroenke - current president of the Nuggets and Avalanche (at 35). He's not sucessful for having aspirations or accomplishing anything on his own, he just fell out of a rich vagina. What did John Walton do before he died? Dropped out of college and worked as an army medic. I think there are a lot of those who never got insanely rich (of course he was also an "amateur pilot", like a couple dozen other dead rich guys).

[Dutch]

Never, not through governmental interference at least.

If the marketplace chooses to do so, fine & dandy.

I agree, but Wal-mart is infringing pretty heavily on the problem of monopolization. A monopoly is defined as...in my words...as being "waaaaay to fucking good at your job". And traditionally we break up monopolies.

[NobodyHere]

Donald Trump isn't lying again is he?

Last Week Tonight: At No Point Was Donald Trump Invited to Appear (http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/%E2%80%98last-week-tonight%E2%80%99-%E2%80%98at-no-point%E2%80%99-was-donald-trump-invited-to-appear/ar-BBmHgA7?li=AAa0dzB)

[wustin]

Donald Trump isn't lying again is he?

Last Week Tonight: At No Point Was Donald Trump Invited to Appear (http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/%E2%80%98last-week-tonight%E2%80%99-%E2%80%98at-no-point%E2%80%99-was-donald-trump-invited-to-appear/ar-BBmHgA7?li=AAa0dzB)

How do you know Oliver and HBO aren't lying? Unless there's some sort of evidence from either side, who cares?

[Solecismic]

Enforcing the Sherman Anti-Trust Act might be nice. If you leverage your dominance of one market in order to gain a foothold in another market, that can hurt consumers.

However, that's very hard to judge. Microsoft was allowed a lot of latitude as to what's part of an operating system, and that mostly helped the software industry. And Apple is somewhat of a competitor.

There's no question Wal-Mart helps keep prices down for many goods. If we came down hard on aggressive retailers, that might have benefits for competing retail, but it might have unintended consequences for the poorest among us.

It used to be that the most noble thing you could say was that you wanted your children to have more than you did.

If we start judging who is deserving of how much, that seems dangerous. If Sam Walton feels the best use of his money is giving it to his relatives - isn't that his right?

There are 7 billion people in the world, and the world GDP is about $70 trillion per year (that's hard to measure because the cost of stuff is hard to equate). That's about $10k per person per year. We have a standard of living that most around the world would judge as obscene. Even leaving $200k to a child - ostensibly for college costs - could be seen as many as crazy-undeserved in terms of providing for some kid who hasn't earned anything. That's more than the median world worker will earn in a lifetime.

I think we have to be more careful in our assessments of who deserves what. At a certain point, if that becomes entrenched in policy, your wealth will eventually go on trial. Population is increasing at a scary rate, and many around the world (India and China in particular) feel the United States should pay to develop more undeveloped countries.

Many in India even today say that we need a global tribunal to redistribute world wealth - that our standard of living, in particular, is now on the table in terms of negotiations.

[ISiddiqui]

There's no question Wal-Mart helps keep prices down for many goods. If we came down hard on aggressive retailers, that might have benefits for competing retail, but it might have unintended consequences for the poorest among us.

Indeed. And there is legislative history pertaining to the passage of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act which seems to indicate that it was intended to benefit consumers, not competitors. So if a large company is more beneficial for consumers than breaking it up, according to the legislative intent, it may be better to keep that company intact.

[ISiddiqui]

So the argument is that we should spend more on traditional welfare than corporate welfare. I understand that point of view.

Corporate welfare is keeping our automakers, airplane, oil, and farming businesses afloat. Pretty scary really, but hardly lining the pockets of the 1% of the 1%. Well, probably it does, but that's a drop in the bucket for what it's purpose is. Without those subsidies, those businesses would be decimated. A major contribution of those subsidies is to keep a lot of people employed. One could argue that the labor unions turned the balance of power upside down and has made it incredibly hard for these businesses to stay afloat in the global economy...so now they need assistance. But the government doesn't make that money, the poor aren't making that money. It's coming from the middle and upper classes (or from floated checks).

The benefit of pulling back corporate welfare and giving it to social welfare is that when people start losing their jobs we'll be able to support them with traditional welfare. Well...until the money stops flowing in because the corporations can't fund their own subsidies much less the traditional subsidies. (read: Detroit, MI).

Soo... income redistribution is a bad thing, unless it benefits our corporations? Also an interesting indictment of the free market system you've advanced here ;).

[JonInMiddleGA]

I agree, but Wal-mart is infringing pretty heavily on the problem of monopolization. A monopoly is defined as...in my words...as being "waaaaay to fucking good at your job". And traditionally we break up monopolies.

Target would beg to differ. As would Kroger and other grocery chains.

That's actually what I see as much/more of in Walmart these days as anything: grocery shoppers. While Aldi kicks their butts on a few items and Kroger is somewhat competitive on others, the best bangs for the mainstream grocery dollar here is at Walmart.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Josh Kroenke - current president of the Nuggets and Avalanche (at 35). He's not sucessful for having aspirations or accomplishing anything on his own, he just fell out of a rich vagina. What did John Walton do before he died?

And his family earned the right to give him that opportunity.

There is no greater motivation for me that what I might be able to pass down to my child. And if I earn it, by God I deserve to pass it along and there's not one single solitary human being on the planet who deserves to benefit from it than my child. And not one single solitary human being who deserves to make that call for my own assets more than I do.

[AENeuman]

I agree, but Wal-mart is infringing pretty heavily on the problem of monopolization. A monopoly is defined as...in my words...as being "waaaaay to fucking good at your job". And traditionally we break up monopolies.

Is there really a tradition in America of breaking up extremely successful companies? I can only think of a few.

[BillJasper]

And his family earned the right to give him that opportunity.

There is no greater motivation for me that what I might be able to pass down to my child. And if I earn it, by God I deserve to pass it along and there's not one single solitary human being on the planet who deserves to benefit from it than my child. And not one single solitary human being who deserves to make that call for my own assets more than I do.

Why? Shouldn't he have to go out and earn his own keep the way your advocating for the poor?

[Ben E Lou]

Why? Shouldn't he have to go out and earn his own keep the way your advocating for the poor?I find it rather humorous that multiple people in this discussion keep bringing up this strawman that kids who inherit something didn't "earn their own keep." That's just silly. Think about it. A huge chunk (if not the flat-out majority) of active members of this board...

1. ...Are in their mid 30s to late 40s.
2. ...Have worked for 15-30 years.
3. ...Have at least one living parent.

I'm too lazy to look up the averages overall, but it seems very safe to assume that the huge majority of people who inherit money have been in the work force for at least 20 years, probably more like 25-30, before they receive it. Heck, my parents were OLD--47 and 41 when I was born, and even I didn't become an "orphan" until a couple of weeks before my 44th birthday. And in this case of the huge majority of the people on this forum, it's not a lifestyle-changing amount of money. We're talking about making retirement a little more comfortable for your kids, making it easier for your grandkids to come out of college without student debt, making it safer for your kid to quit his or her job at age 50 to start a small business they've always dreamed about but could never take the risk to do because of kids, college funds, mortgages, etc.

And yes, I agree with Jon: all of the items that I just mentioned are *huge* motivations for me to be more productive for longer.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Why? Shouldn't he have to go out and earn his own keep the way your advocating for the poor?

Who says he isn't/won't? If he chooses not to, that's his call (since I'd be dead and buried) but no one has more right to enjoy whatever benefit my contribution can be than he does.

It's not as though we're talking about a lot here, God know I'm not in a major income bracket anymore & there isn't going to be much (if anything) left ... but whatever there is should belong to him & him alone unless I choose otherwise.

The erosion of property rights is an abominable trend in this country, and those who are part of it are ... I'll just leave it at "unspeakably vile" as far as I'm concerned.

[Solecismic]

One of the worst things you can do as a man is bring someone into this world, then run off and live your life as if the child were never born.

Studies show clearly that children growing up in two-parent households are more likely to have (paraphrasing) great lives themselves.

Why, then, are we so anxious to judge people as too invested in their children?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Studies show clearly that children growing up in two-parent households are more likely to have (paraphrasing) great lives themselves.


And then we wonder why the country is so utterly fucked.

At the same time, the share of children born outside of marriage now stands at 41%, up from just 5% in 1960.
Less than half of U.S. kids today live in a ‘traditional’ family | Pew Research Center (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/22/less-than-half-of-u-s-kids-today-live-in-a-traditional-family/)

[JPhillips]

10 billion at 5% interest over 200 years ends up with over 172 trillion.

The estate tax exists because truly nation ending accumulations of wealth can happen in a few generations.

[Solecismic]

In 200 years, $172 trillion won't be what it is today.

The estate tax exists because the government is too large.

[cartman]

The estate tax exists because the government is too large.

The estate tax has existed in the US in one form or another since right after the country was founded.

[JonInMiddleGA]

No word yet on whether Bob the Builder will sue for infringement

My Way News - Bush hits campaign reset, retools slogan: 'Jeb Can Fix It' (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20151102/us--gop_2016-bush-0888043efc.html)

[Solecismic]

The estate tax has existed in the US in one form or another since right after the country was founded.

Until 1916 (and until WWII it wasn't applied to anyone but the absolute richest of the rich), it was only temporarily in place for wartime funding in a handful of years.

The first post-debate poll is out, and it's from New Hampshire.

Not much has changed, except Rubio is now in the game. He seems to have taken his support across the board - a little from everyone. Maybe more from Fiorina than the others.

Chris Christie got a bump as well. Could be the beginning of something, probably not.

I remain surprised, looking at positive/negatives, that Rand Paul hasn't concluded this just isn't his thing. For someone so unpopular to poll under 5% is unusual. And New Hampshire is a place where libertarian-leaning should get a foothold.

[albionmoonlight]

Broadly, I am a huge supporter of capitalism. It is unspeakably better than the alternatives, which have led to much much more suffering.

Which is why I support reasonable restrictions on capitalism.

That the non-Trump candidate generating the most enthusiasm this cycle is a socialist should be freaking people the hell out. The lack of regulation we've had since the 90s (cutting across party control of both the White House and Congress), leading to Depression-era wealth inequality is a bad thing. It is a bad thing because it is slowing economic growth. It is a Very Bad thing because it is pushing people to explore radical alternatives.

[JPhillips]

In 200 years, $172 trillion won't be what it is today.

The estate tax exists because the government is too large.

Sure, but even conservative investments well outpace inflation historically. Just look at Trump's wealth and realize he could have gotten the same gains or more from an index fund. The point that wealth can become destabilizing to a nation is still true. And, despite what you said, that's the theoretical foundation of an estate tax.

I'm so old I remember when conservatives favored a stable government. Now they're all, grr grr burn it down!

[Solecismic]

I agree with albionmoonlight. Without some regulation, the top capitalists will leverage their market position in ways that deter free trade.

You need referees that flag holding and pass interference. You do not need arbitrary new rules, like passes can't travel more than 50 yards or defenders have to wear their shoes on the wrong foot.

For me, it keeps coming back to employment. We narrow the gap through full participation in the economy.

Right now, we're at a record low (since women joined the labor force in numbers) in terms of the percentage of people working full time. That puts an enormous strain on the safety net, however we define it.

I'd say something like "nothing else matters" other than those job numbers, but that would be overly dramatic. I do think so many other problems would cease to be problems if we could just get Americans working again. Bring back manufacturing. They're not perfect, but our factories are far cleaner than the ones we currently use in Asia.

[NobodyHere]

I remain surprised, looking at positive/negatives, that Rand Paul hasn't concluded this just isn't his thing. For someone so unpopular to poll under 5% is unusual. And New Hampshire is a place where libertarian-leaning should get a foothold.

I'm surprised he's still in it too. At the debates it seems he has no enthusiasm at all.

[Solecismic]

Sure, but even conservative investments well outpace inflation historically. Just look at Trump's wealth and realize he could have gotten the same gains or more from an index fund. The point that wealth can become destabilizing to a nation is still true. And, despite what you said, that's the theoretical foundation of an estate tax.

I'm so old I remember when conservatives favored a stable government. Now they're all, grr grr burn it down!

That's not quite accurate. Conservatives see the government more as a safety net than a source of moral direction. When it comes down to it, conservatives have just as much invested in the infrastructure of government.

The sourcing of Trump's personal wealth is difficult. By his account, he has done very well, and everyone else is terrible. He clearly had a bad run in the late '80s. He also clearly had a great recovery in the '90s.

Neither would be possible using an index fund. I find this attack on Trump rather ineffective. There are far better ways to say he's not qualified to be president.

[ISiddiqui]

That the non-Trump candidate generating the most enthusiasm this cycle is a socialist should be freaking people the hell out. The lack of regulation we've had since the 90s (cutting across party control of both the White House and Congress), leading to Depression-era wealth inequality is a bad thing. It is a bad thing because it is slowing economic growth. It is a Very Bad thing because it is pushing people to explore radical alternatives.

Well there is that. It is widely acknowledged that FDR pushed for so many New Deal policies because he partially afraid that the American people would get so frustrated with capitalist democracy that they might pursue a socialist revolution or a fascist uprising may result. I think Republicans should be somewhat scared of the fact that a self-described socialist is polling so well against their top poll getters - imagine if Sanders was young and charismatic?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think Republicans should be somewhat scared of the fact that a self-described socialist is polling so well against their top poll getters - imagine if Sanders was young and charismatic?

Not really all that surprising, I think most conservatives are well aware of the depths we've sunk to.

[JPhillips]

That's not quite accurate. Conservatives see the government more as a safety net than a source of moral direction. When it comes down to it, conservatives have just as much invested in the infrastructure of government.

The sourcing of Trump's personal wealth is difficult. By his account, he has done very well, and everyone else is terrible. He clearly had a bad run in the late '80s. He also clearly had a great recovery in the '90s.

Neither would be possible using an index fund. I find this attack on Trump rather ineffective. There are far better ways to say he's not qualified to be president.

I'm talking about conservatism as defined by folks like Hayek or Burke, not what American conservatism has become.

As for Trump, it's no attack. I was just pointing out how quickly wealth can grow with no effort whatsoever and little productivity added to society..

[SackAttack]

Conservatives see the government more as a safety net than a source of moral direction.

I'd probably be more inclined to believe that if conservatives weren't so invested in dismantling the social safety net government has erected over the last 70 years.

[cuervo72]

Broadly, I am a huge supporter of capitalism. It is unspeakably better than the alternatives, which have led to much much more suffering.

Which is why I support reasonable restrictions on capitalism.

That the non-Trump candidate generating the most enthusiasm this cycle is a socialist should be freaking people the hell out. The lack of regulation we've had since the 90s (cutting across party control of both the White House and Congress), leading to Depression-era wealth inequality is a bad thing. It is a bad thing because it is slowing economic growth. It is a Very Bad thing because it is pushing people to explore radical alternatives.

Yes. I find it funny that some make out like I'm advocating for Communism (or that by not allowing a few adult children to not get all of their bazillion dollar inheritance I am trying to deprive five-year-olds any sort of parental support).

Anything sufficiently unchecked can go off the rails. I like capitalism too, and I'd like to see it not go off the rails. Because then who knows what the hell might happen.

Also, I'm not exactly lobbying for folks to sit around on their asses getting handouts (just as I don't like rich kids sitting on their asses because daddy and mommy have money). I have at least one relative that I would hold in much higher regard if they would have completed school, worked someplace other than DD before going on "disability." TRY. BE PRODUCTIVE. But when you work at least one full time job and still can't get out of poverty? Maybe we should take a look at that.

[Warhammer]

At offering, yes, but after the company gets the initial cash influx, the stock profits go to the owners and the financial sector. I don't have any problem with investing in companies, but stock trading generally isn't about investing in companies, it's just daily fantasy for the financial sector.

Depends upon the company, but I agree once it gets going. That said, if some one comes up with a great idea, why should we discourage them from making money?

I think part of the problem is when CEOs began to be compensated by stock options. Suddenly, rather than making long term decisions, the time horizon shrank. You want to cash in those options while you can and maximize them.

Additionally, it's normally not the local business owner that makes large endowments or builds a library. In the case of the Waltons, they were the force behind the Crystal Bridge Museum of Art. The Waltons had a family member onsite to sign off on decisions. It was a pain in the rear during construction, but they were paying for it.

[Warhammer]

Well there is that. It is widely acknowledged that FDR pushed for so many New Deal policies because he partially afraid that the American people would get so frustrated with capitalist democracy that they might pursue a socialist revolution or a fascist uprising may result. I think Republicans should be somewhat scared of the fact that a self-described socialist is polling so well against their top poll getters - imagine if Sanders was young and charismatic?

I think a large part of this is due to the message that youth have been hearing for years. Business is bad, it pollutes the environment, etc. The rich make too much money, he drives a BMW because he exploited others, the whites are where they are because they owned slaves, etc.

Growing up with this constantly in the ears of the youth, how can you have any hope? Where is the faith that things will be better? What about American exceptionalism? Where is the can do attitude that we had in generations past?

[JPhillips]

Well given the optimistic tone of the GOP candidates, that's bound to turn around soon!

[NobodyHere]

I think a large part of this is due to the message that youth have been hearing for years. Business is bad, it pollutes the environment, etc. The rich make too much money, he drives a BMW because he exploited others, the whites are where they are because they owned slaves, etc.

Growing up with this constantly in the ears of the youth, how can you have any hope? Where is the faith that things will be better? What about American exceptionalism? Where is the can do attitude that we had in generations past?

Exactly what is 'American Exceptionalism'?

[flere-imsaho]

Obama in New York: Forget Putin. GOP candidates ‘can’t handle a bunch of CNBC moderators’ - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/02/obama-pleads-with-democrats-for-a-sense-of-urgency-in-2016/)

He's got a point. :D

[flere-imsaho]

Chris Christie blasts candidates' debate gripes: 'Stop complaining' - POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/chris-christie-debate-complaints-215432)

Oh dear:

A day after roughly a dozen Republican presidential campaigns came together in a show of force Sunday night to protest the debate process, their fragile consensus collapsed on Monday, with a number of candidates refusing to sign on to a group letter intended to compel TV networks to bow to their demands.

But yeah, sure, they'll be able to govern.

[EagleFan]

The debate should be about the candidates, not the person askng the questions who feels so empty that they want it to be about their agenda.

[flere-imsaho]

It's still about the candidates. We've just learned how they all react when things don't go according to script.

[Thomkal]

Chris Christie blasts candidates' debate gripes: 'Stop complaining' - POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/chris-christie-debate-complaints-215432)

Oh dear:



But yeah, sure, they'll be able to govern.

sigh.

[wustin]

It's still about the candidates. We've just learned how they all react when things don't go according to script.

We also learned how much CNBC moderators are willing to demean themselves in order to make the GOP candidates look bad. It wouldn't of mattered how the candidates reacted, they were going to look bad no matter what. Intentional or not, it was a genius strategy by the moderators.

The moderators after being booed by the audience and getting called out started asking sensible questions during the latter half of the debate. Of course nobody wants to talk about how the candidates answered those questions because it would actually look like something productive happened.

[BillJasper]

Of course nobody wants to talk about how the candidates answered those questions because it would actually look like something productive happened.

Especially the candidates. They must feel they'll get more mileage out of the "woe is me" angle.

[molson]

Self-serving and unprepared moderating provide an opportunity for the candidates that are smart enough to combat it. Rubio and Christie got a boost.

I do hope they're not all like that though. I agree with JPhillips' post earlier about the silliness of the debate format in the first place. The purpose should be to get information to differentiate the candidates on issues relevant to the job of president. The job they're competing for isn't captain of the competitive debate team or comedy improv coach. How someone answers a silly question doesn't show "how they'll deal with ISIS" or whatever the narrative being spun now is. It would make sense to have the questions known ahead of time, give the candidates the chance to express their positions, and have the role of the moderators be to follow up with questions to clarify those positions in a way that distinguishes the candidates.

[BillJasper]

Self-serving and unprepared moderating provide an opportunity for the candidates that are smart enough to combat it. Rubio and Christie got a boost.

I do hope they're not all like that though. I agree with JPhillips' post earlier about the silliness of the debate format in the first place. The purpose should be to get information to differentiate the candidates on issues relevant to the job of president. The job they're competing for isn't captain of the competitive debate team or comedy improv coach. How someone answers a silly question doesn't show "how they'll deal with ISIS" or whatever the narrative being spun now is. It would make sense to have the questions known ahead of time, give the candidates the chance to express their positions, and have the role of the moderators be to follow up with questions to clarify those positions in a way that distinguishes the candidates.

It should be a mix. I want to see the candidates differentiate themselves, but I also want to see how they think and react on the fly.

[ISiddiqui]

Self-serving and unprepared moderating provide an opportunity for the candidates that are smart enough to combat it. Rubio and Christie got a boost.

I do hope they're not all like that though. I agree with JPhillips' post earlier about the silliness of the debate format in the first place. The purpose should be to get information to differentiate the candidates on issues relevant to the job of president. The job they're competing for isn't captain of the competitive debate team or comedy improv coach. How someone answers a silly question doesn't show "how they'll deal with ISIS" or whatever the narrative being spun now is. It would make sense to have the questions known ahead of time, give the candidates the chance to express their positions, and have the role of the moderators be to follow up with questions to clarify those positions in a way that distinguishes the candidates.

Also, though, for a debate like that you can't have it just be 2 hours long as demanded by some on the dais. You need a 3 hour debate to have substantive discussion on the issues along with clarifying follow ups. A 2 hour long debate with 10 people on the stage is going to be a clusterfuck regardless.

I wouldn't be averse to future debates culling the numbers, almost American Idol like - next week, the Top 9! ;).

[flere-imsaho]

We also learned how much CNBC moderators are willing to demean themselves in order to make the GOP candidates look bad.

This is a network that employs Jim Cramer. I'm astonished that anyone thought something else was going to happen.

Self-serving and unprepared moderating provide an opportunity for the candidates that are smart enough to combat it. Rubio and Christie got a boost.

I do hope they're not all like that though. I agree with JPhillips' post earlier about the silliness of the debate format in the first place. The purpose should be to get information to differentiate the candidates on issues relevant to the job of president. The job they're competing for isn't captain of the competitive debate team or comedy improv coach. How someone answers a silly question doesn't show "how they'll deal with ISIS" or whatever the narrative being spun now is. It would make sense to have the questions known ahead of time, give the candidates the chance to express their positions, and have the role of the moderators be to follow up with questions to clarify those positions in a way that distinguishes the candidates.

Well shit. A molson post with which I completely agree.

[ISiddiqui]

Donald Trump isn't lying again is he?

Last Week Tonight: At No Point Was Donald Trump Invited to Appear (http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/%E2%80%98last-week-tonight%E2%80%99-%E2%80%98at-no-point%E2%80%99-was-donald-trump-invited-to-appear/ar-BBmHgA7?li=AAa0dzB)

How do you know Oliver and HBO aren't lying? Unless there's some sort of evidence from either side, who cares?

I just noticed this online. wustin, have you seen Oliver's show? I'm pretty sure that at no point has a politician actually been on the show. This isn't the Daily Show where there is an interview portion.

[molson]

I just noticed this online. wustin, have you seen Oliver's show? I'm pretty sure that at no point has a politician actually been on the show. This isn't the Daily Show where there is an interview portion.

I assumed it would have been for some kind of celebrity cameo, whith the show does have, and which is right in Trump's wheelhouse. Seems like a random thing for Trump to make up. I'm guessing there was some communication between the two sides, short of an "invitation", but that the talks didn't go well.

[ISiddiqui]

The cameos though are totally just celebrities. He's never invited a politician for that.

Also Oliver is on record multiple times that he doesn't care about Trump at all.

[Dutch]

It should be a mix. I want to see the candidates differentiate themselves, but I also want to see how they think and react on the fly.

When do Presidents really need those skills though?

[BillJasper]

When do Presidents really need those skills though?

<a href="http://s1187.photobucket.com/user/BillJ66/media/911_zpslcvdgzya.png.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1187.photobucket.com/albums/z387/BillJ66/911_zpslcvdgzya.png" border="0" alt=" photo 911_zpslcvdgzya.png"/></a>

[sabotai]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OM3Z_Kskl_U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[sabotai]

The debates would be much more interesting if they involved shoe throwing...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Not a lot of notable stuff in the off year elections but theoretically perhaps the Matt Bevin win in KY bodes well for Trump and/or Carson.

[NobodyHere]

The debates would be much more interesting if they involved shoe throwing...

+1

[BillJasper]

Not a lot of notable stuff in the off year elections but theoretically perhaps the Matt Bevin win in KY bodes well for Trump and/or Carson.

Why? Kentucky hasn't went Democrat for President since 1996.

[PilotMan]

Ah, you know that this state goes ga-ga for Rand. Any of those outsiders would storm this state regardless. Clinton doesn't stand a chance here.

[chesapeake]

Until 1916 (and until WWII it wasn't applied to anyone but the absolute richest of the rich), it was only temporarily in place for wartime funding in a handful of years.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that only 0.12% of estates are expected to be liable for the estate tax in 2015. Is that not "the richest of the rich" under just about any definition?

[Solecismic]

I thought the exemption was $1 million today and the top bracket (55%) kicked in at $3 million. That's definitely the end of many small businesses - especially farms.

In 1916, when it was first enacted, the exemption was about $11 million in today's dollars. And the tax was 1%. The top bracket kicked in at about $1 billion in today's dollars - at 10%.

Quinnipiac's new poll - the first post-debate national poll:

Trump 24, Carson 23, Rubio 14, Cruz 13, Bush 4, Fiorina, Kasich, Christie 3.

It seems like Fiorina and Bush wound up taking the biggest hits from the debate, and Rubio and Cruz had the largest increases.

We're still a long way out.

[lungs]

I thought the exemption was $1 million today and the top bracket (55%) kicked in at $3 million. That's definitely the end of many small businesses - especially farms.


Exemption is $5.43 million per person, $10.86 million for a couple. Estate tax is an overblown issue by the farm lobby.

[Marmel]

Estate tax is an overblown issue, and I really believe the only reason we have it is to appease the insurance lobby. Nobody ever has to pay an estate tax if they plan it correctly with life insurance.

[Grover]

Marco Rubio was asked at a Q&A at St. Anselm who he would like to have a beer with.

He answered Malala.

*headdesk*

[Dutch]

What is a malala?

[Kodos]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/10/world/asia/pakistan-malala-odyssey/index.html

[Ben E Lou]

Marco Rubio was asked at a Q&A at St. Anselm who he would like to have a beer with.

He answered Malala.

*headdesk*I can be a pretty literal person, but I'm not sure I'd take the term "have a beer with" literally. Meh.

[digamma]

Eh, it's a gaffe, but not a big deal.

[Solecismic]

Estate tax is an overblown issue, and I really believe the only reason we have it is to appease the insurance lobby. Nobody ever has to pay an estate tax if they plan it correctly with life insurance.

I've heard that's not quite correct. And very difficult to pull off (of course, they can probably afford a team of lawyers).

I thought there were some baseball teams, in particular, that were being run rather badly because of estate tax issues.

If it's already earned and taxed money, why should the government get involved, anyway?

People are very, very generous with other people's money.

[Solecismic]

Marco Rubio was asked at a Q&A at St. Anselm who he would like to have a beer with.

He answered Malala.

*headdesk*

That's just too funny. I suppose there are still some countries where that would be legal. But she's still Islamic, so that's a double face-plant.

Did he at least correct himself to coke or lemonade?

I hope they get rid of the lightning round in future debates, but if someone promises this level of humor, maybe it's worth it.

[GrantDawg]

That won't kill Rubio. but this crap about the GOP credit card might hurt him: Marco Rubio spent lavishly on a GOP credit card, but some transactions are still secret | Tampa Bay Times (http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/marco-rubio-spent-lavishly-on-a-gop-credit-card-but-some-transactions-are/2252470)

[RainMaker]

If it's already earned and taxed money, why should the government get involved, anyway?

It wasn't earned by the individual inheriting it.

I think some of the reasoning behind it is so that money isn't hoarded until death if it'll be taxed heavily. Individuals may put it back into the economy or as we are seeing with some of the wealthy, invest in philanthropy. Also it provides equal opportunity and more competition instead of relying on individuals to simply win the genetic lottery to be successful.

As mentioned though, it is a rather minor issue.

[RainMaker]

I also don't get why we put so much emphasis on minor gaffes like that. I highly doubt he meant to insult her Islamic heritage or force alcohol on a child. The question isn't meant to be taken literally.

Everyone seems to want candidates to be real and then jump on them over the most minor of things. That's why campaigns are so heavily scripted nowadays.

[Dutch]

Rubio is starting to get the attention.

[JPhillips]

“My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain,” Carson said. “Now all the archeologists think that they were made for the pharaohs’ graves. But, you know, it would have to be something awfully big if you stop and think about it. And I don’t think it’d just disappear over the course of time to store that much grain.”

And then there are candidates saying really dumb stuff.

[Dutch]

Adds to the Rubio momentum swing.

[panerd]

I also don't get why we put so much emphasis on minor gaffes like that. I highly doubt he meant to insult her Islamic heritage or force alcohol on a child. The question isn't meant to be taken literally.

Everyone seems to want candidates to be real and then jump on them over the most minor of things. That's why campaigns are so heavily scripted nowadays.

I agree with it being a very minor gaffe that means nothing I will however disagree with this being him being real. It is about as fake of an answer as you can give. Tom Brady or Brad Pitt would be a politician giving a real answer not a Middle Eastern woman's suffrage movement leader. That's him trying too hard to appear genuine.

[flere-imsaho]

If you're aware enough of Malala to use her as the answer to that question, why wouldn't you also be aware enough of the fact that a) she's a kid and b) she's Muslim?

It's Rubio trying too hard.

[panerd]

If you're aware enough of Malala to use her as the answer to that question, why wouldn't you also be aware enough of the fact that a) she's a kid and b) she's Muslim?

It's Rubio trying too hard.

No doubt. It is what happens when you ask dumb questions though. I forget what the question was in one debate but they all copped out with "My wife" for it. I think like most inspirational or something. The problem though is if you say Brett Favre or something you get crucified as well so it leads to lame answers.

[NobodyHere]

No doubt. It is what happens when you ask dumb questions though. I forget what the question was in one debate but they all copped out with "My wife" for it. I think like most inspirational or something. The problem though is if you say Brett Favre or something you get crucified as well so it leads to lame answers.

Was it the "woman you want on the $10 bill" question?

[molson]

I'm trying to think of an answer to the "who do you want to have a beer with" question that wouldn't be mocked.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm trying to think of an answer to the "who do you want to have a beer with" question that wouldn't be mocked.

Ha! Though, I think I'd enjoy having a beer with Marco Rubio among the Republicans running (I mean Rubio can't answer his self - but what about another candidate). Maybe even Jeb Bush as well.

[Kodos]

I'd like to have a beer with the Budweiser lizards.

[molson]

I wonder how the answer changes if the question is "who do you want to have 8 beers with".

[ISiddiqui]

I wonder how the answer changes if the question is "who do you want to have 8 beers with".

:lol:

At that level, I think it'd be awesome to go out on the town with Trump ;).

[Kodos]

"Natalie Portman."

[ISiddiqui]

"Natalie Portman."

I was thinking that direction initially and then I was like... that's way too rapey an answer to say out loud ;).

[Kodos]

It wasn't said aloud. Only typed.

[BillJasper]

If you're aware enough of Malala to use her as the answer to that question, why wouldn't you also be aware enough of the fact that a) she's a kid and b) she's Muslim?

It's Rubio trying too hard.

Someone has to try to convert her to Jesus.

[NobodyHere]

Someone has to try to convert her to Jesus.

Jesus approves of beer and bacon, unlike some other religions.

[JPhillips]

If it's living or dead, do you pick Jesus or Reagan?

[Marc Vaughan]

Never, not through governmental interference at least.

If the marketplace chooses to do so, fine & dandy.

Would I be correct in presuming you believe that the Government should stop supporting Walmart's policy of under-paying their workers by artificially supplementing their pay so they can survive (and thus force Walmart to pay a living wage) ... in a similar vein do you agree that subsidising corporations which make a huge profit (Oil companies and the like) should also be stopped? ... this is after all interfering with the free-market.

[Dutch]

Why *do* oil companies get subsidized? Is it to keep them in business? Lower gas prices? Line the pockets of the rich?

[NobodyHere]

This is overdue. Huckabee and Christie are out of the main debate and Pataki and Graham are out of the debates completely.

Fox Business debate: Christie, Huckabee bumped from main stage - Nov. 5, 2015 (http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/05/media/fox-business-debate-line-up/index.html)

[Thomkal]

This is overdue. Huckabee and Christie are out of the main debate and Pataki and Graham are out of the debates completely.

Fox Business debate: Christie, Huckabee bumped from main stage - Nov. 5, 2015 (http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/05/media/fox-business-debate-line-up/index.html)


And that's the end of those four candidates I think

[tarcone]

I'm glad Christie is done. How do they make this decision? Polls or network decision?

[NobodyHere]

I'm glad Christie is done. How do they make this decision? Polls or network decision?

The network made the decision based on the polls. Apparently you needed to above 2.5% in the polls to join the main debate and 1% to join the undercard.

[Solecismic]

Would I be correct in presuming you believe that the Government should stop supporting Walmart's policy of under-paying their workers by artificially supplementing their pay so they can survive (and thus force Walmart to pay a living wage) ... in a similar vein do you agree that subsidising corporations which make a huge profit (Oil companies and the like) should also be stopped? ... this is after all interfering with the free-market.

One question is whether a company essentially owns someone if it provides employment.

We have an ever-decreasing participation in the work force. Do we really want the government to take away even more jobs by pricing them out of the work force?

Five years from now, you'll go to a fast-food restaurant and you'll either enter your order on your cell or you'll interact with some form of a robot. Robots will be stocking the shelves and maybe even answering simple questions at Wal-Mart.

Basically, just about anything a teenager did for spending money when we were younger will be priced out the work force. I don't think it's good policy to hurry along that transition.

[Dutch]

Unemployment rate=Overpopulation rate

Government didn't create all those babies. We did.

[wustin]

Unemployment rate=Overpopulation rate

Government didn't create all those babies. We did.

You could make an argument for immigration. Illegal or not, these people will do any type of work and they will work hard. They don't have an ego and they weren't brought up feeling entitled.

[nol]

Would I be correct in presuming you believe that the Government should stop supporting Walmart's policy of under-paying their workers by artificially supplementing their pay so they can survive (and thus force Walmart to pay a living wage) ... in a similar vein do you agree that subsidising corporations which make a huge profit (Oil companies and the like) should also be stopped? ... this is after all interfering with the free-market.

I suspect Jon would say the government absolutely should get out of the business of helping a Walmart employee survive, but not for the reasons you're thinking ;)

Five years from now, you'll go to a fast-food restaurant and you'll either enter your order on your cell or you'll interact with some form of a robot. Robots will be stocking the shelves and maybe even answering simple questions at Wal-Mart.

Basically, just about anything a teenager did for spending money when we were younger will be priced out the work force. I don't think it's good policy to hurry along that transition.

** Assuming said robots are much more cost-effective than a low-wage teenager, even when factoring in R&D.

If that's the case, hurray, the companies with the best robots see profits go through the roof and pay more taxes as a result. They can use those profits to make Big Macs even cheaper, make healthier food available for the same prices, or they can be undercut by someone who designs a better robot (I suspect it would be easier and cheaper to apply an upgrade to FastFoodBot 1.0 than to convince a bunch of high schoolers to fully dedicate themselves to their minimum-wage jobs). Invisible hand ftw!

[Marc Vaughan]

If that's the case, hurray, the companies with the best robots see profits go through the roof and pay more taxes as a result. They can use those profits to make Big Macs even cheaper, make healthier food available for the same prices, or they can be undercut by someone who designs a better robot (I suspect it would be easier and cheaper to apply an upgrade to FastFoodBot 1.0 than to convince a bunch of high schoolers to fully dedicate themselves to their minimum-wage jobs). Invisible hand ftw!
There are already fully automated fast food places appearing in some countries - its only a matter of time until this sort of thing expands into most low end retail establishments, you can already see many retail stores moving towards not having cashiers which is further eroding the employment base ..

We have an ever-decreasing participation in the work force. Do we really want the government to take away even more jobs by pricing them out of the work force?
Jon and yourself will probably hate this - but your argument of increasing automation and declining jobs is exactly why I think society needs to move past this obsession with money and capitalism ...

We're rapidly moving towards a post-work society where the vast majority of people won't have jobs because there simply won't be enough to go around, at that point we need to stop victimizing people for simply being unemployed and look at ways to make their lives meaningful for them ... providing free education, healthcare (physical and mental) and such would be a good start.

[JPhillips]

If automation goes the way I expect, we'll either need a basic income plan or we'll live in a sci-fi movie like distopia.

[flere-imsaho]

If automation goes the way I expect, we'll either need a basic income plan or we'll live in a sci-fi movie like distopia.

Exactly. The "end of work" that's been predicted for so long (since the Industrial Revolution, really), is already gradually happening. Societies are going to have to figure out how to transition into a state where there just aren't enough jobs to go around. Ideally those societies will find other ways to support people and still benefit, but I imagine those based on puritan principles/ethos (hello USA) are going to have trouble adjusting.

[RainMaker]

We're rapidly moving towards a post-work society where the vast majority of people won't have jobs because there simply won't be enough to go around, at that point we need to stop victimizing people for simply being unemployed and look at ways to make their lives meaningful for them ... providing free education, healthcare (physical and mental) and such would be a good start.

The question becomes who is forced to go out and do the work and who gets to sit home and play video games all day?

[JonInMiddleGA]

We're rapidly moving towards a post-work society where the vast majority of people won't have jobs because there simply won't be enough to go around [/QUOTE]

Which is why I refer to it as not a shortage of jobs but rather an excess of people.

We're in agreement about the situation as far as numbers go, just with vastly different solutions to the subject.

[lighthousekeeper]

Which is why I refer to it as not a shortage of jobs but rather an excess of people.

We're in agreement about the situation as far as numbers go, just with vastly different solutions to the subject.

If you go by that logic, though, where the solution to work automation is a decrease in human population, eventually when complete automation occurs in the next century that would mean a complete elimination of humanity. Only those filled with lots of self hatred would rejoice at that proposition.

[Marc Vaughan]

The question becomes who is forced to go out and do the work and who gets to sit home and play video games all day?

You say that - but I think there will be a percentage of people who will get satisfaction out of helping others and doing jobs; I for instance doubt I'll ever retire because I enjoy my job and would likely always want to continue doing it ..

PS - I see now value in victimizing people who can't work because there aren't enough jobs once that becomes apparent to all in society, by all means reward those who still do work - but its imperative that the psychological demoralization of the unemployed ends and that they're given a decent standard of living and taught how to succeed and be happy in their circumstances (something that even today people aren't given enough help with imho).

[mckerney]

Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship - POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/ben-carson-west-point-215598)

At least the time where God made Ben's secretary disappear so he wouldn't have to talk to her really happened. We can only hope so anyway.

[digamma]

I listened to some of the Carson interview on CNN this morning. I realize some of this plays, but his faux anger at having news organizations vet him is pretty silly. He also claimed Obama got a free pass on his background, which doesn't seem to jibe with the great Birth Certificate Crisis. Don't know, but his 15 minutes may be coming to an end.

[ISiddiqui]

This is overdue. Huckabee and Christie are out of the main debate and Pataki and Graham are out of the debates completely.

Fox Business debate: Christie, Huckabee bumped from main stage - Nov. 5, 2015 (http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/05/media/fox-business-debate-line-up/index.html)

Yep. It's about time that the really low polling candidates are weeded out of the debates. It becomes totally unworkable when there are 10 people up there. The shame is that Christie was doing slightly better in a couple recent polls than Rand Paul, but really, the list should be pruned to 6 before long - Paul, Kasich, Fiorina, and Bush really have little chance at this point - cutting the two lowest would be a good option. Maybe make that known beforehand so the debate will be a little more interesting ;).

[Kodos]

I listened to some of the Carson interview on CNN this morning. I realize some of this plays, but his faux anger at having news organizations vet him is pretty silly. He also claimed Obama got a free pass on his background, which doesn't seem to jibe with the great Birth Certificate Crisis. Don't know, but his 15 minutes may be coming to an end.

And the whole investigation of his religious beliefs and the one reverend (I forget his name. Wright?).

[flere-imsaho]

Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship - POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/ben-carson-west-point-215598)

Carson's done. The American electorate (and especially the GOP electorate) is perfectly fine with candidates making shit up about policy, but really dislikes candidates making shit up about themselves.

[flere-imsaho]

The main stage is now (in order of polling, according to FBC):

Trump
Carson
Rubio
Cruz
Bush
Fiorina
Kasich
Paul

The GOP's best hope, at this point, is that 2 of Rubio, Bush & Kasich drop out asap and endorse the survivor. Given the war between Rubio & Bush, that seems unlikely.

[panerd]

Carson's done. The American electorate (and especially the GOP electorate) is perfectly fine with candidates making shit up about policy, but really dislikes candidates making shit up about themselves.

Wasn't Carson also shot at by a sniper in Bosnia? Oh right that's the Democratic front runner.

[molson]

Christie was doing slightly better in a couple recent polls than Rand Paul.

Ya, I thought Christie was generally ahead of Paul at this point. And certainly, all these bottom candidates are within the margin of error of these polls from each other. But I guess you have to differentiate somehow.

It does look like there's a clear top 4 at this point, so maybe it'd be better to have just those 4 in the main debate and everyone else on the undercard. I don't know if the rules allow that kind of flexibility though.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't know if the rules allow that kind of flexibility though.

The RNC & the networks negotiate the ground rules though, as I understand it anyhow. Those could be whatever can be mutually agreed upon since these are private affairs.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm going back to my suggestion to just make brackets ;).

Rank 'em 1-8, 4 in one bracket, 4 in the other based on rankings and then 2 from each bracket who is found to "win" moves into the "finals". I mean it combines debates with March Madness... win-win!

[Solecismic]

Jon and yourself will probably hate this - but your argument of increasing automation and declining jobs is exactly why I think society needs to move past this obsession with money and capitalism ...

We're rapidly moving towards a post-work society where the vast majority of people won't have jobs because there simply won't be enough to go around, at that point we need to stop victimizing people for simply being unemployed and look at ways to make their lives meaningful for them ... providing free education, healthcare (physical and mental) and such would be a good start.


Jon and I are pretty much polar opposites on many issues. If we see common ground here, there's fairly widespread agreement somewhere.

Victimization is a very emotional word. If someone feels no shame in not working, I don't see how it's possible. If someone's standard of living is entirely dependent on the government, and entirely out of his control, he will have no incentive to work. It's hard to find value in life when no one but your immediate family and the government cares about you or depends upon you.

Your argument is also predicated on the assumption that services can be provided for free after an initial investment. The schools can educate one extra kid at a zero marginal cost. Doctors can see one more patient at a zero marginal cost.

The schools would have to change. And they are changing. Instead of preparing kids for a work life, schools would prepare kids for a different type of life. Much less individual education. Much more pablum.

The government would have far greater control since it would dictate standard of living. These things start out benevolently enough, but it's always essentially one person's view of standard of living. Soon enough in this Marxist vision, we'd become pets rather than individuals. This would become less benevolent very quickly.

Countries that have tried this approach (most recently Venezuela) have not been able to grow the economy. The standard of living rapidly drops. As does personal freedom.

I agree that population increases are changing the world. China proved that the "one-child" approach had serious problems. But how many people can the world support? Some would argue that we're already past that tipping point. If you look at world population totals, it's kind of crazy. And I really don't know what can be done about it.

You and I would work forever if we could. We wouldn't know otherwise. But our grandchildren might be born into a society where everything is out of their control. Finding meaning in a controlled existence will be difficult. I think the answers might be found with our cats and dogs. Happy, only as long as those responsible for their care are genuinely benevolent. I do not trust dictators to be benevolent. History bears that out.

[ISiddiqui]

Soo... why did you pick Venezuela as opposed to say, Sweden? ;)

[Solecismic]

I listened to some of the Carson interview on CNN this morning. I realize some of this plays, but his faux anger at having news organizations vet him is pretty silly. He also claimed Obama got a free pass on his background, which doesn't seem to jibe with the great Birth Certificate Crisis. Don't know, but his 15 minutes may be coming to an end.

I remain troubled by the UCC and Reverend Wright. The UCC is heavily tied to the BDS movement and actually preaches it in their churches. Wright and Farrakhan are very close. Obama made this his church for almost 20 years. I have the same questions. Obama is Christian, but this branch of the UCC is something I would consider a disqualification for major office.

The MSM sided with Obama on the birth certificate issue. And the federal elections board approved Obama as a candidate. This may be an annoying issue, but there's nothing in it. Just like there's nothing in the 9/11 "truthers" out there who think our government blew up the WTC. This was never a threat to Obama's candidacy.

But, yes, Carson is blowing up his own campaign. I couldn't vote for him myself. This is fine for now, but if he goes head-to-head with anyone on these issues, he'll lose support quickly.

[digamma]

That's not the point.

Carson seems to have some expectation that he's above reproach and shouldn't be vetted or researched. "Aw shucks, people asked me to run for President, so I guess I better."

All candidates go through this and to suggest that Obama (or Bush or Gore or Clinton or anyone else) didn't, regardless of how you feel about the outcome of the vetting, is silly.

Again, I recognize much of this is to play to the anti-media wing of things, but this stuff goes with the territory. If Carson has as thin a skin as he seems to be showing, he's not long for the campaign.

[Solecismic]

Ya, I thought Christie was generally ahead of Paul at this point. And certainly, all these bottom candidates are within the margin of error of these polls from each other. But I guess you have to differentiate somehow.

It does look like there's a clear top 4 at this point, so maybe it'd be better to have just those 4 in the main debate and everyone else on the undercard. I don't know if the rules allow that kind of flexibility though.

History shows it's still very early in the race. This "undercard" concept was probably necessary, but it isn't terribly democratic.

Bill Clinton received 2.5% of the Iowa Caucus vote in 1992.

It's unfortunate that there are still 14 candidates in the race. But the MSM shouldn't pressure people to get out of the race. If we rely on the MSM to dictate who is and who isn't a candidate, we'll get what we deserve in the end.

[Solecismic]

That's not the point.

Carson seems to have some expectation that he's above reproach and shouldn't be vetted or researched. "Aw shucks, people asked me to run for President, so I guess I better."

All candidates go through this and to suggest that Obama (or Bush or Gore or Clinton or anyone else) didn't, regardless of how you feel about the outcome of the vetting, is silly.

Again, I recognize much of this is to play to the anti-media wing of things, but this stuff goes with the territory. If Carson has as thin a skin as he seems to be showing, he's not long for the campaign.

We can agree that Carson shouldn't think he's above reproach even if we disagree as to whether Obama was vetted or anointed.

[AENeuman]

It's unfortunate that there are still 14 candidates in the race. But the MSM shouldn't pressure people to get out of the race. If we rely on the MSM to dictate who is and who isn't a candidate, we'll get what we deserve in the end.

just curious, what is the opposite of MSM? Is it alertantive media, conservative media, non-profit media?

Part of me reads your quote as: liberal bias media shouldn't decide....
And another part of me reads it as: entertainment outlets shouldn't artificially create....

[JonInMiddleGA]

Ya, I thought Christie was generally ahead of Paul at this point.

Made me curious so I went to RCP and looked

Last five major polls, Paul - Christie
4-2
2-3
2-3
2-1
4-1

[ISiddiqui]

Indeed, because the "MSM" in this case is Fox Business...

[ISiddiqui]

That's not the point.

Indeed. You can't say that the media didn't give at least some air to the birther crap (too much, IMO), or especially the Reverend Wright ties. Obama had to give a speech to save his campaign when the media pounced on him for Wright.

[cuervo72]

Victimization is a very emotional word. If someone feels no shame in not working, I don't see how it's possible. If someone's standard of living is entirely dependent on the government, and entirely out of his control, he will have no incentive to work.

Is this what we're really talking about though? Are there millions of people just sitting around doing nothing, looking for the gov't to take care of everything?

7 Lies About Welfare That Many People Believe Are Fact | Groundswell (http://groundswell.org/7-lies-about-welfare-that-many-people-believe-are-fact/)

I've not fact checked all of this, but it sure doesn't sound like it:

Myth #2: Welfare Recipients Are Lazy

The idea that most people on welfare are able-bodied adults who are just too lazy to get a job and make an honest living is utterly false.

Most benefit programs require recipients to work in order to collect. Take Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), for example. Single parents receiving this grant must work at least 30 hours per week in order to be eligible, and two-parent families must work between 35 and 50 hours a week.

The fact is, blue-collar wages in America are simply not high enough to support workers in today’s economy. The wages paid by many large employers are so low that their full-time employees are eligible for welfare.

You heard that right: People are working full-time to support their families, paying their fair share of taxes, but are so underpaid that they can’t get by without relying on government assistance.

This is partly due to the disturbing fact that the federal minimum wage has not been increased in over five years (despite the incessantly rising cost of living in our country) and partly due to voracious corporate greed.

And furthermore, half of all food stamp recipients are children. More than 82% of all food stamp money goes to households that include children, elderly people, or people with disabilities.These are people who legally or physically cannot work and live at the mercy of the system.

So where are all of these able-bodied lazy adults who are luxuriating off of their benefits? They are a fabrication.

Most people on welfare are hardworking, taxpaying citizens, just like the rest of us. Or they are impoverished children, elders, or folks with disabilities.

But it’s a lot easier for welfare critics to take help away from people that they imagine are lazy and deceitful, so that false image lives on.

[digamma]

Made me curious so I went to RCP and looked

Last five major polls, Paul - Christie
4-2
2-3
2-3
2-1
4-1

Makes me think of an "Others receiving votes" section of a football poll.

[panerd]

Is this what we're really talking about though? Are there millions of people just sitting around doing nothing, looking for the gov't to take care of everything?

7 Lies About Welfare That Many People Believe Are Fact | Groundswell (http://groundswell.org/7-lies-about-welfare-that-many-people-believe-are-fact/)

I've not fact checked all of this, but it sure doesn't sound like it:

I'm sure it's not slanted at all with terms like "voracious corporate greed" in it.

[cuervo72]

Oh, I'm sure the source is slanted (as if the source of some of the links Jon has posted aren't). But that doesn't mean the argument is without merit. So all or even most people on assistance are sitting around doing nothing? And if people are working and are still dependent on the government, why are they working? Jim suggests they wouldn't be.

[cuervo72]

Get a Job? Most Welfare Recipients Already Have One - Real Time Economics - WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/04/13/get-a-job-most-welfare-recipients-already-have-one/)

This might be better. But it's "blog" so hey, maybe not, maybe it's also slanted.

[Solecismic]

Oh, I'm sure the source is slanted (as if the source of some of the links Jon has posted aren't). But that doesn't mean the argument is without merit. So all or even most people on assistance are sitting around doing nothing? And if people are working and are still dependent on the government, why are they working? Jim suggests they wouldn't be.

This is about a future where there's no incentive for work. Not today.

[panerd]

Oh, I'm sure the source is slanted (as if the source of some of the links Jon has posted aren't). But that doesn't mean the argument is without merit. So all or even most people on assistance are sitting around doing nothing? And if people are working and are still dependent on the government, why are they working? Jim suggests they wouldn't be.

Well his 82% figure seems to imply we can't blame the children or elderly for being lazy which I completely agree. But a woman with 5 children on government assistance who doesn't work would have that 83%/17% split and I feel like I can definitely blame her after kid #1.

[cuervo72]

But a woman with 5 children on government assistance who doesn't work

Yes yes, blame the woman.

(Also, wonder what ways we could reduce births per mother (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/05/07/family-size-among-mothers/). Maybe we can brainstorm this.)

[JonInMiddleGA]

(as if the source of some of the links Jon has posted aren't).

I'm kinda used to slings & arrows around this joint & I tend to let more of them slide than not but this one? I just can't.

I work my fucking ass off to spread the wealth on sources -- moreso on social media than here frankly, because we tend to be more detailed here than there, so fewer sources for a key point/stat -- and for the very purpose of avoiding

Feel free to dig through my posts for a week, a month, a year, or my entire fucking time here. Unless it's a specific report I'm citing (like a Rasmussen poll), you'll find my links & sourcing comes from a very wide range. I use BBC for international stuff, I'll go with Fox or CNN equally depending upon who is further in front on a story, I'll link local coverage instead of national on specific locales, I link the NYT probably about as frequently as anyone or any source (and you know damned well what I think about their agendas). And quite likely my most common cited source here is AP, since I read them in my aggregator site before I see virtually anything else and whatever biases they may have it's spread across the spectrum because pretty much every legitimate news source takes a great deal of their material right off the wire even to this day.

My spread of sources isn't done by accident, it's because I know how people think & behave, and if I link something then it's because I'm far more fucking interested in the information contained than I am in having some petty argument about FXNC.

You can hate my stinkin' guts, you can wish that I'd die in a fire while undergoing chemo for testicular cancer that was discovered while I was being treated after suffering a prison rape ... I'd probably let that slide. But I'll be damned & dipped in dogshit if I'll sit here in silence & be used as the placeholder for slanted sourcing when that is not my thing, it's never been my thing, and is pretty fucking unlikely at my advanced age to ever become my thing.

[cuervo72]

My apologies, and fwiw I hold no animosity towards you at all. Admittedly not all of your stances line up with mine but eh, it happens.

I do however consider you to be one of if not the most conservative posters here, and I probably make the mistake of using you as an easy personification of that. In this case I did that without really giving a thoughtful analysis. I assumed that the links to My Way were to a right-leaning outlet along the lines of WND or ONN without really examining the source (the 1998 aesthetics of the site reminded me of some of the more crackpot sources I've come across).

I will try to do better next time.

[JPhillips]

Indeed. You can't say that the media didn't give at least some air to the birther crap (too much, IMO)

Indeed. The proper response, if any was given at all, was, "His birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii and even if he wasn't, it wouldn't matter because his mother was a citizen."

[JonInMiddleGA]

My apologies, and fwiw I hold no animosity towards you at all. Admittedly not all of your stances line up with mine but eh, it happens.

I do however consider you to be one of if not the most conservative posters here, and I probably make the mistake of using you as an easy personification of that. In this case I did that without really giving a thoughtful analysis. I assumed that the links to My Way were to a right-leaning outlet along the lines of WND or ONN without really examining the source (the 1998 aesthetics of the site reminded me of some of the more crackpot sources I've come across).

I will try to do better next time.

Fair enough. Just stick to beating me for the stuff I do, not the stuff I ain't part of ;)



MyWay, oddly enough, announced today that they're shutting down the site in early December. I've used them as my homepage for more than a decade and I'm not looking forward to trying to replace them. It was simply organized headlines by category, virtually all from AP except for a couple of sections that faded out over the years.

Owned (apparently) by the same folks who also own Vimeo among a dozen or so sites, it's been completely ad-free since day one (I never did figure out how they kept the lights on honestly), the simplistic layout suited my tastes perfectly & I really never had a bit of complaint about them. Gonna miss 'em :/

[NobodyHere]

Carson's claim that the pyramids were used for food storage has been proven true:


https://www103.ssldomain.com/pwsausa/images/pryamid.jpg

[nol]

Carson's claim that the pyramids were used for food storage has been proven true:


https://www103.ssldomain.com/pwsausa/images/pryamid.jpg

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">[Ben Carson leans in, lowers his voice] And don't even get me STARTED on the Sphinx</p>&mdash; Brian Gaar (@briangaar) <a href="https://twitter.com/briangaar/status/662516476629258240">November 6, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Marc Vaughan]

Your argument is also predicated on the assumption that services can be provided for free after an initial investment. The schools can educate one extra kid at a zero marginal cost. Doctors can see one more patient at a zero marginal cost.

Your argument is that there is a 'cost' - ignoring that money is an artificial construct created by humans ... in reality there is no such thing.

Victimization is a very emotional word. If someone feels no shame in not working, I don't see how it's possible. If someone's standard of living is entirely dependent on the government, and entirely out of his control, he will have no incentive to work. It's hard to find value in life when no one but your immediate family and the government cares about you or depends upon you.
That is partially my point - at present people are raised to feel guilty if they don't work ... its part of the indoctrination of society that the only way to be a 'good citizen' is to get a job, keep your head down and work hard.

If society taught things differently then people wouldn't feel guilty about not working.

You can see this in much of society elsewhere, for instance Gay people are (thankfully) being more accepted today and because of this they're less prone to feeling guilt and hiding their sexuality ... thats because they're no longer being indoctrinated into thinking they're doing something wrong.

(and yes 'Victimization' is a strong word - but what else would you call it when someone is punished for something which might be beyond their control ... today in some areas there simply isn't work available .. in the future those areas will be far larger and more encompassing to most people, that I in my 'niche' might be able to work doesn't mean I don't want the best situation for society as a whole and not just myself in my ivory tower)

The schools would have to change. And they are changing. Instead of preparing kids for a work life, schools would prepare kids for a different type of life. Much less individual education. Much more pablum.
I agree - people need to be directed far more towards self growth and also artistic and personal endeavors, things which profit in a way other than financial (which will hopefully be obsolete one day).

The government would have far greater control since it would dictate standard of living. These things start out benevolently enough, but it's always essentially one person's view of standard of living. Soon enough in this Marxist vision, we'd become pets rather than individuals. This would become less benevolent very quickly.

You and I would work forever if we could. We wouldn't know otherwise. But our grandchildren might be born into a society where everything is out of their control. Finding meaning in a controlled existence will be difficult.

I think you could probably have just left it with saying 'finding meaning is difficult' .. as you age and grow as a person most people have challenges with meaning and happiness, regardless of their career success or position in life imho ... its not so much whether its a controlled existence, its more confronting your own mortality and limitations in a way that you don't when you're younger.

(and everyone has a 'controlled' existence - we exist in a world of laws and are controlled presently by financial restrictions and other societal structures ... many of these exist and are obeyed subconsciously without individuals realizing .. some people have strong enough personalities and opinions to buck against these ... but most don't even realize they live within these limitations)