GOP Debate

[USAFChief]

. Republicans are not in denial its just that when most candidates are 55 plus we aren't going to find a viable candidate with an opposing view in 2016 much like Democrats couldn't in 2008, and depending how you define Hillary's change in public statements I'm not so sure the Democrats are ready to find one in 2016. The good news despite never electing a president who supported it it is already legal and that will never change it. You can bash all you want but evn tea party Republicans agree with you. I continue to dare Democrats to nominate someone who have consistently been on our side.

 

 

If forced to chose between someone who has changed their opinion for the better, and someone who has not changed their opinion for the better, I prefer the former.

[mikecgrimes]

It's a balancing act. For the most part I want republican candidates who understand which issues will impact us and which won't. A strong vocal stance on either side of the marriage issue is bad for Republicans. There will be a time soon when it will be OK to vocally support it but by that time it will clearly be over as a relevant issue anyways. The bigger problem I see is the inability of candidates to sell good economic ideas. It's hard to teach an economics course in short spurts but there is an easy way to prove the other side panders first and worries about results as an afterthought.

[USAFChief]

It's a balancing act. For the most part I want republican candidates who understand which issues will impact us and which won't. A strong vocal stance on either side of the marriage issue is bad for Republicans. There will be a time soon when it will be OK to vocally support it but by that time it will clearly be over as a relevant issue anyways. The bigger problem I see is the inability of candidates to sell good economic ideas. It's hard to teach an economics course in short spurts but there is an easy way to prove the other side panders first and worries about results as an afterthought.

It seems rather ironic to me to argue that Republican candidates should avoid saying the right thing about marriage equality, in an effort to get elected, while in the same post claim "the other side" panders to its base to get elected.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Personally, I'd be happy with a candidate from either party that actually shows that they understand the problems facing the US.  I see no evidence that Republicans or Democrats recognize and want to deal with most of the real problems we face, just a few canned solutions meant to pacify the masses that don't actually solve anything.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

This is also what I have seen.  Someone in the party with moderate views gets blasted by the conservative base.  It has nothing to do with not finding someone because they are 55+ but more to do with the conservative base blasting them if they state their moderate views.

Look at what the party did to Huntsman, the only guy in the 2012 primaries who I would have even considered giving a vote.

 

Extremely intelligent, the one guy on the stage with foreign relation experience (China, to boot!), former governor, pro-science, mostly moderate... and basically run out on rails. The GOP didn't even invite the guy to the RNC, for crying out loud.

 

Ridiculous.

 

The GOP needs an enema. A two party system only works if both parties are legitimate options run on legitimate platforms.

[Willihammer]

Welp you can stick a fork in Ben Carson's candidacy

 

https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2015/08/12/ben-carson-did-research-on-17-week-fetal-tissue/

[Zachary]

Yeah guys, let's not forget these are politicians. Mr. Conservative himself will stand up there and preach about tolerance and equality and "respecting the Supreme Court's decision," since he (or she) knows that is what they must do.  

 

 

[mikecgrimes]

It seems rather ironic to me to argue that Republican candidates should avoid saying the right thing about marriage equality, in an effort to get elected, while in the same post claim "the other side" panders to its base to get elected.

huge difference between pandering when discussing issues, and pandering by voting for policy you know doesn't work.

[mikecgrimes]

Look at what the party did to Huntsman, the only guy in the 2012 primaries who I would have even considered giving a vote.

 

Extremely intelligent, the one guy on the stage with foreign relation experience (China, to boot!), former governor, pro-science, mostly moderate... and basically run out on rails. The GOP didn't even invite the guy to the RNC, for crying out loud.

 

Ridiculous.

 

The GOP needs an enema. A two party system only works if both parties are legitimate options run on legitimate platforms.

part of running for president is marketing yourself to the target audience. Being a former governor on its own isn't enough to be considered a top contender. Raise some money create your own media and the polls will prove you exist. It doesn't matter if you're Jon huntsman Tim pawlenty or Martin o malley if your not prepared to win an election you will be ignored.

[kab21]

 

huge difference between pandering when discussing issues, and pandering by voting for policy you know doesn't work.

Therein lies the problem.  They spend so much time focused on social issues that policy is a distant second on the agenda and the conservative base won't listen to anyone regardless of their economic/foreign policy if they aren't very conservative on social issues.  The GOP is fighting their political battles (and losing) on the social issues and are not focusing on real issues.

[mikecgrimes]

So raising minimum wage at a rate that lags behind inflation is what? Even this $15 stuff is delayed so far out and has so many exceptions that it doesn't keep up with the historic inflation adjusted high. That more then social issues seems to be the line of attack this cycle. Most economic theory suggests its a bad idea but if Democrats want to disagree they should be bold and go close to $20 an hour. I think sometimes we confuse the lack of support of bad ideas as a lack of carrying about the issue. If it was so easy to come up with better ideas it wouldn't be just the Republicans we would be demanding do better. Status que tends to be the best option more often then not.

[kab21]

I'm not sure if you aren't understanding this or not but I am not debating specific economic/foreign policies.  I want the GOP to spend 80% of the time debating/discussing specific economic/foreign policies and <20% (or really none) on increasingly unpopular social issues.  The reality is that we hear a lot about 80% on social issues and the remaining time is spent blasting the abuse of food stamps, welfare and how horrible the economy is.  I hear very little true substance about how to fix the economy (sometimes this) or bring people out of poverty (never this unless it's the blanket trickle down economics theory).

 

FWIW - I am against a high minimum wage.  It is counterproductive since unemployment goes up.  I am for better job training so that workers actually have skills to move up from minimum wage positions.  It sounds like the Democrats in general support free (or really low cost) vocational/community colleges and an attempt to make state schools (4 yr) affordable again.  Not sure on the specifics so I am not certain that I really agree with it but it is a start.  I have heard zilch from the GOP on this topic.

[TheLeviathan]

I like making community and vocational schools super cheap, but the tuition reduction plans are pure pandering. Tuition hikes the last few decades are entirely related to the endless trough of student loans.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

part of running for president is marketing yourself to the target audience. Being a former governor on its own isn't enough to be considered a top contender. Raise some money create your own media and the polls will prove you exist. It doesn't matter if you're Jon huntsman Tim pawlenty or Martin o malley if your not prepared to win an election you will be ignored.

If candidates have to make themselves popular with the GOP base by hammering away at increasingly-unpopular social issues and tilting at windmills, the GOP is going to lose presidential elections for a long time.

 

Rick Santorum was more popular than Jon Huntsman in 2012. That is literally all you need to know about the current GOP to understand the huge problem that has been brewing in the party for the past two decades.

 

The GOP "base" has radicalized to the point they're no longer a viable choice for much of America.

 

Again, 20 years ago I voted pure red. 11 years ago, I turned purple. Seven years ago, I turned blue. It wasn't me that changed. It was the Republican Party and its increasingly radical agenda that continually pushed me away from their candidates.

 

Hell, I don't even like the Democrats but I'll gladly put a vote out there to stop the GOP from achieving their goals because I so vehemently disagree with their agenda.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

FWIW - I am against a high minimum wage.  It is counterproductive since unemployment goes up.  I am for better job training so that workers actually have skills to move up from minimum wage positions.  It sounds like the Democrats in general support free (or really low cost) vocational/community colleges and an attempt to make state schools (4 yr) affordable again.  Not sure on the specifics so I am not certain that I really agree with it but it is a start.  I have heard zilch from the GOP on this topic.

Boy, I disagree on this and again, it's a pragmatic standpoint.

 

As much as anyone else, I go to a fast food restaurant and think "good lord, these people are working beyond their meager pay grade". I mean, it's kinda embarrassing how little some people are worth in the marketplace. I can't say I'm up in arms about unskilled people being "underpaid" to do menial work.

 

But...

 

Corporations like Wal-Mart have taken advantage of America's 40 year attempt to chisel away at the minimum wage and decided to self-subsidize themselves. Wal-Mart makes money. They're a profitable corporation, yet they think it's okay to pay their employees so little they still qualify for government assistance. At some locations, they've even had the gall to hand out instructions to new employees, explaining how to apply for assistance.

 

That's wrong. If someone can work full-time (or something close to it) and qualify for taxpayer assistance, the minimum wage is too low.

 

We should not assist corporations in paying their employees so little the taxpayers have to pick up the slack. Self-subsidy needs to stop and it needs to stop now.

 

True fiscal responsibility means raising the minimum wage and forcing businesses/corporations to pass off that increased expense as a use tax to its customers, not the taxpayer base at large while the business keeps the increased profits. In the current system, we (the taxpayers) are getting screwed both coming and going.

 

Bump the minimum wage to $12/hour (where it was in the 50s/60s) and fix it to inflation. That will fix this problem permanently. If states want to raise it past that point, more power to them.

 

Bonus Points for implementing this plan: with an increased use tax on things Americans have become used to buying cheaply - food, simple services, etc - Americans will no longer be able to "improve" their lives by stepping on the backs of those below them, which might actually shake up this country. The middle class has been moving backward for 40 years now and we've hidden it from ourselves by creating a new underclass of people to keep the prices of services low in this country. Remove that underclass, raise prices, and we'll be forced to realize we're not as wealthy as our parents were and that we've been getting screwed by the super-rich for a very long time.

[Willihammer]

You're really chasing your tail with the minimum wage. The notion that corporations will keep the same number of employees, pay them all a higher wage, and not raise prices (thereby reducing the real wages) is the sort of naive liberal idea that has me wishing the GOP were a viable alternative. Corporations are never going to just shift profits to workers while owners and shareholders just eat the costs. And this is coming from someone who works a min. wage (2nd) job btw.

[kab21]

 

You're really chasing your tail with the minimum wage. The notion that corporations will keep the same number of employees, pay them all a higher wage, and not raise prices (thereby reducing the real wages) is the sort of naive liberal idea that has me wishing the GOP were a viable alternative. Corporations are never going to just shift profits to workers while owners and shareholders just eat the costs. And this is coming from someone who works a min. wage (2nd) job btw.

It is basically a no win.  There should be a minimum wage but I disagree that it should be high enough to provide everything you need to live.  If someone can make 15+/hr doing a menial job then why should they work hard, get training and/or risk themselves for a better job that pays about the same. 

 

For example teachers, police officers and firefighters start at about 30K/yr (about 15/hr for 40 hours).  You can't raise then the minimum until you have raised the rest.  You have created a disincentive to work hard or get trained. 

 

In addition to that companies would find way to reduce the number of workers if they have to pay them more and now you have people that can't even find a min wage job.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

You're really chasing your tail with the minimum wage. The notion that corporations will keep the same number of employees, pay them all a higher wage, and not raise prices (thereby reducing the real wages) is the sort of naive liberal idea that has me wishing the GOP were a viable alternative. Corporations are never going to just shift profits to workers while owners and shareholders just eat the costs. And this is coming from someone who works a min. wage (2nd) job btw.

Except that it has worked pretty well in places like Australia, a country with a high minimum wage ($16.88/hr), included benefits, and retains a relatively low unemployment rate (6.3%). That unemployment rate is just 0.8% higher than the US, which has some horrendous unemployment rate accounting practices. The real unemployment rates are probably similar.

 

People still need things and need services and businesses will have to provide those services if they want to keep the doors open.

 

The "raised prices" argument is a red herring. Yes, companies will raise prices. That's the point. But those prices will be distributed as a use tax to that company's customer base, not the entire taxpayer base through self-subsidies.

 

I can't wrap my head around the argument "yes, it's okay for Wal-Mart to pay its employees so little they qualify for taxpayer assistance".

 

Show of hands, please. Who here enjoys helping corporations they don't support by aiding their employees with taxpayer dollars?

[Willihammer]

The intention is to shift profits from owners to workers, right? Because inequality? That is not how min. wage hikes play out. The costs are borne by the middle class (through the "tax" of higher prices) or the lower classes whose jobs will get cut. Or  in my case, I work in the restaurant industry and our tips are pooled, those tips have simply been shifted around to keep costs the same. (Actually since I hustle for tips more than my co-workers, my earnings have actually gone down since the min. wage hike. The owners of my company are simply slicing off a larger share of my tips to pay other workers).

 

It will not be a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor (which is a dumb goal to begin with). It will just be shifting around costs between the 99%.

[Brock Beauchamp]

It infuriates me that Americans continue to look at the "class" below them and complain about any potential gains that "class" might receive, yet never seem to look up and see this happening...

 

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/cbpp%20income%20inequality%202011.png

 

Stop punching down, people. It's what the power brokers of America want you to do so you remain distracted from the real issues. If the lower income brackets make a few gains here and there, that's a good thing. We should all be making gains because we've all been drifting backward for 40+ years.

[kab21]

You won't have any police officers, firefighters or teachers if you start them at the same wage as minimum wage.  Your price hikes go well beyond consumer goods. 

 

It is better to create a more skilled worker class that can provide more value than a completely unskilled worker that still gets a high minimum wage.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

You won't have any police officers, firefighters or teachers if you start them at the same wage as minimum wage.  Your price hikes go well beyond consumer goods. 

 

It is better to create a more skilled worker class that can provide more value than a completely unskilled worker that still gets a high minimum wage.

One approach does not invalidate the other. Both can (and should) be applied to the problem.

 

Today's minimum wage is roughly 30% lower than it was 50 years ago. How is that okay with so many of you? What do you think happens to all those people working with 30% fewer real dollars? It's not like they magically live on less money. No, they turn to the government for increased assistance.

 

This isn't some radicalized idea... Most of the rest of the civilized world picked up on this idea years ago.

[Willihammer]

 

It infuriates me that Americans continue to look at the "class" below them and complain about any potential gains that "class" might receive, yet never seem to look up and see this happening...

 

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/cbpp%20income%20inequality%202011.png

 

Stop punching down, people. It's what the power brokers of America want you to do so you remain distracted from the real issues. If the lower income brackets make a few gains here and there, that's a good thing. We should all be making gains because we've all been drifting backward for 40+ years.

 

I see 4 groups of winners. That the top 1% gained more than the rest, what is so damned abonimable about that?

[kab21]

Another way to look at it is if there are so many people willing to work at these low wages then the problem isn't that the wage is too low but there are far too many people that need jobs.  If you have fewer people that accept a min wage job then companies need to raise the pay for these jobs just to find workers.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I see 4 groups of winners. That the top 1% gained more than the rest, what is so damned abonimable about that?

*blank stare*

 

Two groups - which contain 79% of the population - barely moved the needle and actually drifted backward for long periods of time.

 

Meanwhile, 20% of the population - particularly just 1% - are seeing monstrous gains by the year.

 

You know history has told us time and time again that kind of disparity leads to an unfortunate conclusion, right? If America wants to keep being America, this gap is going to have to close or things are going to turn very ugly. Nobody wins if that happens. We all lose.

[Willihammer]

Brock, come on. We're not a colony or a feudal country. There is upward mobility in a free economy. Ironically, so much of the left's agenda, including raising the min. wage, would chip away at the freedom of the economy.

 

I don't think that's really the bottom of it though. I suspect, and I could be wrong, there is some guilt or self-loathing at the bottom of it. I'm in the bottom part of that graph and I certainly don't feel wronged or sorry for myself. I think plenty of other people would agree. But the people who seem to be staunchest proponents of liberal econonomic policies seem to be pretty well off.

 

I'll continue listening about why inequality is so terrible. I will try to listen with an open mind.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Brock, come on. We're not a colony or a feudal country. There is upward mobility in a free economy. Ironically, so much of the left's agenda, including raising the min. wage, would chip away at the freedom of the economy.

Today's America doesn't offer the upward mobility it offered 50 years ago.

 

Yet 50 years ago, income inequality wasn't as severe, taxes on upper income brackets were higher, and the minimum wage was 30% higher.

 

Was that America of 50 years ago economically inferior, less free? I don't see how your argument stands in the face of our own recent history.

 

The middle class became stagnant the moment we started cutting taxes on the rich under Reagan. The rich profited massively from this economic shift and the gap continues to widen. Income mobility continues to decline. The writing on the wall is pretty clear to me.

 

As for the "colony or a feudal country" bit, I'm not talking about open revolution or rioting on the streets (though obviously, that's the worst case scenario). If the majority starts to feel the pressure, the majority may (will) react viciously and overcompensate. That means the election of more radical governments, who enact bad and long-lasting policy. Hence, we all lose. The more a government polarizes for or against a group of its citizens, the worse we end up. It seems a pretty reasonable compromise to avoid that kind of nonsense by pursuing a target in the middle... Which America stopped trying to do 35 years ago. It's time for the pendulum to swing back toward the middle of the country.

 

Corporations and the rich have been on a non-stop winning streak since Ronald Reagan was elected President. It's time to end that winning streak and return to something resembling normalcy.

[Willihammer]

 

The middle class became stagnant the moment we started cutting taxes on the rich under Reagan. The rich profited massively from this economic shift and the gap continues to widen. Income mobility continues to decline. The writing on the wall is pretty clear to me.

Are we looking at the same graph? Again I see 4 groups of winners, including the middle and bottom ones. You might even say that it supports the trickle down thinking that was the basis for those tax cuts.

 

I continue to be mystified as to why the left is so damn obsessed with how much other people make. After those tax cuts for the rich, the standard of living has only gone up. Wages have gone up, prices have gone down. This still is one of the best places in the world for a plebian to live. Maybe THE best.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Are we looking at the same graph? Again I see 4 groups of winners, including the middle and bottom ones. You might even say that it supports the trickle down thinking that was the basis for those tax cuts.

 

I continue to be mystified as to why the left is so damn obsessed with how much other people make. After those tax cuts for the rich, the standard of living has only gone up. Wages have gone up, prices have gone down. This still is one of the best places in the world for a plebian to live. Maybe THE best.

During that time, the one income household basically went the way of the dodo. It's hard to call it a "win" in the face of that happening. Two incomes are now the standard, yet we see a minimal increase in household income for the majority of people.

[TheLeviathan]

I have no problem with some rebalancing, the problem is that neither side is supporting a reasonable solution.