THE CANCER KILLING PDCOM - Blow-by-Blow Coverage of Democratic Primary Race

[LMNO]

Sweet merciful fuck, why would you want to see the entire debate?  Those things are entirely devoid of content, and boring as fuck, to boot.

[Cain]

Because you can quote it at people who weren't watching it, to feel superior, or while trolling their Youtube account, to wind up their supporters.

[AFK]

I've taken in a couple of the debates.  The one they did in NH with both parties, and part of the NH debate after Hillary and Obama supposedly buried the hatchet (apparently in each other's backs).

I suppose you can learn a little bit about personalities, especially when they are asked a question they clearly don't want to answer.  But you get little to nothing out of them on actual policies they would enact as President.  They deal strictly in generalities when they aren't taking swipes at each other.  And I suppose some of the voters need that and may not be able to contemplate fine details, but damnit, don't tell me you're going to turn the Economy around, tell me HOW you are going to do it. 

[Darth Cupcake]

Because you can quote it at people who weren't watching it, to feel superior, or while trolling their Youtube account, to wind up their supporters.

I always true to use the "quote to feel superior" bit to motivate myself to watch the debates, but I just can't do it.

[LMNO]

damnit, don't tell me you're going to turn the Economy around, tell me HOW you are going to do it. 

ALL THE CANDITATES AGREE: DEFICIT SPENDING.

[Cain]

Even Huckabee and Paul?

To be honest, if the economic situation worsens, those two are going to reap the benefits of it, as far as I can see.

I already know who is going to reap the benefits over here, and being an immigrant and all, I'm looking at ticket prices.

[Darth Cupcake]

The bus to work was ABSURDLY full this morning (we actually passed several stops because there was just no more room for people, etc) and when we were stopped at a light and everyone was just standing around silently accepting their fate of spooning with strangers, some obnoxious guy began preaching to all of us about how we need to write letters to the MBTA to force them to run more 47s at rush hour, etc, how it's unsafe to have so many people in a bus, etc, etc, etc.

It was very hard to not yell at him, "Holy fuck, buddy! This is fucking public transit! What the shit did you expect? You want comfort and safety features? Buy a car!" But that aside, what I REALLY wanted to scream was "And where the hell do you think this money is going to come from?! The MBTA is already in massive debt, and adding more service, while appealing, is only going to make it worse. And he is probably another one of those people that complained when the fares went up--but money doesn't just appear out of thin air. It doesn't just materialize because we want it.

This is not a huge contribution to this thread. Just sort of a microcosm of the current state of my country, so far as I can tell--people want more, better, etc, but are unwilling to think about the implications of it.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if people vote for deficit spenders because they want the money and the services and they want them NOW--long term impact and repercussions, the actual significance of those sorts of fiscal decisions, are completely not in their thought process.

[LMNO]

Even Huckabee and Paul?

To be honest, if the economic situation worsens, those two are going to reap the benefits of it, as far as I can see.

I already know who is going to reap the benefits over here, and being an immigrant and all, I'm looking at ticket prices.

Huckabee: Cut taxes, increase spending by 6% of GDP (~$200 billion).

Ron Paul: Eliminate the Federal Reserve and the IRS. (Assume he actually does this.  The cost of the gvt will remain largely the same, but the amount of money it gets will be dramatically reduced.)


Looking at the big picture, both solutions are ultimately deficit spending.


As far as I can tell, no one running for president has a solution that balances the money coming in from taxes and the money going out as spending.

[Cain]

True, but the above two may be sufficiently removed from the stigma of Neoliberal economic policies for it to aid them.

[LMNO]

This isn't meant to sound argumentative, but... who is "them" that is getting aided?

[Cain]

The aforementioned candidates.

Not the voters or anything.  Much has been made of the fact that their economic policies are quite distinct when compared to pretty much everyone else in the race.  They're not, not really (look at political compass for some serious pwnage) but they have a few eye-catching policies that will mark them out.  And given how well the current system has worked, that may be all they need.

[AFK]

I don't put too much stock into anything being offered up by the also-rans, except maybe Huckabee because I could see him being picked up as a VP candidate.  Paul's done, he's just staying in to keep his profile up, just as Kucinich is doing on the Dem side of things.  

The problem with economic reform is that I feel it misses a big chunk of the equation.  The responsbilility of consumers.  It was people signing for mortgages they couldn't afford that started this whole mess.  And the predatory lending schemes just piled on.  So then people can't afford to pay their monthly mortgage payments, let alone go into Best Buy and buy a shiny flat-screen.  

And giving tax-rebates, like Bush wants to do, is going to be a short-term, window dressing band-aid.  There needs to be policies in place that address imparting the ideas of responsible financial decision making on the part of the consumers.  The 2000's in a lot of ways are similar to the 80's as far as being a me-decade.  People need to learn to dial their lifestyles back when they get them to a point where they can't afford them.  

To me, giving those kind of people tax-rebates is like trying to combat a drug-addiction by throwing them a hit of heroin.  

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Even Huckabee and Paul?

To be honest, if the economic situation worsens, those two are going to reap the benefits of it, as far as I can see.

I already know who is going to reap the benefits over here, and being an immigrant and all, I'm looking at ticket prices.

Huckabee: Cut taxes, increase spending by 6% of GDP (~$200 billion).

Ron Paul: Eliminate the Federal Reserve and the IRS. (Assume he actually does this.  The cost of the gvt will remain largely the same, but the amount of money it gets will be dramatically reduced.)


Looking at the big picture, both solutions are ultimately deficit spending.


As far as I can tell, no one running for president has a solution that balances the money coming in from taxes and the money going out as spending.

Well as far as I can tell, RP seems to think that the Fed Reserve and IRS need to go away, but only after a series of program cuts. In one interview, he basically said that people expect the government to do lots of things it shouldn't and they would have to be educated and weaned off the various programs. So, I do think Paul's move would reduce the cost of government:

No IRS, No Fed Reserve, No FDA, No FCC, No FTC, No ATF, No War On Some Drugs, No Federal Housing, Dept of Edu  etc etc etc

Further, if the ink pen given to me by the Illegal Immigrant/Pizza Delivery Guy is correct, we're spending a very large chart symbol on the military compared to everything else. So his isolation/defense only policy would probably drastically reduce the costs there.

Now, of course, its up for debate as to how well such a society would function... given the nature of human beings, but the government spending, I think, would be under control.

[Cain]

Actually, Ron Paul's foreign policy would increase spending.

He wants to withdraw from various nuclear control treaties, which will provoke Russia especially.  He wants to withdraw from NATO and the UN, which will to start with create a decrease in military spending, but as the rest of NATO fell apart or into the Russian sphere of control, would necessitate more spending to make up for the lost resources of European militiaries.

He would also outsource the majority of the war on terror, using Letters of Marque to enable private armies to be raised.

[LMNO]

Ok Cain, I get what you're saying.  Beneficial to the candidates, not the voters.

I suppose the trick is to repackage the same old bullshit in a new candy coating.



RWHN, the problem seems to be that the best thing for the citizen would be saving and paying off debt, while the best thing for the national economy would be increased spending and debt.


[edit: damn, this thread got popular fast]