2016 Presidential Horse Race

[wizards8507]

Am I supposed to guess what you are talking about?

Just because something is a good idea doesn't mean the federal government has the power to do it.

 

[GoIrish41]

Just because something is a good idea doesn't mean the federal government has the power to do it.

The government DID do it -- 50 years ago. If there is outrage, why have these laws not been struck down? Just because you don't want something to be so, does not mean the government does not have the "power" to make laws that help the citizens of the country. Are you suggesting that ANY of the laws I named is unConstitutional? Because that is just nonsensical.

 

[Wild Bill]

I'm not a big fan of pretending a modern nation can function as if it were the 18th century.

There's a reason guys like Thomas Jefferson proposed rewritin the Constitution every two or so decades.

The principles within the constitution built the greatest nation this world has ever seen. In my estimation, the further we stray away from it's principles the less functional we become as a nation.

And it can be modified by amendment. Thankfully it can't be rewritten on a whim by the lunatics who run DC.

 

[ACamp1900]

And it can be modified by amendment. Thankfully it can't be rewritten on a whim by the lunatics who run DC.

I'm here, I not sure who I'm more afraid of, the sleaze in DC that would do the re writing according to the highest bidder... or the common citizen who actually believes they'd re write it with the nation's best interest at heart.

 

[Black Irish]

Are you looking at a different graph?

The bottom 20% saw a total growth of 16% in something 28 years, and the middle fifth saw a growth of 25% in 28 years. That isn't getting richer, it is getting poorer. I won't speak for him but your last statement is just crazy as well. First off it ignores the facts, the poor's wages were not growing at 2%. Not even close. Again 16% in 28 years is no where close to 2%. You are smarter than that Wizard. If the rich's wages were growing at 10% and the wages for poor and middle income earners were increasing at an average rate of 3-5%, you wouldn't see the people complaining about it. Even the middle fifth of earners was growing at below 1% a year.

ETA: Hell most people would take a 2% growth rate in wages for the bottom 50%.

But according to the graph, EVERYONE saw growth, right? Granted, the rich grew a lot more than the poor, but isn't that to be expected? Like the saying goes, "the first million is the hardest to make." I'd say it's cause for panic if wages for the poor were going down while rich people's income was increasing, but that's not the case. I mean, it's like me complaining that you are having a threesome with two Victoria's Secret models while I am having a threesome with 2 cute girls from the local sorority. Hey, we're all having threesomes! That may not be the best analogy, but I've been drinking. Still, things are not getting objectively worse for the poor, it's just that the aspirational goal posts keep getting moved. Unless you are sleeping in a box and eating out of trash cans, you are probably not impoverished and we don't need to skewer the rich over it.

 

[ACamp1900]

But according to the graph, EVERYONE saw growth, right? Granted, the rich grew a lot more than the poor, but isn't that to be expected? Like the saying goes, "the first million is the hardest to make." I'd say it's cause for panic if wages for the poor were going down while rich people's income was increasing, but that's not the case. I mean, it's like me complaining that you are having a threesome with two Victoria's Secret models while I am having a threesome with 2 cute girls from the local sorority. Hey, we're all having threesomes! That may not be the best analogy, but I've been drinking. Still, things are not getting objectively worse for the poor, it's just that the aspirational goal posts keep getting moved. Unless you are sleeping in a box and eating out of trash cans, you are probably not impoverished and we don't need to skewer the rich over it.

haven't we all??

 

[pkt77242]

But according to the graph, EVERYONE saw growth, right? Granted, the rich grew a lot more than the poor, but isn't that to be expected? Like the saying goes, "the first million is the hardest to make." I'd say it's cause for panic if wages for the poor were going down while rich people's income was increasing, but that's not the case. I mean, it's like me complaining that you are having a threesome with two Victoria's Secret models while I am having a threesome with 2 cute girls from the local sorority. Hey, we're all having threesomes! That may not be the best analogy, but I've been drinking. Still, things are not getting objectively worse for the poor, it's just that the aspirational goal posts keep getting moved. Unless you are sleeping in a box and eating out of trash cans, you are probably not impoverished and we don't need to skewer the rich over it.

Not really though. Is that graph before inflation is added in? Because if so the poor and middle class were actually losing money as their income grew at a significantly lower rate then inflation which is a huge problem.

ETA: IMO, I find that my best thinking happens 2-3 beers in.

 

[GoIrish41]

[

ETA: IMO, I find that my best thinking happens 2-3 beers in.

I am going to be a genius by 11 p.m.

 

[pkt77242]

SIAP

Right around the 4 minute mark is when it turns to pure comedy gold.

 

[phgreek]

SIAP

Right around the 4 minute mark is when it turns to pure comedy gold.

I used to accuse the press of being auto-orgasmic about attacking Sarah Palin...kinda refreshing to see Stewart lampooning the mentality a little...

I wish the donald would remain a sideline grenade launcher...

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

The principles within the constitution built the greatest nation this world has ever seen. In my estimation, the further we stray away from it's principles the less functional we become as a nation.

And it can be modified by amendment. Thankfully it can't be rewritten on a whim by the lunatics who run DC.

Yup

 

[Buster Bluth]

The principles within the constitution built the greatest nation this world has ever seen.

It's a little more complicated than that. The Constitution didn't have jack to do with plenty of factors that put the US on its course. Plenty of it was luck, like the factors that got us insanely good terms at the end of the Revolutionary War or the Louisiana Purchase (European wars outside our control). Plenty of it was geography, like having two oceans blocking us from European/Asian involvement and having extreme amounts of natural resources to ourselves.

In my estimation, the further we stray away from it's principles the less functional we become as a nation.

Are you saying that each of the amendments has made us worse off?

The world in which the Constitution was written is largely incomparable to our own. How are we supposed to take our lead from guys who didn't have any comprehension of an Industrial Revolution? The document was written by guys who thought the vast majority of us would be farmers, because ~75% of them were. It's not like that now, we can't just get fed up with our neighbors and move west a hundred miles, kill some Indians and start farming. Basically, we live in a modern economy with an urbanized and mobile society and a basis for government built for managing this level of density and development is going to inherently have its flaws. Our government has of course changed with those variables.

Take healthcare for example, the "against the constitution!" argument is so silly to me considering our first President died because they didn't know what germs were and were still blood-letting people. The medical advice taken was to drain 40% of his blood. ...why am I supposed to listen to peoples thoughts on a government's ability to provide universal health care when that's the sort of knowledge those people were working with? Again, our modern world is largely incomparable.

I think it'll save me some trouble if I state boldly here that most of the Constitution is spectacular and I'm a huge fan of Madison altogether. The document undoubtedly contributed to the progress of civilization (though not as much as I think Americans want to believe), particularly with creating a secular government and its various protections from government. The general form laid out in it has become the dominant form of government around the world. At the same time, I just think it's kinda dumb to look at an idea and say "Well, it's against the Constitution..." when even guys of tremendous influence back then didn't think it should govern future generations because they realized circumstances change.

Even on the protections from government front, housing soldiers in your home? Even stuff like that is rather hilariously outdated.

And it can be modified by amendment.

As it should be, because we can't pretend it's 1800 and expect to get progress as a country.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Expanding federal power through the commerce clause is a bit different than re-writing the constitution. I would agree with you, the founding fathers would be pissed. I think a small part of them would be impressed with how creative the feds have been with it. haha.

The Founders weren't a monolithic entity. They had opinions all over the map. Plenty of them didn't think we should have a national bank or even a national military.

You know what else would piss them off? Interracial marriage. The reality that we have a black President and women's suffrage would probably give a few of them heart attacks.

It's really just impossible to compare much of the modern world to the Founders. Imagine explaining Net Neutrality to Ben Frankln. He'd be overjoyed at all the available cougar porn, but his thoughts on government intervention to regulate such a thing cannot be assumed.

 

[Sureal]

A lot of these responses from folks are just disappointing and alarming. I happen to be a black American who leans towards liberty yet some of these guys on the conservative side are just ridiculous. Seriously considering not to vote. I am utterly sick and tired of everything that is going on in this country right now.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Operation Replace Jeb Bush: John Kasich is on a last-ditch mission to prove he can be the Republican establishment’s dream candidate in 2016.

Kasich’s temper has made it harder to endear himself to the GOP’s wealthy benefactors. Last year, he traveled to Southern California to appear on a panel at a conference sponsored by the Republican mega-donors Charles and David Koch. At one point, according to accounts provided by two sources present, Randy Kendrick, a major contributor and the wife of Ken Kendrick, the owner of the Arizona Diamondbacks, rose to say she disagreed with Kasich’s decision to expand Medicaid coverage, and questioned why he’d expressed the view it was what God wanted.

The governor’s response was fiery. “I don’t know about you, lady,” he said as he pointed at Kendrick, his voice rising. “But when I get to the pearly gates, I’m going to have an answer for what I’ve done for the poor.”

The exchange left many stunned. About 20 audience members walked out of the room, and two governors also on the panel, Nikki Haley of South Carolina and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, told Kasich they disagreed with him. The Ohio governor has not been invited back to a Koch seminar — opportunities for presidential aspirants to mingle with the party’s rich and powerful — in the months since.

 

[GATTACA!]

Kasich’s temper has made it harder to endear himself to the GOP’s wealthy benefactors. Last year, he traveled to Southern California to appear on a panel at a conference sponsored by the Republican mega-donors Charles and David Koch. At one point, according to accounts provided by two sources present, Randy Kendrick, a major contributor and the wife of Ken Kendrick, the owner of the Arizona Diamondbacks, rose to say she disagreed with Kasich’s decision to expand Medicaid coverage, and questioned why he’d expressed the view it was what God wanted.

The governor’s response was fiery. “I don’t know about you, lady,” he said as he pointed at Kendrick, his voice rising. “But when I get to the pearly gates, I’m going to have an answer for what I’ve done for the poor.”

The exchange left many stunned. About 20 audience members walked out of the room, and two governors also on the panel, Nikki Haley of South Carolina and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, told Kasich they disagreed with him. The Ohio governor has not been invited back to a Koch seminar — opportunities for presidential aspirants to mingle with the party’s rich and powerful — in the months since.

I would be ecstatic with any of these three.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Isn't Jindal running Louisiana right into the ground?

 

[GATTACA!]

Isn't Jindal running Louisiana right into the ground?

Idk but he won his last re election by almost 50 points, is relatively young, and has the bonus of not being a middle age white guy.

 

[pkt77242]

Isn't Jindal running Louisiana right into the ground?

Yes.

 

[EddytoNow]

Idk but he won his last re election by almost 50 points, is relatively young, and has the bonus of not being a middle age white guy.

And that's one reason he won't make it through the Republican primaries. Republicans like to nominate older white guys.

 

[Black Irish]

Isn't Jindal running Louisiana right into the ground?

Wasn't it in there pretty deep already?

 

[pkt77242]

Wasn't it in there pretty deep already?

http://www.newsweek.com/how-bobby-jindal-broke-louisiana-economy-337999

 

[Buster Bluth]

Wasn't it in there pretty deep already?

Sure, but I think people are doing to look at Louisiana and Kansas and see states where ideology got the best of their governors, at the expense of their future.

I was a big, big Jindal supporter after 2008. He was young, charismatic, highly intelligent, etc. He was easily #1 on my list for 2012. But lately the more I read about Louisiana the more he seems like most other politicians: a shell of a human being trying to play games to get a bigger gig.

 

[Redbar]

Isn't Jindal running Louisiana right into the ground?

See pkt's post

Idk but he won his last re election by almost 50 points, is relatively young, and has the bonus of not being a middle age white guy.

He has ridiculous money, it is very hard to beat an incumbent nowadays, and if you have a "d" behind your name in Louisiana and are running for a statewide office- good luck! No serious republican would run against a sitting republican governor with a war chest like he has.

Yes he is young, obviously he is not white, he is IMO an empty suit, google Timmy Teeple to meet the man pulling the strings.

Yes.

This.

Wasn't it in there pretty deep already?

We had opportunities to right the ship in the last 8 years, but his main focus is politics and presidential positioning. Louisiana is not a bad place to live at all, with the right leader a lot will be accomplished, we haven't had a smart leader who was energetically working for the people of the state since Buddy Roemer IMO.

 

[JughedJones]

I remember in 2007 saying, "there's no way in hell a black dude with Hussein as a middle name would have a chance."

Now I'm saying, "there's now way in hell a beat up old socialist with a cranky attitude from Vermont will ever have a chance."

I like the pattern I'm seeing.

 

[RDU Irish]

Jindal has been dead to me since he pretty much wet himself doing the Republican response to the SOTU a few years ago.

 

[Black Irish]

http://www.newsweek.com/how-bobby-jindal-broke-louisiana-economy-337999

It says I can't read the article unless I subscribe. Can someone summarize what the Penthouse Forum of news mags has to say here?

 

[JughedJones]

Jindal has been dead to me since he pretty much wet himself doing the Republican response to the SOTU a few years ago.

You really like him up till then?

You loved his ideas about..... what now?

 

[pkt77242]

It says I can't read the article unless I subscribe. Can someone summarize what the Penthouse Forum of news mags has to say here?

Here is the article. Basically even the Republicans in LA are fed up with his bullshit.

These are not happy times in Baton Rouge, where government officials are desperately trying to plug a $1.6 billion budget shortfall. But even by that standard, Wednesday, April 22, was particularly fraught.

In the imposing state capitol that Huey Long built, the Senate Finance Committee was wrestling with a complicated cost-cutting scheme to repeal an inventory tax that businesses pay to local governments and that the state rebates to the businesses, all while promising to somehow make stressed-out local leaders whole.
ADVERTISING

Just down the road, Louisiana State University President and Chancellor F. King Alexander said that the state’s flagship university, which could lose 80 percent of state funding after years of already deep cuts, was developing a worst-case scenario plan for financial exigency—basically, the academic equivalent of bankruptcy.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

In the midst of it all came a message from Republican Governor Bobby Jindal, whose policies and priorities have contributed mightily to the state’s fiscal mess.

“Help wish my friends Willie, Phil and Si a happy birthday,” said the tweet, which was accompanied by a photo of Willie Robertson, whose family is featured on the popular homegrown reality TV show Duck Dynasty. It then directed readers to the website for the American Future Project, a 527 advocacy group that Jindal has set up in advance of his anticipated presidential run.

If the tweet suggests a stunning disconnect from the dire budget situation that’s unfolding on his watch, well, that’s how it is these days.

An Absentee Governor

Jindal, a hard-charging former Rhodes scholar, has always nursed grander ambitions, and voters generally gave him a pass. That was when things were going well.

These days they’re not, and Jindal’s focus on the upcoming presidential primaries has taken a toll back home. While he was popular and powerful enough to avoid a reelection fight in 2011, by 2015 his approval rating had sunk to 27 percent, according to one poll; a friendly survey by his own consulting firm pegged the number at 46 percent, hardly a resounding vote of confidence.
ADVERTISEMENT

It’s not just his frequent trips to places like Iowa, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C., that have angered his constituents. (He spent 165 days out of state in 2014, according to The Advocate newspaper.) Nor is it only his odd forays into international and national affairs, from the tall tales in London about Muslim no-go zones, to his op-ed in The New York Times accusing companies that oppose religious freedom laws inspired by the spread of gay marriage of forming an unholy alliance with the “radical liberals.” It’s not even his need to bask in the Robertsons’ reflected glory.

More than any of that, his constituents are frustrated that their governor can’t be bothered to do his day job—and when he does, that his actions are often transparently designed to build a national profile rather than meet Louisiana’s needs.

That’s clear in his refusal to take federal money to expand Medicaid—which, of course, would mean acknowledging there are benefits to Obama’s health care law. But nowhere is it more obvious, or more damaging, than in Jindal’s stewardship of fiscal affairs.

Jindal chalks up the current budget shortfall to the drop in oil prices, and that’s definitely contributed. A larger piece of the puzzle has been his determination to maintain a pure record on taxes.

Jindal hasn’t always been reckless about taxation. In the midst of a budget surplus early in his first term, Jindal tried to quietly head off the legislature’s move to roll back a big income tax increase that had been enacted several years earlier. It was only after lawmakers seemed like they might eliminate the income tax entirely that he got on board with the rollback, and he soon was boasting that he’d signed the biggest tax cut in state history.

The first real glimpse of the future came in 2011 when Jindal fought tooth and nail against extending a temporary 4 cent levy on the state’s cigarette tax—at 36 cents, including the levy, the third lowest in the nation. His reasoning? If the tax rate is scheduled to automatically drop and the state acts to prevent that from happening, it amounts to an effective tax increase.

The stance left his constituents cold, but impressed Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), who would endorse Jindal as Mitt Romney’s running mate the following year.

Even Republicans are bristling

These days it’s hard to think of anyone who has as much influence over what Jindal’s willing to do than Norquist, whose rigid rules for what constitutes a tax increase line up perfectly with Jindal’s. In practice, that means the governor has insisted that the budget be balanced without tax increases, despite the prospect of devastating cuts to higher education and health care, the two main areas that don’t enjoy constitutional or statutory protection.

And it means some revenue-enhancing ideas the Republican-dominated legislature might support, specifically a reexamination of giveaways to specific industries, are off-limits—because eliminating a tax exemption without an offset that reduces another tax or cuts spending, according to ATR, is raising a tax.

That’s how the inventory tax wound up in everyone’s crosshairs, despite the fact that eliminating the rebate but not the underlying tax would hurt businesses, and getting rid of the tax would devastate some parishes (that’s Louisiana for county). Many companies, it turns out, receive rebate checks that exceed their state tax liability, and in Jindal’s view that makes eliminating the payouts a spending cut, not a tax increase. “Corporate welfare,” he labeled it in his opening address to the legislature, prompting chuckles from those who’ve watched him promote business incentives for years.

In fact, perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the frustration with Jindal is that it transcends partisanship.

It’s not just the Democrats who are bristling. It’s many a Republican.

Nothing Left to Cut

Republicans who belong to an informal group dubbed the “fiscal hawks” have been sharply critical of Jindal’s reliance over the years on one-time money transfers and accounting gimmicks to balance the budget without making even deeper cuts.

One reason everything’s hitting the fan is there’s not much left. Gone are $800 million from the Medicaid Trust Fund for the Elderly and $450 million for providing development incentives, and the rainy day fund has dropped from $730 million to $460 million on his watch.

Republicans like state Representative Jay Morris, who, after hearing Jindal’s vow to veto any measure that didn’t have Norquist’s blessing, declared the approach “insane.” And like state Senator Jack Donahue, who chairs the Finance Committee and who passed a bill last year seeking to determine how much the state spends on tax exemptions, only to watch Jindal veto it.

And perhaps most tellingly, the Republicans running to replace Jindal in this fall’s election. All three—Lieutenant Governor Jay Dardenne, U.S. Senator David Vitter and Public Service Commissioner (and former Jindal aide) Scott Angelle—say they will look for a way to accept the Medicaid money and take an open-minded approach to examining tax exemptions.

“What this state needs right now is a leader solely focused on Louisiana,” Dardenne said in a recent speech. And in a clear swipe at Norquist, he added that, “I represent the people of Louisiana; I don’t represent someone who lives in D.C.”

And Vitter said he’d take a good, hard look at tax incentives and other giveaways, even if it means raising revenue.

“Governor Jindal should be doing this now,” he pointedly said. “I’ll do it the minute I’m sworn in.”

http://www.newsweek.com/how-bobby-jindal-broke-louisiana-economy-337999

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Sure, but I think people are doing to look at Louisiana and Kansas and see states where ideology got the best of their governors, at the expense of their future.

I was a big, big Jindal supporter after 2008. He was young, charismatic, highly intelligent, etc. He was easily #1 on my list for 2012. But lately the more I read about Louisiana the more he seems like most other politicians: a shell of a human being trying to play games to get a bigger gig.

Wouldn't you say it's reasonable people can look at decades of failed policies in NY and CA and reach a similar conclusion?