2016 Presidential Candidate

[Gin1984]

But when it comes to making Wisconsin a great place to live, he did cut taxes, but the economy has been an epic failure....
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/247539-a-closer-look-at-wisconsins-economy-under-gov-scott

Is there a typo (or Freudian slip) in that article, or am I just missing something about the relationship between pay and the cost of doing business?  Emphasis added:

In Wisconsin, Walker refuses to raise the minimum wage and equal pay legislation, rejected federal funds to expand Medicaid, and attacked Wisconsin workers with right to work legislation and anti-collective bargaining policies. As a result, the cost of doing business in Wisconsin is higher than the national average...

I get that the part that continues

...and median household income in Wisconsin is thousands of dollars less...

is at least consistent to a first approximation with lower pay, but the part above...?

http://www.politicususa.com/2012/12/16/forbes-names-walkers-wisconsin-worst-states-business.html
"In fact, economists Sylvia Allegretto and Gordon Lafer of the University of California, Berkeley and University of Oregon, respectively, show that since Oklahoma’s law passed in 2001, manufacturing employment and business relocations to the state actually reversed their “pre-right-to-work” increases and began to fall—and this at a time when Oklahoma’s extractive industry economies were booming. To the contrary, these researchers show that right-to-work laws have failed to increase employment growth in the 22 states that have adopted them."

[MDM]

Is there a typo (or Freudian slip) in that article, or am I just missing something about the relationship between pay and the cost of doing business?  Emphasis added:

In Wisconsin, Walker refuses to raise the minimum wage and equal pay legislation, rejected federal funds to expand Medicaid, and attacked Wisconsin workers with right to work legislation and anti-collective bargaining policies. As a result, the cost of doing business in Wisconsin is higher than the national average...

http://www.politicususa.com/2012/12/16/forbes-names-walkers-wisconsin-worst-states-business.html

In the Forbes article that is behind the politicususa article, one finds

Business costs incorporate Moody’s Analytics cost of doing business index which includes labor, energy and taxes. Moody’s weighs labor costs the most heavily in its index.

Not arguing whether the net result of any particular policy is good or bad - just not believing that "lower wages = higher business cost".  If it was just a typo, no big deal.  Otherwise...?

[beltim]

Is there a typo (or Freudian slip) in that article, or am I just missing something about the relationship between pay and the cost of doing business?  Emphasis added:

In Wisconsin, Walker refuses to raise the minimum wage and equal pay legislation, rejected federal funds to expand Medicaid, and attacked Wisconsin workers with right to work legislation and anti-collective bargaining policies. As a result, the cost of doing business in Wisconsin is higher than the national average...

http://www.politicususa.com/2012/12/16/forbes-names-walkers-wisconsin-worst-states-business.html

In the Forbes article that is behind the politicususa article, one finds

Business costs incorporate Moody’s Analytics cost of doing business index which includes labor, energy and taxes. Moody’s weighs labor costs the most heavily in its index.

Not arguing whether the net result of any particular policy is good or bad - just not believing that "lower wages = higher business cost".  If it was just a typo, no big deal.  Otherwise...?

I read that the bolded 3 policies leads to the bolded conclusion: the cost of doing business in Wisconsin is higher.  That is NOT distributive - you can't say that each of the three components therefore leads to high costs of doing business.  But the sum of the three does.  Make sense?

[MDM]

Is there a typo (or Freudian slip) in that article, or am I just missing something about the relationship between pay and the cost of doing business?  Emphasis added:

In Wisconsin, Walker refuses to raise the minimum wage and equal pay legislation, rejected federal funds to expand Medicaid, and attacked Wisconsin workers with right to work legislation and anti-collective bargaining policies. As a result, the cost of doing business in Wisconsin is higher than the national average...

I read that the bolded 3 policies leads to the bolded conclusion: the cost of doing business in Wisconsin is higher.  That is NOT distributive - you can't say that each of the three components therefore leads to high costs of doing business.  But the sum of the three does.  Make sense?

It's certainly possible to combine things that singly cause one behavior but together cause another, so I'm open to the possibility.  Let's look at each in turn
1) "refuses to raise the minimum wage and equal pay legislation" - the usual suggestion is this leads to lower wages, which cost businesses less
2) "rejected federal funds to expand Medicaid" - no idea of the conventional wisdom about how this would affect business costs.
3) "attacked Wisconsin workers with right to work legislation and anti-collective bargaining policies" - the usual suggestion is this leads to lower wages, which cost businesses less

Still don't see how combining #1, #2, and #3 goes from costing less individually (or neutral for #2?) to more collectively, so maybe someone can teach....

[milesdividendmd]

MDM You're right.

They all (aside from the refusing of Medicaid expansion, which was just dumb ideology) probably lead to lower labor costs which are more than offset by decreased spending, consumption, and growth.

In other words, lower costs and much lower profits and jobs.

[Jeremy E.]

Lets talk about potential presidential candidates instead of people that have no chance. So lets stop talking about Walker, Fiorina and Trump.

[MoonShadow]

Lets talk about potential presidential candidates instead of people that have no chance. So lets stop talking about Walker, Fiorina and Trump.

So you would reject discussing the current #3 and current #1 in polls as impossible?

[Jeremy E.]

Lets talk about potential presidential candidates instead of people that have no chance. So lets stop talking about Walker, Fiorina and Trump.

So you would reject discussing the current #3 and current #1 in polls as impossible?

No, I'm okay discussing that they are impossible, assuming you are referring to the names you bolded, Trump and Fiorina.
However I can't figure out what you are using to decide Fiorina as #3, she is most recently #2 in the most current poll, and if you combine the polls she's #6

[milesdividendmd]

LOL arguing on who's riding shotgun in the clown car.

[MoonShadow]

Lets talk about potential presidential candidates instead of people that have no chance. So lets stop talking about Walker, Fiorina and Trump.

So you would reject discussing the current #3 and current #1 in polls as impossible?

No, I'm okay discussing that they are impossible,

Why are they impossible?

[MoonShadow]

LOL arguing on who's riding shotgun in the clown car.

Keep laughing, Doc.  There is a better than even chance that one of those clowns riding in that car right now is going to be the next POTUS.

I don't think that's funny at all.

[Jeremy E.]

I agree that they're clowns, and as it stands it seems the most likely president is Biden, but we'll see, too far away to know yet.
The Republicans wouldn't nominate Trump, they would be blamed for all the stupid crap he does. Fiorina was at best a mediocre CEO, and that's being very nice. Ben Carson is a Neurosurgeon so he's super smart on all subjects right? WRONG, he has just barely started learning about a lot of the problems he could potentially face.

[MoonShadow]

The Republicans wouldn't nominate Trump, they would be blamed for all the stupid crap he does.

This is the same party that nominated GWB, McCain and Romney.  Is this a serious claim?  Or just wishful thinking?  Literally the best nominee the Repubs have put up in my lifetime was an actor with serious memory recall problems.  Even they consider him their high mark.

This is about as serious a claim as to say the Dems wouldn't nominate Biden because of all the stupid crap he says!

[Jeremy E.]

The Republicans wouldn't nominate Trump, they would be blamed for all the stupid crap he does.

This is the same party that nominated GWB, McCain and Romney.  Is this a serious claim?  Or just wishful thinking?  Literally the best nominee the Repubs have put up in my lifetime was an actor with serious memory recall problems.  Even they consider him their high mark.

This is about as serious a claim as to say the Dems wouldn't nominate Biden because of all the stupid crap he says!

Reagan was a great president and he didn't get alzheimer's until the end of his 2nd term. I'd prefer W Bush, McCain & Romney over Trump every time.

[Bob W]

Reuter poll shows Trump 36%, BC 13,  JB 10, CF 4.

5 day rolling poll,  end date sep 18th.   500 sample size.   http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TR130/type/smallest/filters/PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20150808-20150918/collapsed/false

Trump continues upward momentum according to Reuters.   

Please remember that Trump is the only non Wall Street owned candidate. 

 

[Glenstache]

Reuter poll shows Trump 36%, BC 13,  JB 10, CF 4.

5 day rolling poll,  end date sep 18th.   500 sample size.   http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TR130/type/smallest/filters/PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20150808-20150918/collapsed/false

Trump continues upward momentum according to Reuters.   

Please remember that Trump is the only non Wall Street owned candidate.

... except Sanders.

I don't know if it is more concerning to have a candidate owned by Wall Street or owned by Trump.

[Jeremy E.]

Reuter poll shows Trump 36%, BC 13,  JB 10, CF 4.

5 day rolling poll,  end date sep 18th.   500 sample size.   http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TR130/type/smallest/filters/PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20150808-20150918/collapsed/false

Trump continues upward momentum according to Reuters.   

Please remember that Trump is the only non Wall Street owned candidate.

Do you mean only non Wall Street owned GOP candidate? Because I think Socialist Sanders is also non Wall Street owned

[dramaman]

The Republicans wouldn't nominate Trump, they would be blamed for all the stupid crap he does.

This is the same party that nominated GWB, McCain and Romney.  Is this a serious claim?  Or just wishful thinking?  Literally the best nominee the Repubs have put up in my lifetime was an actor with serious memory recall problems.  Even they consider him their high mark.

Your examples actually argue against your point. Unlike Trump, Fiorina and Carson, everyone you mentioned above (including the forgetful ex B-list movie star) were establishment candidates, with prior elected experience and had broad support from party insiders. Now, maybe this time really IS different, but the safe bet is that none of the current three front runners will be able to leverage their current position in the polls to get enough convention delegates to be nominated.

[sol]

with prior elected experience and had broad support from party insiders.

Neither party has ever nominated a complete political novice for president, unless that novice recently defeated the axis powers as the supreme allied commander.  Trump would be an unprecedented gamble.

People had a complete fit about how Palin was grossly unqualified to be VP, and she was an actual governor of an actual state who had actually been elected before.  Trump hasn't so much as sat on a city council board before.

The republicans have a deep field of qualified candidates, people with real governing experience.  I'll be shocked if they actually get duped into nominating a total rookie with zero qualifications or relevant experience. 

If they do, they'll lose badly in the general election when his complete lack of experience or practical ideas becomes evident.  If they don't, I hope he runs a third party campaign and splits the conservative vote, which also leads to a loss.  The only way the republicans can possibly retake the white house is if Trump decides to quietly go away, and throws his support to someone who might actually be qualified for the job.  That might have been his plan along, to sell his support to the highest bidder, but I doubt it.

Establishment candidates know this.  They believe in the party ideals and would uniformly step aside in order to secure the white house for the party.  Trump doesn't seem to care for the party or the ideals, and may gladly sacrifice both in his ego-driven pursuit of power.   That puts the GOP in a tough spot, trying to decide between vainly trying to win by abandoning their ideals, or preserving those ideals as they go down in valiant flames.

[Bob W]

The Republicans wouldn't nominate Trump, they would be blamed for all the stupid crap he does.

This is the same party that nominated GWB, McCain and Romney.  Is this a serious claim?  Or just wishful thinking?  Literally the best nominee the Repubs have put up in my lifetime was an actor with serious memory recall problems.  Even they consider him their high mark.

Your examples actually argue against your point. Unlike Trump, Fiorina and Carson, everyone you mentioned above (including the forgetful ex B-list movie star) were establishment candidates, with prior elected experience and had broad support from party insiders. Now, maybe this time really IS different, but the safe bet is that none of the current three front runners will be able to leverage their current position in the polls to get enough convention delegates to be nominated.

It will be very difficult, as Bush/pubs/Rove/RNC changed their nominating rules when no one was looking in 14.  Basically they set it up so that Bush needed only 20% of the voters in primary states to win.   It is complicated but a person needs to carry at least 8 states before their name can be entered at the convention for consideration.  The Koch brothers are actively supporting numerous candidates at Rove's command in order to splinter the vote. They set the process so that momentum has less impact and big money candidates (Bush the anointed) can slog through the process.   

Of course that was all before Trump.  Trump may take only half of the initial states and thus be in for a fight till the end with the Bush folks.  Other candidates will drop as the process unwinds in the primaries and they will all make Walkeresq speeches supporting Bush.    As it becomes more and more likely Trump will not only win the Pub nomination but that he is widely appealing to disenfranchised minority voters, unions and women,  the wall street banker folks will simply switch their support to Biden while quietly working against Trump.   

You see they don't really care if it is a Dem or a Pub who wins as long as the policy of leaving the working class with a huge deficit while they loot the treasury continues.  They do care if Trump wins because he actually says he will tax hedge funds,  end offshore tax avoidance and offshoring of jobs, while increasing the cost of US labor.  (i.e. he is a main street people's candidate)

Did I mention that Trump is meeting with leaders of the South Carolina Black Business Chamber and Trump also will speak at an event in Columbia, the state capital, hosted by South Carolina's Republican U.S. Senator Tim Scott.  Tim happens to be a Black Republican Senator and carries a lot of weight with that demographic in SC.  "of the 15 Republican presidential candidates, Trump did best among black Republicans and independents in a Reuters poll."

Trump, in his genius, blew off the Republican sponsored event last week and chose to center himself as the sole Republican courting the black Repulican vote in SC this week.  The Pubs just can't figure it out.   They gave him tons of media for not attending an event that received not media coverage.   

Trump polls better than other Republicans with Hispanic/latinos.  Most people have it in their mind that Hispanic is a race (it is an ethnic designation) term.  Latinos and Hispanics are actually a very diverse group that includes many races and countries of origin.   And yep,  you didn't guess it,  but many, if not a majority, of legal Latino immigrants are opposed to illegal aliens.   Go figure -- they hate crime too and jumped through the difficult proper hoops. 

In the post racial USA it appears that the democrats racial polarization may come back and bite them.  They could end up losing a significant portion of the black vote. 

It is the economy stupid. 

[Bob W]

with prior elected experience and had broad support from party insiders.

Neither party has ever nominated a complete political novice for president, unless that novice recently defeated the axis powers as the supreme allied commander.  Trump would be an unprecedented gamble.

People had a complete fit about how Palin was grossly unqualified to be VP, and she was an actual governor of an actual state who had actually been elected before.  Trump hasn't so much as sat on a city council board before.

The republicans have a deep field of qualified candidates, people with real governing experience.  I'll be shocked if they actually get duped into nominating a total rookie with zero qualifications or relevant experience. 

If they do, they'll lose badly in the general election when his complete lack of experience or practical ideas becomes evident.  If they don't, I hope he runs a third party campaign and splits the conservative vote, which also leads to a loss.  The only way the republicans can possibly retake the white house is if Trump decides to quietly go away, and throws his support to someone who might actually be qualified for the job.  That might have been his plan along, to sell his support to the highest bidder, but I doubt it.

Establishment candidates know this.  They believe in the party ideals and would uniformly step aside in order to secure the white house for the party.  Trump doesn't seem to care for the party or the ideals, and may gladly sacrifice both in his ego-driven pursuit of power.   That puts the GOP in a tough spot, trying to decide between vainly trying to win by abandoning their ideals, or preserving those ideals as they go down in valiant flames.

The Republicans abandoned their supposed ideals of small/limited Government and fiscal conservancy in 2000 as I recall.   God bless Newt Gingrich!  They have controlled the purse strings for a good many of the last 15 years ---  increased government spending,  increased debt.   

Sol,  you can keep being fooled that there are two parties with significant differences but in the end they all voted for the trade agreements,  ignored illegal immigration, screwed the budget saddled us with an insurance company owned health system and exported jobs as fast as possible. 

[MoonShadow]

Other candidates will drop as the process unwinds in the primaries and they will all make Walkeresq speeches supporting Bush.

I don't think Walker wants to support Bush, either; but I can concede he may have no choice for political reasons.

[sol]

Bob,I think you're delusional.  Women and minorities are going to support Trump?  Crossover democrats are going to pick him over Clinton?  Your fantasy doesn't even make sense, nevermind that it's not supported by any current polling.

Don't get me wrong, I hope he runs because I think the general election would be a landslide democratic victory that would coattail some dems into congress too.  I'm just struggling to figure out where you're getting these ideas from, or how you think he can possibly win.

in the end they all voted for the trade agreements,  ignored illegal immigration, screwed the budget saddled us with an insurance company owned health system and exported jobs as fast as possible. 

I feel compelled to point out that Sanders and even Clinton are keen to fix some of these problems too.  These issues are not going to siphon off votes.

Immigration reform has been blocked by the republicans for years, basically because the various interests in the party couldn't agree on how to do it.  A border wall is not reform.  I think everyone in DC accepts that we're eventually going to grant amnesty to all current illegal immigrants, because there's really no alternative, but we'll probably also simultaneously implement new immigration controls as a trade off.  Trump is arguing for the exact opposite, deporting current immigrants but then opening the border, which seems like a lot of expense to get back to where we currently are.

The ACA definitely has some problems, but calling it "insurance company owned" seems like deliberate amnesia about what we had before, which was even worse.  The ACA was a step in the right direction, though almost any change would have been an improvement over the old system.  And it was democrats who gave is that improvement, and Trump's party that opposed it, so I don't see how that issue is going to help him with any voters other than the ones who want to go back to the fully disastrous system we had before.

[beltim]

Bob,I think you're delusional.  Women and minorities are going to support Trump?  Crossover democrats are going to pick him over Clinton?  Your fantasy doesn't even make sense, nevermind that it's not supported by any current polling.

+1

Let's examine a few of Bob's claims:

Trump polls better than other Republicans with Hispanic/latinos.

Reality: Trump polls dead last of Republican candidates with Hispanic voters:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/15/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-donald-trump-highest-hispanics-an/

In the post racial USA it appears that the democrats racial polarization may come back and bite them.  They could end up losing a significant portion of the black vote.   

Trump currently polls at 2-3% of the black vote depending on the Democratic candidate.  This would be the second-lowest support of all time.  If he ran as a third-party candidate, his support jumps to a whopping 5% of black voters:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/27/politics/donald-trump-african-american-polls/

[Kris]

Reuter poll shows Trump 36%, BC 13,  JB 10, CF 4.

5 day rolling poll,  end date sep 18th.   500 sample size.   http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TR130/type/smallest/filters/PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20150808-20150918/collapsed/false

Trump continues upward momentum according to Reuters.   

Please remember that Trump is the only non Wall Street owned candidate.

Do you mean only non Wall Street owned GOP candidate? Because I think Socialist Sanders is also non Wall Street owned

Why is it always so necessary to pull down the level of conversation to a superficial, juvenile level by calling a perfectly legitimate candidate by some sort of reductive label, instead of using his/her actual name?

[milesdividendmd]

European style socialism is a bad word to the righties.

But there's no reason to think of socialism as a libel.

The conservative policies are anti Medicare, anti social security, anti minimum wage, and anti food stamp....

So by their absurd labels most Americans are pro-socialism. The right is the outlier not "socialist sanders."

[Kris]

European style socialism is a bad word to the righties.

But there's no reason to think of socialism as a libel.

The conservative policies are anti Medicare, anti social security, anti minimum wage, and anti food stamp....

So by their absurd labels most Americans are pro-socialism. The right is the outlier not "socialist sanders."

I agree.  But my irritation isn't even really about that particular label.  I just… ugh, it's just so tiresome when people feel so compelled to ALWAYS call certain politicians by some derogatory nickname: "Obummer", "Billary," etc.  And I hate it when people on the left do it, too.  It's reductive, it's meant to derail actual, substantive conversation, and it's always meant as a slur.  It's just so useless. 

[Kris]

European style socialism is a bad word to the righties.

But there's no reason to think of socialism as a libel.

The conservative policies are anti Medicare, anti social security, anti minimum wage, and anti food stamp....

So by their absurd labels most Americans are pro-socialism. The right is the outlier not "socialist sanders."

I agree.  But my irritation isn't even really about that particular label.  I just… ugh, it's just so tiresome when people feel so compelled to ALWAYS call certain politicians by some derogatory nickname: "Obummer", "Billary," etc.  And I hate it when people on the left do it, too.  It's reductive, it's meant to derail actual, substantive comments, and it's always meant as a slur.  It's just so useless and actually counterproductive to real conversation. 

[milesdividendmd]

European style socialism is a bad word to the righties.

But there's no reason to think of socialism as a libel.

The conservative policies are anti Medicare, anti social security, anti minimum wage, and anti food stamp....

So by their absurd labels most Americans are pro-socialism. The right is the outlier not "socialist sanders."

I agree.  But my irritation isn't even really about that particular label.  I just… ugh, it's just so tiresome when people feel so compelled to ALWAYS call certain politicians by some derogatory nickname: "Obummer", "Billary," etc.  And I hate it when people on the left do it, too.  It's reductive, it's meant to derail actual, substantive conversation, and it's always meant as a slur.  It's just so useless.

You're correct of course.

[sol]

most Americans are pro-socialism. The right is the outlier not "socialist sanders."

This is the reason why Sanders is doing so well in the few places he had campaigned, I think.  Everyone who actually listens to his platform, where he supports Medicare and social security and minimum wage increases and higher corporate tax rates to fund these programs, seems shocked to find a candidate who appears to stand for working class Americans instead of big businesses. That's virtually unheard of, from either party.

Ultimately, I think our democracy still exists primarily to serve corporate interests and candidates like Sanders who want to represent people rather than corporations will probably get buried by Citizen's United style donations.  That doesn't change the fact that most America's like what he has to say, even if they'll never be able to actually elect him for it.

[milesdividendmd]

most Americans are pro-socialism. The right is the outlier not "socialist sanders."

This is the reason why Sanders is doing so well in the few places he had campaigned, I think.  Everyone who actually listens to his platform, where he supports Medicare and social security and minimum wage increases and higher corporate tax rates to fund these programs, seems shocked to find a candidate who appears to stand for working class Americans instead of big businesses. That's virtually unheard of, from either party.

Ultimately, I think our democracy still exists primarily to serve corporate interests and candidates like Sanders who want to represent people rather than corporations will probably get buried by Citizen's United style donations.  That doesn't change the fact that most America's like what he has to say, even if they'll never be able to actually elect him for it.

Sanders is pretty much the ideal candidate as far as I'm concerned. His political values are almost identical to mine.  And he is wonderfully authentic.

But he has other problems electorally aside from corporate money. He excites the liberal base of the party, but there is little evidence that he excites nonwhite, and non-liberal democrats.  I think it's likely that he would not excite swing voters in the general election very much either.

I'm also not sure that I agree with "taxing corporations more."  My feeling is that we should tax people progressively and simply,  and we should tax each dollar The same. That way if you earn a dollar from labor, or from capital gains, or from a corporate distribution, or from carried interest it makes no difference.

Despite the political optics, I would be actually be fine with a 0% corporate income tax, as long as all of the money that flowed out of the corporation was taxed progressively and fairly.

[Jeremy E.]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/carly-fiorina-ceo-jeffrey-sonnenfeld-2016-213163

[Jeremy E.]

No one seemed to have a problem with Jeb Bush being called Jeb!. I don't see a problem calling him Socialist Sanders, the context in which I called him that was me saying that he wasn't owned by Wall Street, a complement to the man. I personally would prefer almost any of the current contendors to be president rather than Socialist Sanders, if he gets his way one of two things will happen.
1. We will pay a much higher tax rate.
2. We will take on MUCH more debt than necessary

If he makes public Colleges free, then everyone has to pay for it. Those who didn’t go to college, those who went to a cheap college, or those who started at a cheap college, will be paying for people to go to expensive public colleges. More people will go to college, which will be a good thing a lot of the time. But the dropout rate from college will increase and the salary gap between college graduates and people that didn’t go to college will decrease. I don’t think the price of college stops the hard workers that really want to go to college from being able to go. Maybe it stops them from being lawyers, good riddens.
Almost everything Sanders wants to do will raise taxes, the dream of the US will change, rather being the unique place where people that work hard can go to strive ahead and pay less in taxes(thus making them retire very fast), it will turn into (insert one of the very many first world socialist countries). Sanders could just move to Canada and voila, he has everything he wants.
Rather than have the government pay for everything and then tax individuals, I assume you just let the individuals have the freedom to decide how to pay for things themselves. I don’t mind paying to go to a community college for 2 years and then paying to go to a University for 2 years, it’s not nearly as expensive as people make it seem and saying that you have to take on hundreds of thousands in debt to get a bachelor’s degree is nonsense. I did it without taking on any debt, without any help from my parents.
At the very least, I think people should be able to opt out of paying taxes for X, and then not using the governments help with X.

[zoltani]

We all pay taxes for things we don't use. Hasn't this one already been covered?

[milesdividendmd]

If your chief concern is debt, then all evidence suggests that you should not vote republican for president and you should vote democratic.

And if your primary concern is taxes then if you are not in the top 1%, you there's not much of a difference between the 2 parties. (If you are in top income tax bracket (like me) and you vote your pocketbook, then republicans are the way to go.)

[Jeremy E.]

If your chief concern is debt, then all evidence suggests that you should not vote republican for president and you should vote democratic.

And if your primary concern is taxes then if you are not in the top 1%, you there's not much of a difference between the 2 parties. (If you are in top income tax bracket (like me) and you vote your pocketbook, then republicans are the way to go.)

You wanna know the biggest increase in debt and taxes during a presidency? FDR BY FAR, WAY MORE THAN ALL OTHER REPUBLICANS COMBINED. Therefore your statement is false.

[zoltani]

Hmm, I wonder what was going on during those years that could have possibly caused that!?!?!

[milesdividendmd]

In nominal terms that's false. GW Bush added far more debt than FDR. As did Reagan, and Poppy bush.

But if we're talking in terms of debt as percentage of GDP, I'll take your point as long as you admit the truth that Obama and Clinton increased debt by far less than both bushes and the worst debtor president of the modern age: Reagan.

So if we're talking about the presidents of our lifetimes republicans ALWAYS increase the debt more than Dems.

Until that law changes you'd be an idiot to vote republican for president if you are a deficit hawk.

[roadtrippers]

Wow. Knock me off my DIY outdoor sectional with the Target cushions. Thought I would be an outlier, but it looks like lots of Mustachians are "Feelin' the Bern." Love it.

[Jeremy E.]

In nominal terms that's false. GW Bush added far more debt than FDR. As did Reagan, and Poppy bush.

But if we're talking in terms of debt as percentage of GDP, I'll take your point as long as you admit the truth that Obama and Clinton increased debt by far less than both bushes and the worst debtor president of the modern age: Reagan.

So if we're talking about the presidents of our lifetimes republicans ALWAYS increase the debt more than Dems.

Until that law changes you'd be an idiot to vote republican for president if you are a deficit hawk.

What law? I have no idea what your speaking of. Do you mean random trend that might mean something? As far as "who to vote for if you are a deficit hawk" the answer would clearly be John Kasich, followed by Rand Paul, with Bernie Sanders being VERY low on that list.

Also, Clintons balanced budget was due mostly to republicans.
Also in Obamas time, Since early 2009 the economy has been doing great every year after the crash, yet he's still increasing debt.
W Bush didn't make the debt more than 10 times the size it was when he started like FDR. He also didn't add tons of entitlements we would have to pay forever.

[milesdividendmd]

First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.

[Jeremy E.]

First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.

Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.
Fact, while FDR was in office, the National debt increased to more than 10x of what it was before he took office.

[Kris]

First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.

Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.

I would sure as hell like to see a *reliable* source for this.

[Jeremy E.]

First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.

Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.

I would sure as hell like to see a *reliable* source for this.

W Bush increased it from 5.8 trillion to 11.65 trillion
Obama has raised it to 18.4 trillion so far
11.65-5.8=5.85
18.4-11.65=6.75
6.75>5.85

[Kris]

First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.

Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.

I would sure as hell like to see a *reliable* source for this.

W Bush increased it from 5.8 trillion to 11.65 trillion
Obama has raised it to 18.4 trillion so far
11.65-5.8=5.85
18.4-11.65=6.75
6.75>5.85

So, I would like to see a reliable source.  Like, a source.

I'm not saying you are wrong.  I would like to see a reputable source cited. Not you typing out numbers.

[milesdividendmd]

First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.

Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.

I would sure as hell like to see a *reliable* source for this.

W Bush increased it from 5.8 trillion to 11.65 trillion
Obama has raised it to 18.4 trillion so far
11.65-5.8=5.85
18.4-11.65=6.75
6.75>5.85

So, I would like to see a reliable source.  Like, a source.

I'm not saying you are wrong.  I would like to see a reputable source cited. Not you typing out numbers.

Notice how Jeremy is not intellectually honest enough to Define the debt as nominal debt or debt as a proportion of GDP.

This sophistry is a favorite tactic for those who try to argue what is untrue.

Here is a fair piece on debt by presidents.  The last chart shows debt as a proportion of GDP. Look at how well the Reagan Bush supply side experiment works at decreasing deficit levels.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/01/07/the-story-behind-obama-and-the-national-debt-in-7-charts/

[Jeremy E.]

First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.

Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.

I would sure as hell like to see a *reliable* source for this.

W Bush increased it from 5.8 trillion to 11.65 trillion
Obama has raised it to 18.4 trillion so far
11.65-5.8=5.85
18.4-11.65=6.75
6.75>5.85

So, I would like to see a reliable source.  Like, a source.

I'm not saying you are wrong.  I would like to see a reputable source cited. Not you typing out numbers.

It is common knowledge that isn't disputed by either party, if you don't believe me I'll let you look it up yourself and choose your own source.

[MDM]

...
Here is a fair piece on debt by presidents.  ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/01/07/the-story-behind-obama-and-the-national-debt-in-7-charts/

+1

About to post that link but it's here already.  Plenty of grist for whatever political flavor one wishes to mill.

[milesdividendmd]

First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.

Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.

I would sure as hell like to see a *reliable* source for this.

W Bush increased it from 5.8 trillion to 11.65 trillion
Obama has raised it to 18.4 trillion so far
11.65-5.8=5.85
18.4-11.65=6.75
6.75>5.85

So, I would like to see a reliable source.  Like, a source.

I'm not saying you are wrong.  I would like to see a reputable source cited. Not you typing out numbers.

It is common knowledge that isn't disputed by either party, if you don't believe me I'll let you look it up yourself and choose your own source.

Translation:  source is Americans for tax reform, newsmax, and drudge.

[Kris]

First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.

Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.

I would sure as hell like to see a *reliable* source for this.

W Bush increased it from 5.8 trillion to 11.65 trillion
Obama has raised it to 18.4 trillion so far
11.65-5.8=5.85
18.4-11.65=6.75
6.75>5.85

So, I would like to see a reliable source.  Like, a source.

I'm not saying you are wrong.  I would like to see a reputable source cited. Not you typing out numbers.

It is common knowledge that isn't disputed by either party, if you don't believe me I'll let you look it up yourself and choose your own source.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge