The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[Chill Dude]

Ya know that this topic is gettin' me a bit depressed.

I wouldn't get too depressed.. It should make you feel good that a number of candidates are in fact in your age range.. In politics age is sometimes considered a plus.. In business, sports, entertainment you're over the hill as early as 40

 

[macbill]

"Old and in the way, that's what I heard them say
They used to heed the words he said, but that was yesterday
Gold will turn to gray and youth will fade away
They'll never care about you, call you old and in the way..."

David Grisman

 

[grokit]

Thom Hartmann

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersFor...conomist_explains_why_a_bernie_economy_would/

 

[Joel W.]

Growth from the middle, out!

 

[cybrguy]

Ugg. 5.3% growth? Suuuuuuure... Magic astericks. We have NEVER had that kind of growth, but Bernie can do it with his magic beans. Watch out for the giant, tho...

 

[Chill Dude]

Growth from the middle, out!

The Republicans in general contine to cling to trickle down economics (also known as supply side economics ). Sure, that's great for large corporations and the top 1%, but has never led to greater income equality or prosperity for the middle class. In fact, just the opposite has occurred. The rich get richer while the middle and working class get poorer. That's we we now have huge income inequality and the wealth gap continues to grow. That said, Republicans continue to push the same old economics in their attempt to dupe the American people yet again. They are simply whores bought out by corporate America to sell this false economic theory known as trickle down economics. They've been doing this ever since the Reagan era and continue to do it today.. The electorate needs to wise up!!

 

[Chill Dude]

Ugg. 5.3% growth? Suuuuuuure... Magic astericks. We have NEVER had that kind of growth, but Bernie can do it with his magic beans. Watch out for the giant, tho...

You're right we've never had sustained growth of 5.3%, but we've also never had a candidate that's proposing investing trillions in infrastructure spending which theoretically will greatly increase employment and wages... Or perhaps as you say it's "magic beans"...

But, yeah, eventually Bernie will have to have many top economists do an independent analysis as to the feasibility of the Sander's plan, how much it will cost and how it will affect taxes on various income levels etc..His campaign should know that the people will need specifics as to the viability of his entire economic plan.. If Bernie cannot do this then he's only selling "magic beans" as you stated..

 

[howie105]

The Republicans in general contine to cling to trickle down economics (also known as supply side economics ). Sure, that's great for large corporations and the top 1%, but has never led to greater income equality or prosperity for the middle class. In fact, just the opposite has occurred. The rich get richer while the middle and working class get poorer. That's we we now have huge income inequality and the wealth gap continues to grow. That said, Republicans continue to push the same old economics in their attempt to dupe the American people yet again. They are simply whores bought out by corporate America to sell this false economic theory known as trickle down economics. They've been doing this ever since the Reagan era and continue to do it today.. The electorate needs to wise up!!

The pooling of wealth and the collapse of the middle class has continued to occur regardless of who is holding the big stick office. The inability or unwillingness of both parties to directly address the situation is more interesting to me then any one parties spin on the situation.

 

[cybrguy]

I shouldn't be flippant, it may even be possible to do what Bernie says he wants to do. I don't have the economic knowledge to make that assessment. I have only historical knowledge. But to imagine that an incredibly ideologically polarized congress would even consider such extreme changes in the way we do things is simply unbelievable. If the parties weren't hanging out at the extremes, if there was a spirit of cooperation, if there was a consensus building leader it might be possible. But that isn't what we have, and there is little hope we will have it any time soon.

When we do, I'm in...

 

[CarolKing]

The senate and the house won't always be like it is today. It's up to the American people to vote some of our lawmakers out of office. We need a legislature that will work for the good of the largest part of the American people.

 

[Chill Dude]

The pooling of wealth and the collapse of the middle class has continued to occur regardless of who is holding the big stick office. The inability or unwillingness of both parties to directly address the situation is more interesting to me then any one parties spin on the situation.

Bernie is certainly addressing this issue as well as Hilary to a lesser extent. Now, whether anything will change.. Well that's open for debate. I don't hear any democrats talking about how great trickle down economics is, however, most republicans unabashedly voice their strong belief in supply side economics. So, yeah, I feel the republicans are much more to blame for the harm caused by this failed economic theory..

 

[Gunky]

Alluding to one progressive analyst’s criticism of the Sanders agenda as “puppies and rainbows,” Mr. Goolsbee said that after his and others’ further study, “they’ve evolved into magic flying puppies with winning Lotto tickets tied to their collars.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/u...s-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html

 

[howie105]

Sadly when the citizens are divided the people they elect to represent their views will be divided too. Till we find a way to make peace with ourselves and move forward as a group we all share in the gridlock. I find that hard to remember when I look at some of the extreme positions both parties have staked out and refuse to move off of. I am afraid that in order to pull the citizens together enough to move the nation in mass you need something big like the depression or a new Pearl Harbour.

 

[Magic9]

We have heard rumors of Elizabeth Warren but they are just rumors.

I've been holding my breath for over a year now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/u...s-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html

Since this is the second time in two pages that this has been linked to (@cybrguy posted an MSNBC blog post which examined it on pg. 77), I want to explore it a little deeper than colorful quotes.

These left-leaning economists consist of 4 and a half. They mention Krugman, but it is in the context of he will "exhaust political capitol" pursuing universal health care "at the expense of other initiatives".

1. Austan Goolsbee - Former chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers. He had a big hand in both the stimulus/bailout package, and also a supporter of Cash for Clunkers program. Currently an advisor at 32Advisors. Known as a centrist (strong supporter of free trade, critic of supply-side econ.). Net worth of $5 million.

2. Jared Bernstein - Former economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden. His quote from the article is calling the paper that Gerald Friedman of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst did on Sanders' economic plan as "good effort", and "wishful thinking". He (Bernstein) believes that protecting the ACA should be a higher priority.

3. Paul Krugman - Not directly quoted in the article. As such, I'll leave him out of this post since it deals with only the NYT article.

4. Henry J. Aaron - Chairman of the Social Security Advisory Board. Nominated by President Obama. Supports a single payer system, and healthcare rationing. Age 79.

From the article, "Mr. Aaron said, he believes that if Mr. Sanders were elected and fought for a single-payer plan, it “would rapidly destroy his administration by using up every ounce of political capital he’s got.”

5. Kenneth E. Thorpe - Appointed as Deputy Assistant Secretary in President Bill Clinton's cabinet, he had a central role in coordinating President Clinton's health care reform proposals. The only economist in the article to put forth an analysis of Sanders' health care plan.

His analysis, and a counterpoint that highlights the flaws form the analysis. Oddly, Mr. Thorpe has done past analyses that projected large savings with reform. It's boring, but here is one (pdf).


In number 2 above, Gerald Friedman was mentioned. He is the economics professor from University of Massachusetts at Amherst. He did the first in-depth analysis of Sanders' proposals at the campaigns request. He also, "Drafted financing plans for single-payer health care systems for Maryland, Massachusetts and the United States." His take on things here, and here.

What does any of it mean? Nothing. The article has a catchy headline, but it has no meaning. They just quoted a few (literally less than a handful) "lefty economists". The only one to actually provide an analysis (Thorpe), does so on faulty assumptions. Not a one of them made any compelling points.


Additional reading dealing with the economic topics,

http://reverbpress.com/politics/eco...-sanders-policies-cost-america-nothing-video/

http://www.thestreet.com/story/1345...-build-a-roaring-economy-says-one-report.html


-----

On a personal note, aside from the NYT article, I know exactly what and how Bernie Sanders wants to do. I also know how he intends to pay for it.

That is by far more than I say for Clinton. If anybody has "flying puppies" ideas, it's her. Because like "flying puppies", her ideas are imaginary at this point.

 

[CarolKing]

@howie105 ive made peace with myself it's all the haters out there that I worry about. All the Donald Trump fans. It has been the progressives that have brought our country forward over the decades. Those that are afraid have held the country back.

It's true sometimes it takes an earth shattering occurance for people to band together for one single purpose. "911" for the U.S kinda did that. Many of us were against the war in Iraq but the country went a head and went to war. That wasn't a good example of the country banning together though. It turned out to be a bad decision. The leaders in charge had made the choice by telling America lies.

Trump has raised the bar when it comes to stupidity and fear mongering. Not to mention the hate he has stirred up in people. Looking forward to another clusterfuck at the next debate since Geoge W has been the direction of his rath lately. The Trump might shoot himself in the foot again.

 

[cybrguy]

I find that hard to remember when I look at some of the extreme positions both parties have staked out and refuse to move off of.

I'm sorry. Can you tell me what some of the "extreme positions" the Democrats have "staked out" are? Not that I don't think there are any, I just wish you could point some out so I know what to be defensive about...

 

[Gunky]

Here is another little blog post from Paul Krugman on Sanders' fantasy econ:

The open letter to Sanders and Friedman by former CEA chairs didn’t get into specifics, and I’m already hearing from Bernie supporters accusing them of arrogance, or high-handedness, or something. But here’s what Friedman has said, in what the campaign’s policy director calls “outstanding work”:
– Real growth at 5.3 percent a year, versus a baseline of around 2
– Labor force participation rate back to 1999 level
– 3.8 percent unemployment
OK, progressives have, rightly, mocked Jeb Bush for claiming that he could double growth to 4 percent. Now people close to Sanders say 5.3??? Even those of us who believe that there’s still significant slack in the US labor market are aware that much, probably most, of the decline in labor force participation since 1999 reflects an aging population — prime-working-age LFPR has reclaimed most of the lost ground since the Great Recession, and there’s probably a long-term downward trend even there. It’s possible that we can get unemployment down under 4 percent, but that’s way below any estimates I’ve seen of the level of unemployment consistent with moderate inflation.
The point is not that all of this is impossible, but it’s very unlikely — and these are numbers we would describe as deep voodoo if they came from a tax-cutting Republican.
Sanders needs to disassociate himself from this kind of fantasy economics right now. If his campaign responds instead by lashing out — well, a campaign that treats Alan Krueger, Christy Romer, and Laura Tyson as right-wing enemies is well on its way to making Donald Trump president.

 

[grokit]

 

[howie105]

Hey CK. Sorry, I wasn’t clear enough with my definition of ourselves when I said " Till we find a way to make peace with ourselves and move forward as a group we all share in the gridlock." I should have explained the point better, that ourselves meant all the citizens have to get together and move on the issues that we can agree on.

It has been the progressives that have brought our country forward over the decades. Those that are afraid have held the country back....As a raving centrist I should point out that some of the folks on the right have a very similar view of those that disagree with them too, they just switch up the black and white hats.

Trump has raised the bar when it comes to stupidity and fear mongering...As a centrist I don't buy Trump either but I will point out that fear and loathing is a tool in everyone’s political tool box that most operatives get around to using in some manner.

 

[Joel W.]

Everyone goes to the extremes both right and left during the primary's to grab their base.

Look for everyone to shift their positions towards the center soon as we get closer to the general.

 

[grokit]

I'm a privacy advocate, but imo Trump has this one right (at least on the surface).
What can I say, even a broken clock is right a couple of times a day:

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump backs FBI on Apple ruling

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has criticised Apple for contesting a court order to help the FBI access phone data belonging to the San Bernardino gunman.

"I agree 100% with the courts. In that case, we should open it up," he said.

Apple chief Tim Cook says the order to circumvent security software on Syed Rizwan Farook's iPhone threatens the security of Apple customers.

Presidential candidates have touched on questions of cyber security during the 2016 race for nomination.

"Who do they think they are? They have to open it up," Donald Trump told Fox news on Wednesday, referring to Apple's decision to fight a court order to help the FBI unlock the device, which had been encrypted.

"I think security, overall, we have to open it up and we have to use our heads. We have to use common sense," he added.

In a statement, Apple said the court order was "an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers" that "has implications far beyond the legal case at hand".

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the FBI request for access did not mean they were asking for a "backdoor" - or unauthorised access - into the company's device or for it to be redesigned.

"They are simply asking for something that would have an impact on this one device," he told reporters on Wednesday.

more...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35591988

 

[Magic9]

Here is another little blog post from Paul Krugman on Sanders' fantasy econ:

How does Bernie Sanders have "fantasy econ"? He never claimed 5.3%. An economist that ran the analysis came up with that. Bernie Sanders didn't. Other economists are free to run the numbers themselves. Even Krugman. I look forward to what they find. As of yet, they haven't. Oddly, Sanders is the only candidate to lay out enough of his policy to actually do an analysis of.

NONE of what he proposes is contingent on any analysis done by any economist. How is he going to pay for his proposals? This is how.

How did a labor economist come up with what he did? Watch an interview with the man in question.

 

[CarolKing]

This isn't a quick fix. It's a ten year plan so if Bernie is in office for just 4 years he's going to need that plan continued in order for things to turn out as planned.

I don't want to rain on all of our parades but I'm not sure if Bernie will end up as an 8 years president because of his age. He will be 83 at the end of his first term. In a perfect world Bernie would be 5 years younger.

Edit
Oops got Bernie's age wrong. He's 73. In my head I was thinking he was four years older.

 

[Gunky]

How does Bernie Sanders have "fantasy econ"? He never claimed 5.3%. An economist that ran the analysis came up with that. Bernie Sanders didn't. Other economists are free to run the numbers themselves. Even Krugman. I look forward to what they find. As of yet, they haven't. Oddly, Sanders is the only candidate to lay out enough of his policy to actually do an analysis of.

NONE of what he proposes is contingent on any analysis done by any economist. How is he going to pay for his proposals? This is how.

How did a labor economist come up with what he did? Watch an interview with the man in question.

I watched that interview with Friedman. It's worthless. The whole point is that in order to make it work Friedman has to posit 5.3% growth, which is fantasy.

I went to the link (here) from Bernie's campaign site and it also struck me that the payment methods, on the right side of the page, were all wonderful, just wonderful and highly unlikely to happen. It's like a liberal wish list! The only thing left off is everybody's pony...

The republicans have been fooling their constituents for years, telling them they are going to ban abortion, shut down planned parenthood, endlessly lower taxes on the rich without creating deficits, repeal Obamacare, make Christianity a favored religion etc etc. The democrats, to their credit so far, have been the reality party. Sanders, much as I like his base reasoning about economic fairness, reverses this and has a platform and policies that are almost entirely fantasy and rely on the sudden disappearance of all repubs.

 

[Joel W.]

I have read that for every dollar you spend on infrastructure, you can get back $2 into the economy or GDP..

"The theory behind infrastructure spending is the multiplier effect: the idea that every dollar in government expenditures can increase GDP by more than one dollar by starting economic chain reactions: the government pays firms for goods and services and those firms then pay employees who then spend their paychecks.".

Seems like a solid plan that has worked well in the past.