Elections 2016 New Hampshire Primary Discussion

[Jack V Savage]

absolutely. Republicans should never bitch about balancing the budget ever again if they don't elect kasich.

Kasich's fiscal policy would cause deficits to rise greatly.

 

[Lead]

Last two polls released before today show Kasich in 2nd at 17. Not the most reliable pollsters though and the margin is close enough between five candidates that it hard to tell where things will land tonight

 

[ucunc156]

When will things start to be clear? Not until after the polls close?

 

[Lead]

absolutely. Republicans should never bitch about balancing the budget ever again if they don't elect kasich.

He was running on that first but then swing over to expand the military and maybe balance the budget in his eighth year. With Rand out, we likely don't have a balanced budget candidate on either side and rands balanced plan would've been a machete to spending and revenues

 

[GearSolidMetal]

When will things start to be clear? Not until after the polls close?

Obviously.

 

[Lead]

When will things start to be clear? Not until after the polls close?

Not sure but probably around then. Id say we know who wins and most of the places before 10

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Kasich's fiscal policy would cause deficits to rise greatly.

Oh, as if that's been a consern for Democrats over the past seven years.

Rising deficits under a Republican President? Democrats reply 'No! This is an outrage! How dare you!'

Hey! Republicans and Democrats! How about a balanced budget constitutional amendment?

Washington Republicans/Democrats Establishment's reply - 'Are you fucking retarded?!?!?!?'

 

[Lead]

Oh, as if that's been a consern for Democrats over the past seven years.

Rising deficits under a Republican President? Democrats reply 'No! This is an outrage! How dare you!'

Hey! Republicans and Democrats! How about a balanced budget constitutional amendment?

Washington Republicans/Democrats Establishment's reply - 'Are you fucking retarded?!?!?!?'

Democrats really don't run on that. They do complain about tax cuts but not really in the context of balancing the budget but rather reducing funding for programs they like.

Republicans make this a central issue every cycle and never actually do anything for it. There's always a war that's super important that we can't think of balancing right now. It's embarrassing to watch it happen year after year with people only caring when they aren't in power

 

[Jack V Savage]

Oh, as if that's been a consern for Democrats over the past seven years.

Odd response. The guy said that Republicans can only complain about deficits if they nominate Kasich (implying that he, and only he, has a plan to reduce them). In fact, he has a plan to increase them by a lot.

Rising deficits under a Republican President? Democrats reply 'No! This is an outrage! How dare you!'

Hey! Republicans and Democrats! How about a balanced budget constitutional amendment?

Washington Republicans/Democrats Establishment's reply - 'Are you fucking retarded?!?!?!?'

Nah, you're viewing the issue through fanatically partisan lenses. You want higher deficits in a recession and lower ones when the economy is doing well (with the long-term trajectory toward debt staying the same or falling slightly relative to our ability to pay). It has nothing to do with parties. A balanced budget amendment would lead to disasters every time the economy needs higher deficits, though.

Also, note that liberals and conservatives have different incentives when it comes to deficits. Liberals believe that deficits threaten funding for programs that they think are helpful so they generally want to pay for new spending programs with new revenue (or cuts). See the ACA for an example. Conservatives want lower taxes more than anything and ultimately less spending. So they generally have no problem with deficits because the theory is that collecting insufficient revenue forces spending down.

Look at how Sanders and Clinton have talked about wanting to raise specific taxes in order to pay for the programs they propose, while Republican candidates have not given any indication of how they intend to pay for huge giveaways to the rich.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Democrats really don't run on that. They do complain about tax cuts but not really in the context of balancing the budget but rather reducing funding for programs they like.

Republicans make this a central issue every cycle and never actually do anything for it. There's always a war that's super important that we can't think of balancing right now. It's embarrassing to watch it happen year after year with people only caring when they aren't in power

That's my point, only the establishment of both parties don't think it's a good idea. We should only have social programs that are essential and we can pay for.

And I'd be royally pissed if the next President doesn't have a balanced budget as a priority within five years. Getting it done immediatley isn't realistic, but grandually cutting the deficit over a number of years is.

But to the Washington Establishment, it's an impossibility, because in their collective minds, they've made it an impossibility.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Odd response. The guy said that Republicans can only complain about deficits if they nominate Kasich (implying that he, and only he, has a plan to reduce them). In fact, he has a plan to increase them by a lot.

Who said this? I sure as hell didn't.

Kasich constantly brags about his contribution to balancing the budget, because it's one of his few conservative credentials. It was also over two decades ago.

Nah, you're viewing the issue through fanatically partisan lenses. You want higher deficits in a recession and lower ones when the economy is doing well (with the long-term trajectory toward debt staying the same or falling slightly relative to our ability to pay). It has nothing to do with parties. A balanced budget amendment would lead to disasters every time the economy needs higher deficits, though.

Also, note that liberals and conservatives have different incentives when it comes to deficits. Liberals believe that deficits threaten funding for programs that they think are helpful so they generally want to pay for new spending programs with new revenue (or cuts). See the ACA for an example. Conservatives want lower taxes more than anything and ultimately less spending. So they generally have no problem with deficits because the theory is that collecting insufficient revenue forces spending down.

You're confusing Conservatives with establishment Republicans. But other than that, you're mostly correct.

Reguardless of party, the politicians want to filter tax payer funds to their chonies, friends, and campaign donors through government programs and contracts.... reguardless of the health of the economy.

This is one of the reasons why the huge 2-year budget deal was engineered before Boehner left. If he was being ousted, he was going to take care of those that is going to take care of him.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Who said this? I sure as hell didn't.

??? Ucunc156 made a comment, I replied to it, and you replied to my reply.

Reguardless of party, the politicians want to filter tax payer funds to their chonies, friends, and campaign donors through government programs and contracts.... reguardless of the health of the economy.

Huh? That makes no sense. Who are Sanders' and Clinton's cronies that would benefit from family leave or single payer? And Republicans are trying to get the rich to pay drastically less; not to filter "taxpayer funds" to anyone.

This is one of the reasons why the huge 2-year budget deal was engineered before Boehner left. If he was being ousted, he was going to take care of those that is going to take care of him.

???

 

[IGIT]

You're confusing Conservatives with establishment Republicans.

hi GSM and good afternoon,

was President Reagan a conservative or an establishment Republican?

what about Governor Bentley of Alabama? is he a conservative?

- IGIT

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Huh? That makes no sense. Who are Sanders' and Clinton's cronies that would benefit from family leave or single payer? And Republicans are trying to get the rich to pay drastically less; not to filter "taxpayer funds" to anyone.

I'm mostly referring to senators and congressmen. The President can verbalize support for bills & funding, so one of their party can introduce the offical documentation in the Congress to be approved, then the Senate approves it, then signed by the President.

???

Don't tell me you believe the narriative of the MSM as to why Boehner stepped down from one of the most powerful offices in the government.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

hi GSM and good afternoon,

was President Reagan a conservative or an establishment Republican?

what about Governor Bentley of Alabama? is he a conservative?

- IGIT

Don't know much about Governor Bentley of Alabama.

I have a huge feeling no matter what I said about Reagan being a conservative, which entire books have been written about this, I'm sure you'd come up with a few paragraphs about Simpson/Mezoli, raising taxes in some areas, supporting abortion as the California governor, once being a liberal democrat, and being in approval of the Assault Weapons ban in 1994.

Being 'Conservative' doesn't mean you can't have a difference of opinion, and I'd be happy to discuss this in a seperate topic on a slow news day, but this topic about today's signifantly important primary is getting a bit hijacked.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Don't know much about Governor Bentley of Alabama.

I have a huge feeling no matter what I said about Reagan being a conservative, which entire books have been written about this, I'm sure you'd come up with a few paragraphs about Simpson/Mezoli, raising taxes in some areas, supporting abortion as the California governor, once being a liberal democrat, and being in approval of the Assault Weapons ban in 1994.

He's just saying that Reagan also believed in using deficits to get cuts to domestic spending, which is something you said only applied to establishment Republicans.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Heads up in case Hilary is still peddling this falsehood to whip up support. And shame on Bernie for flip-flopping on common sense legislation.

http://thehill.com/opinion/katie-pa...ich-clinton-lying-about-gun-industry-immunity

The firearms industry is “the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability,” Democrat presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton said during a campaign event last fall. “They can sell a gun to someone they know they shouldn’t, and they won’t be sued. There will be no consequences.”

“You can sue a company for making an unsafe toy — but not for making an assault rifle used to kill children,” she tweeted earlier this year.

This is the latest smear campaign being run by the left. It’s a big lie. Gun manufacturers and companies are responsible for bad products. They are not responsible for bad people who use their products improperly.
The so-called immunity and “whole protection” Clinton and her anti-gun supporters are referring to is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was passed by a bipartisan Congress and signed into law by then-President George W. Bush in 2005. In fact, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders voted for it — not because the senator is from Vermont but because it was the logical, fair thing to do. Due to political pressure grounded in hysteria rather than based in fact, Sanders has changed his position and now says he would vote against the legislation.

Then the article lists recent successful lawsuits against gun makers. Then concludes on this bit.

Just like every other industry, the firearms industry can in fact be sued — a far cry from being immune or “wholly protected” of any liability.

Despite these facts, we’ve seen the smear campaign against the industry, not to mention against the good men and women who work within it, continue without challenge.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is not immunity, as Clinton has claimed, but rather protection for firearm companies, and by default the Second Amendment, from being harassed and sued out of business.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

He's just saying that Reagan also believed in using deficits to get cuts to domestic spending, which is something you said only applied to establishment Republicans.

The national debt was a fraction of what is is now. It didn't have the adverse consequences that we can see on the near future, as compared to the 1980s.

Anyway, any word on the NH primaries?

 

[Jack V Savage]

The national debt was a fraction of what is is now. It didn't have the adverse consequences that we can see on the near future, as compared to the 1980s.

Weird response. There are no adverse debt consequences that we can see on the horizon, and there were during Reagan's time, as a result of his policies. But that's not even the point. The point is that liberals and conservatives have different incentives when it comes to deficits. Liberals want lower ones because they believe that funding for programs they like are jeopardized by deficits. Conservatives--including Reagan--want/wanted bigger deficits because they believe the same thing--that it can lead to cuts to domestic spending.

Anyway, any word on the NH primaries?

Yawn. Both races are locks already.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Weird response. There are no adverse debt consequences that we can see on the horizon, and there were during Reagan's time, as a result of his policies.

So, the debt just hit $19T, we can keep going at this rate infinitely?

But that's not even the point. The point is that liberals and conservatives have different incentives when it comes to deficits. Liberals want lower ones because they believe that funding for programs they like are jeopardized by deficits. Conservatives--including Reagan--want/wanted bigger deficits because they believe the same thing--that it can lead to cuts to domestic spending.

Then, by that logic, liberals must be furious at the congress and Obama for jacking up the deficits and debt so high for the last seven years. Since, they love low deficits.

And they must really hate Sanders for his spending plans to jack it up even higher.

Yawn. Both races are locks already.

The real race is for 2nd for the Republicans.