2016 Election Thread

[ashbury]

 It would be like having 3 pages of David Ortiz debate in the middle of a Sano thread.

Right. That's what Kennys Vargas threads are for.

[TheLeviathan]

Social issues do matter, but the truth is that politicians find all sorts of ways to cover their tracks from screw-ups or flip flops.

 

 From the best of my estimations, that's what it means to be a politician.  

[Mike Sixel]

All I know about deficits is they are bigger when Republicans are the President, and smaller when Democrats are. I've asked my Republican friends about that, they don't want to admit the facts, and come up with all kinds of excuses why, since 1980, that is how it has been.

[TheLeviathan]

 

All I know about deficits is they are bigger when Republicans are the President, and smaller when Democrats are. I've asked my Republican friends about that, they don't want to admit the facts, and come up with all kinds of excuses why, since 1980, that is how it has been.

 

Republicans are too in-bed with some of the most cost-consuming parts of our budget.  Namely, the military.

[twinsnorth49]

I'm not a moderator, but IMHO this thread has veered quite a ways from the origin. It looks to me like the consensus here is more libertarian than anything. I find very little to like in the Republican platform and hearing guys like Ted Cruz speak make me fear for the future of the country. The hard-right base is far overrepresented in Congress and in Republican primaries and until they can break that grip, the party will be too out of touch with the voting public to win national elections.

This could be the most fascinating thread I've read in a long time, on so many levels.

[biggentleben]

I don't want to label anyone under one "party" platform. I'd personally consider myself fiscally conservative and socially liberal, but I'm constantly told by hard-liner friends on either side that I cannot be both. I currently vote Democrat most often, not because I agree with the entirety of the platform, but as much as anything, because the candidates they put forth, especially on a national level are more moderate in their views from a strict liberal vs. conservative side. Right now, the crux of the problem that Republicans have at a national level is that they have backed their party to the extremist ends of their party's base, which doesn't appeal to those in the middle at all.

 

The US is still looked upon for political leadership around the globe, but in a more flat world, ideas come from anywhere, but our political system is still based on a pre-Internet funding and candidate selection process. Special interests grabbed foot hold with Reagan and have only increased their hold on the political system since. Those interests are often at the extremes of political ideologies, and when someone who isn't on the extremes is shouted down so frequently by those extreme ends, the center of those ideologies becomes silent, a silent majority, in reality. Now our political system is so bogged down with satisfying political interests that rarely is something truly beneficial to the entire country actually accomplished in Washington.

 

For someone who loves my country as much as I do, it is difficult for me to be as pessimistic as I am at the political direction of the country, from DC to my small home state, due to the lack of impact of the voice of the people. We should be living in an era where the voice of the people is as accessible and easily heard as possible, yet it seems the "information age" has only given even MORE voice to the extremes in our political process.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't want to label anyone under one "party" platform. I'd personally consider myself fiscally conservative and socially liberal, but I'm constantly told by hard-liner friends on either side that I cannot be both.

 

 We should be living in an era where the voice of the people is as accessible and easily heard as possible, yet it seems the "information age" has only given even MORE voice to the extremes in our political process.

 

I've been there too with that first comment.  I truly believe there is potential for a libertarian candidate soon, they just have to have the platform for it.

 

And yeah, that second comment is a head scratcher.  The extremes just know how to draw headlines and what buttons to push with our increasingly stupid population.

[drjim]

I wonder if we are too big and diverse that the Federal government as currently constructed just can't work. Maybe some decentralization and focus on more local solutions to problems is loremore the future.

[PseudoSABR]

I really just don't get the fervor behind libertarianism.  The market has already had nearly unabated access to address issues like employment, healthcare, poverty, education...   Part of the problem with the new brand of right wing governance is that they gum-up the legislative process.   I think we need to acknowledge that quasi-government solutions are sometimes necessary (depending on the nature of the problem).  I think we need to experiment, be willing to invest public dollars in programs that have some risk of failure, and may run at some public loss.  I think a libertarian approach would handicap any potential experiment.

 

Libertarianism, while shows foreign and fiscal restraint; I don't think offers much in the way of workable ideas, as sound as it might be theoretically/philosophy.  I mean how is libertarianism different from austerity.  I mean, other than not being rightwing crazy (and not a democrat), what ideas would a libertarian candidate offer that would address any of the issues we've been talking about.  I think we need less ideology and more ideas, programs, etc. not just stances on issues.

 

I apologize for painting with a broadbrush, but I am curious about the viability of such a candidate.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Libertarianism, while shows foreign and fiscal restraint; I don't think offers much in the way of workable ideas, as sound as it might be theoretically/philosophy.  I mean how is libertarianism different from austerity.  I mean, other than not being rightwing crazy (and not a democrat), what ideas would a libertarian candidate offer that would address any of the issues we've been talking about.  I think we need less ideology and more ideas, programs, etc. not just stances on issues.

 

You know who else argues that this is what libertarianism is?  Limbaugh.

 

You're using a very extreme version of the label, while most that use it just mean "I want less government when possible, more functional solutions, and more personal liberty"  

 

Most libertarians, for example, would help a host of issues by eliminating our archaic penalties for minor drug offenses.  They'd scale back the military and military spending.  Those two alone are better than anything either major party candidate is going to suggest and it isn't even close.

[drjim]

Levi, FWIW, I think you are describing the liberal elite position, not a libertarian position.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Levi, FWIW, I think you are describing the liberal elite position, not a libertarian position.

 

I disagree, liberals have long since stopped caring about effective solutions.  It's one of the things I think separates moderate libertarianism.

[drjim]

 

I disagree, liberals have long since stopped caring about effective solutions.  It's one of the things I think separates moderate libertarianism

 

Do Libertarians actually have solutions for anything? I generally thought their position was best summed up as don't do anything about anything and let the market take care of it. Not that I disagree.

 

I was just commenting that socially liberal, fiscally conservative is the default position of liberal elites (or probably just elites in general). Not all liberals mind you and certainly not what comes out of the Democratic party.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Do Libertarians actually have solutions for anything? I generally thought their position was best summed up as don't do anything about anything and let the market take care of it. Not that I disagree.

 

I was just commenting that socially liberal, fiscally conservative is the default position of liberal elites (or probably just elites in general). Not all liberals mind you and certainly not what comes out of the Democratic party.

 

I guess I'm confused by what you mean by "liberal elites", I've never heard that position argued from anyone but libertarians.

 

Strict libertarianism would be the "let the market do everything" approach, but that is overplayed by critics.  There are some notable intellectuals and commentators who say that sort of thing, but regardless of position those are usually the least reliable voices.

 

As I said, most libertarians see government as needing to limit itself to defense of the population and basic upkeep of society/infrastructure.  Like most political positions, the details get sketchy from there and some may be more or less extreme.  However, I'd argue there is a strong strain of libertarian thought in most of us born 1980 or later.  We recognize government needs to intervene and markets won't fix everything, but we also see most government programs as being built to feed the beast and not to solve problems.  Many of our greatest "market failures" started and stopped with government intrusion.  (Usually to help one side or the other line their pockets with regulations)  We want more individual privacy and freedoms, not less.  We want to push people to be responsible for themselves (not give them a blank check to do nothing), but we also recognize the need to invest in them to allow that to happen.

 

Unfortunately, most national candidates end up looking too much like the Tea Party than someone who just stresses more liberty.

[Craig Arko]

So lacking the dream team (earlier post) at least this guy could be on the cabinet somewhere; maybe 'Secretary of Flim-Flam.'

[DaveW]

If a conversation changes organically, we do not interfere. Conversations can veer in any direction they like, provided that change is conversation-driven, not troll-driven.

Trolpo for president!!!!!

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Do Libertarians actually have solutions for anything? I generally thought their position was best summed up as don't do anything about anything and let the market take care of it. Not that I disagree.

 

I was just commenting that socially liberal, fiscally conservative is the default position of liberal elites (or probably just elites in general). Not all liberals mind you and certainly not what comes out of the Democratic party.

 

Most of us recognize that by 'doing something' the government tends to create more problems than it solves.  It also recognizes that not every problem out there is solvable by the government, and most certainly not the federal government.  State and local governments likely have a better grasp on their constituents to solve those issues.  But yeah, there are solutions there.  You have to recognize the problem for what it is, and neither party really gets its head around the fact that the government is a big part of most of the problems that we face today.  I know it isn't always as simple as 'shrink the government', but honestly, that works more than people give it credit for. 

[drjim]

 

Most of us recognize that by 'doing something' the government tends to create more problems than it solves.  It also recognizes that not every problem out there is solvable by the government, and most certainly not the federal government.  State and local governments likely have a better grasp on their constituents to solve those issues.  But yeah, there are solutions there.  You have to recognize the problem for what it is, and neither party really gets its head around the fact that the government is a big part of most of the problems that we face today.  I know it isn't always as simple as 'shrink the government', but honestly, that works more than people give it credit for. 

 

I realize this is a popular cliche, but is it true? Increased government intervention seems to lead to better outcomes (up to a point). There is a sweet spot surely between government action and free market, but merely saying more government leads to more problems doesn't appear to hold up to empirical fact.

 

It's not especially hard to think of numerous examples where government interaction is absolutely critical and absence of such would be a disaster, even on the Federal level.

[TheLeviathan]

I realize this is a popular cliche, but is it true? Increased government intervention seems to lead to better outcomes (up to a point). There is a sweet spot surely between government action and free market, but merely saying more government leads to more problems doesn't appear to hold up to empirical fact.

 

It's not especially hard to think of numerous examples where government interaction is absolutely critical and absence of such would be a disaster, even on the Federal level.

Libertarians wouldn't end FEMA, or the national guard, or anything like that....but what role should it play in education? Why is it tangled up with so many contracts for military spending? And let's not even get started on the myriad of financial regulations. There is a lot of room to scale back.

[drjim]

 

Libertarians wouldn't end FEMA, or the national guard, or anything like that....but what role should it play in education? Why is it tangled up with so many contracts for military spending? And let's not even get started on the myriad of financial regulations. There is a lot of room to scale back.

 

I would argue room to scale back and also some room to expand in other areas. I'm certainly not saying the current mix is ideal. There is room for reform.

 

But saying "most people realize that government doing something tends to create problems" is true only when you ignore the cases where doing something made society much, much better.

[TheLeviathan]

I would argue room to scale back and also some room to expand in other areas. I'm certainly not saying the current mix is ideal. There is room for reform.

 

But saying "most people realize that government doing something tends to create problems" is true only when you ignore the cases where doing something made society much, much better.

Not always and sometimes immediate positives, when viewed in the long term, look insignificant compared to the lasting damages. Look no further than the Great Society initiatives - as a whole a devastating debacle we are still reeling from.

 

I don't want to see welfare or food stamps end. In fact, I could see raising those benefits....so long as we also establish an endgame for them for individuals as well, but many of these programs are ends to themselves for too many.

[Mike Sixel]

As much as I don't need the government to do everything......if they aren't in education, that's a problem, imo. You can see that in places like England, where they've created a dual class in education.

 

Having watched what big companies have done throughout history, when they aren't restrained somehow, well, I'm not interested in a completely free market anymore, like I used to be.

[drjim]

 

Not always and sometimes immediate positives, when viewed in the long term, look insignificant compared to the lasting damages. Look no further than the Great Society initiatives - as a whole a devastating debacle we are still reeling from.

I don't want to see welfare or food stamps end. In fact, I could see raising those benefits....so long as we also establish an endgame for them for individuals as well, but many of these programs are ends to themselves for too many.

 

I know it is conventional wisdom to criticize Great Society and the lasting damages of government dependency and cycles of poverty, I generally buy into it as well.

 

That said, I'm starting to think differently about this, especially in the context of what we are seeing today. We have seen welfare reform and shrinking of government benefits, and even though we have a steady (if not spectacular) growth, there does appear to be stagnation in much of the middle and a relative drop in the economic prospects of the poorer. I'm trying to fit together how this is related, and if some additional propping up might be more beneficial, or if additional cutting to programs like these (not elimination) would make the inequality problems even worse.

 

I'm not sure we have simple and clear answers, but I'm much less confident in the conventional wisdom than I used to be.

[TheLeviathan]

As much as I don't need the government to do everything......if they aren't in education, that's a problem, imo. You can see that in places like England, where they've created a dual class in education.

 

Having watched what big companies have done throughout history, when they aren't restrained somehow, well, I'm not interested in a completely free market anymore, like I used to be.

I always think it's funny to hear people compare our education system to Europe. Some countries there literally declare you too stupid for college and steer you towards apprenticeships and job training instead.

 

As if those same liberals that hold those nations up as an example would ever accept that sort of system. But yeah there is a role for the federal government, just not remotely as constituted today.

[TheLeviathan]

I know it is conventional wisdom to criticize Great Society and the lasting damages of government dependency and cycles of poverty, I generally buy into it as well.

 

I'm not sure we have simple and clear answers, but I'm much less confident in the conventional wisdom than I used to be.

I'm not convinced they have to be cut so much as fundamentally reimagined.

[Mike Sixel]

IMO, we are a generation or 2 from another revolution, and the Koch brothers and their friends will have brought it upon themselves with their greed. At some point, there will be enough poor, desperate, under - educated people that they'll just start shooting the wealthy. It's pretty much how history works, isn't it?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I don't want to see welfare or food stamps end. In fact, I could see raising those benefits....so long as we also establish an endgame for them for individuals as well, but many of these programs are ends to themselves for too many.

This is how I feel as well. I'd like to see benefits expanded in many cases but there has to be an exit strategy in place. I don't have a lot of great ideas how to go about that but more extensive education benefits seem a reasonable place to start.

 

I also believe that welfare recipients should continue receiving a partial paycheck after they start working. Wean them off the benefits slowly and give them an incentive (more money) to get back to work. If you get a job that pays the same as welfare benefits, why leave welfare? If you give them welfare money on top of the job's paycheck for, let's say a year of decreasing benefits, that's an incentive to get out there and work.

 

Will those ideas work for every person on the dole? No, of course not... But that's not the point. There are always going to be the "slackers" in society who leech from the system. In a socialist world (and we are in a socialist world), that's the reality of it. We should work on incentivizing getting off welfare in a positive manner, not punishing people because we've tried punishment and it doesn't work (and I'm against the idea of punishing poor people for being poor in the first place).

 

Again, I'm very pragmatic about this issue. What turns the most people from societal leeches into tax-paying citizens? To me, the money spent doesn't matter so much as the later return on that money. Whatever has the end result of getting people back to work and paying taxes is the best idea.

[TheLeviathan]

Absolutely right Brock, for too many going back to work is a downgrade in financial security. If that doesn't mean the system is broken, I'm not sure what does.

[drjim]

The best and most efficient way is just cut a check for everyone. For many it would just be a tax refund.

 

Straight percent tax (either income or VAT) and then everyone gets the same check.

 

Obviously will never happen for a variety of reasons.

[TheLeviathan]

I'm a tad confused by this Jim, do you really mean everyone?