2016 New Hampshire Primaries

Bernie isn't getting a lot of votes from minorities. Must have offended them, doesn't understand their concerns, and/or a racist I guess

 

Agree with all of this. I think the GOP will keep him afloat as long as they can but he's simply not ready. Maybe there is a cache of substance hiding somewhere, but I haven't seen it.

 

Agreed. But it will help to keep it in the forefront when that "glitch-in-the-matrix" moment is replayed on a continuous loop, both by the media and his opponents.

The danger for Rubio is that he tries to over-correct that guffaw by trying to play free-and-loose with his comments, going forward. That's throwing worse money after bad, because well, he is a canned-answer candidate, and I think that he'll appear disingenuous in the effort, or worse, desperate. It's tough to see how he rebounds, but he'll have proven a great deal to me if he does find a way.

 

Impossible, I've been told on this very forum that taxes have never been higher than they are right now.

 

It's a name recognition issue more than anything. Notice how he doesn't denigrate them and instead says he wants to earn their vote.

 

Statistics must be a lie, since they find no correlation.

 

The you must think economic theory from both sides of the isle is complete and utter bullshit and completely fabricated because even obama's own economists acknowledge that lower taxes means more economic growth. The debate is whether the higher economic growth is worth the temporary decrease in tax revenues, not whether lower taxes actually helps the economy.

 

I do not think Kennedy believed in supply side economics. His purpose in his tax cuts was to spur demand side.
From a tax perspective you can argue that there is little functional difference given that the top marginal rates were cut by 15+%. But the purpose was largely to spur activity on the demand side.

 

Rough night.

See you guys on good Friday.

 

Bump.

 

If this is true, then the more the government is paying for, the less capable it is to incur any loss in tax revenue, meaning, taxes can't be reduced. But then, higher (or escalating) taxes hinder business growth, and which leads to a cascading effect of higher unemployment, a greater need for more government assistance, and which then increases the amount of money the government must have to hand out.

Am I wrong in seeing it this way? Because this looks like higher taxes not only perpetuates, but greatly exacerbates, the whole problem.

Maybe we should stop giving out free shit. Especially to people who aren't even citizens. Or who are able-bodied and minded, and who don't want to do shit on their own, ostensibly, because they're lazy, narcissistic, without remorse for the ills their (in)action creates for the greater populace / good or they are too stupid to understand it.

 

Supply side works and is the surest way to create growth. The issue being though that we never cut spending and only increase it causes the issue.

We haven't paid a debt off since WW1.

 

It's silly to argue 15 percent is little functional difference and I have no idea what your point about demand is. Demand side economics is about reducing tax rates for solely the middle and lower class and that isn't what he did. And that also flies directly in the face of the quote tenn d posted.

 

It's about taxes being low enough to be stimulative which I'd argue they are now. When you have 90 percent top marginal rates it's anti stimulative. IP's been reading Wikipedia too much. This silliness that every tax cut in American history hasn't ended up with a booming economy completely ignores that taxes aren't the only factor in economic growth and it ignores that the 3 biggest tax cuts in American history have resulted in dramatic rebounds in the economy. And frankly it's pure common sense. People have more money, they spend more money or invest more money. It's not brain surgery here.

 

Man, can Bloomberg win? I don't want him to come in if it means Trump, but I would take him over the realistic candidates all day

 

If he runs as an indipendent as has been suggested it's doom for the democratic candidate

 

Balderdash, next thing you will be saying is she is a liar and cannot be trusted. Probably try to make her look incompetent, you chauvinistic pig.

 

Careful, you will be branded an non-compassionate racist.

 

Interesting read from **** Morris.

Clinton deploys B Team

http://thehill.com/opinion/****-morris/268831-****-morris-clinton-deploys-b-team

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is falling apart. Bernie Sanders soared in New Hampshire and now two polls have him tying her nationally. It’s a disaster.

Now she’s called in the B Team — the cynical, paranoid and wacky twins Sidney Blumenthal and David Brock — to bail her out. And here comes the elderly, diminished and livid former President Bill Clinton to lead the duo’s frantic attacks on Sanders.

The attacks are rooted in nothing more than a list of dirty names they call the Vermont senator every day. Having found little in his record to attack, they have consulted the thesaurus to turn up ugly sounding accusations.

Sanders has a coherent, consistent and concise message: Incomes are stagnant because the economy is rigged by the top one-tenth of 1 percent that controls politics through massive campaign contributions.

Clinton has no competing message, just the charge that Sanders’s supporters are “sexist and vulgar.” Brock adds that one of Sanders’s ads was racist because it had too many white people in it.

Their strategy is laughable. After losing 84 percent of young voters in Iowa — and failing to recover them in New Hampshire — they sent in two aging fossils of feminism to insult and threaten young women.

The 81-year-old feminist Gloria Steinem charged that young women are only backing Sanders because that’s where they can meet boys. And 78-year-old Madeleine Albright threatened to consign to a “special place in hell” women who don’t back female candidates like Clinton.

Those are two great ways to attract young voters.

The aging and raging ex-president, meanwhile, speaking to a half-filled gym in a New Hampshire school, ranted about Sanders’s “hypocrisy” in condemning his wife’s paid speeches. Sanders, too, has given paid speeches, Bill Clinton claimed.

He’s got a point. In 2013, for example, Sanders made all of $1,500, which he donated to charity as required by federal law. In 2014, he raked in $1,850 for paid speeches. By contrast, Clinton made, and kept, over $21 million during the same time period. Sanders was only reimbursed for coach class airfare, while Clinton demanded private jets. Sanders’s hosts were the TV show “Real Time with Bill Maher,” Avalon Publishing and a machinists union. Clinton’s were Goldman Sachs, the big banks and the pharmaceutical and energy industries. What hypocrisy for Sanders to use that as an issue!

Both Brock and Blumenthal share the former first lady’s enthusiasm for discussing the “vast right-wing conspiracy” in America. Now that they’ve been outed as being back on her team, it’s easy to understand why Clinton sees conspiracies everywhere. This paranoia, egged on by the B Twins, explains her failure to grasp the cataclysmic changes her own misconduct has wrought on her image, to say nothing of the societal and economic tectonic shifts at work. No, it’s all the GOP’s fault.

Blumenthal worked to spin Monica Lewinsky as a crazed stalker of an innocent president, and his hundreds of gossipy emails urged Clinton to do all she could to topple Moammar Gadhafi when she was secretary of State without realizing that it would open the door and let the terrorists waltz in. He hides in the shadows, ducking subpoenas and frantically emailing his crazy self-serving ideas while flattering his way into Clinton’s affections.

Brock first came into the Clinton camp as a convert from conservatism. Before he did so, he outed Paula Jones, triggering Bill Clinton to lie to a grand jury, resulting in close to $1 million in payments to Jones and thousands to the court in fines, as well as disbarment and impeachment scandals. Now he serves to destroy Hillary Clinton’s career as well by counseling a scorched-earth policy that savages Sanders and alienates the very young people who must provide Clinton her political base in the general election.

Neither the B Twins nor Bill Clinton’s rage can save the bewildered former secretary of State, who cannot understand why a funny thing is happening on her way to her coronation. Voters looked at her and ran screaming.

 

HaHa; D I C K is censored