2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[archibaldcrane]

do you read anything that gets linked

I'm not trying to challenge your assertion, I'd like this info in my back pocket for the next time this comes up (since it always does).

I read lots of stuff, I skimmed all 3 of the links above regarding charitable donations.

[Gredival]

My disdain for the left has rarely been as high as it is for people who say that Republicans aren't pro-life past the womb.

I get that you think their methods are harmful-- perhaps some of them are. But it's still stemming from a genuine desire to do the most good for the most people. The portrayal of apathy of Republicans is insane-- it's not a question of whether the poor need help (Republicans and Democrats agree that they do); it's a question of where that help should come from. Painting them as monsters for not wanting a wasteful, horribly inefficient and draconianly inflexible federal government to provide that help is not the same as "Hey, I hope you die." Republicans are consistently more charitable with their time and with their money than Democrats: they want the people who need help to get the help they need, but they don't want them attached unendlingly to the teet of dependency, and they are consistently more willing to *personally* work to make sure that happens. It isn't a disagreement of the problem, or the need for help, and I'm freaking tired of Democrats and liberals acting like it is. It's a disagreement on the best way to solve those problems in both the short and long term. Labeling it as anything else is incredibly disingenuous.

You've argued the point before and failed to address three points.

First is that the 1% wing of the GOP party is different from the religious and social conservative. Your personal experience with the latter aside, there are plenty of GOP politicians that care naught for those who would suffer if the social safety net was slashed. They are there to cater to the interests of the people that put them there (i.e. they are the villain that Bum wants to imagine Hillary is)

Second is that the idea that the federal government is inherently inefficient and ill-suited to help. Better functioning, more efficient, social welfare programs in Europe disprove this.

Third is that personal or public assistance is besides the point. The goal is to get help where it's needed. If liberals don't give of their own volition, or give less because public assistance exists, the point is that the increased taxes compensate for that by making sure there are people and programs to do the work. Conversely slashing current levels of public assistance won't necessarily be accompanied by greater efforts by private citizens.

[kuronosan]

This fucking debate.

[Quicklet]

Poor Jeb. Tries to be "more forceful" (in Jeb terms), gets shut down pretty much every time he talks.

[Quicklet]

These candidates are all probably wishing the moderators were questioning them like the CNBC ones so they could just rail against the media all night instead of having all these really sketchy awkward exchanges with each other.

[Sho]

Poor Jeb. Tries to be "more forceful" (in Jeb terms), gets shut down pretty much every time he talks.

To be fair, his young protégé Rubio basically says everything he was going to say with much more youth and vigor.

With that said, I think Bush is pretty much dead.

Kasich also dead, which is a shame. With him will go the true Reaganism that the GOP holds onto so dear.

[Quicklet]

Kasich just got booed for saying he would protect people's deposits if a bank went under (which doesn't even make sense since FDIC would cover like 99% of that anyway).

[Sho]

Kasich just got booed for saying he would protect people's deposits if a bank went under (which doesn't even make sense since FDIC would cover like 99% of that anyway).

GOP just want to burn everything down, no real plan.

[Quicklet]

Some of the facial shots of Cavuto and Maria are telling, like even they can't believe some of the shit these candidates are saying.

[Sho]

Rubio won big again.



Bush the maddest and lost big again.

[thetruepandagod]

Every second jeb spends talking is a second wasted.

[Quicklet]

At the very least I hope we get some Rubio Darth Vader gifs out of this.

Seeing Jeb go fully negative on Rubio as a final act of desperation will be glorious.

[Buffy]

I didn't have time to reread these at the moment as I need to eat dinner and catch up on the debate, but aren't Republicans only more charitable when tithing to churches is included in "charitable giving"? There's a lot of evidence to support the assertion that donating to churches is not donating to charity (due to the fact that religion is big business), and when you take that away, Democrats are suddenly way out in front. Donating to churches is a lot like paying dues to a country club. It's not helping anyone but you and your small group of associates.

Hey Blub,

Yah I thought of that too. The only thing I linked that specifically addresses it is the book on Compassionate Conservatism by Arthur C. Brooks. He has a section of his book that argues that even after controlling for religious donations, conservatives still give more. Others who criticize his book argue his methodology is flawed. However what you mention is what I thought to be true personally before googling it - that after accounting for religious donations Democrats were at least even with, if not ahead of conservatives - so I'm not sure.

[Kanriel]

Hey Blub,

Yah I thought of that too. The only thing I linked that specifically addresses it is the book on Compassionate Conservatism by Arthur C. Brooks. He has a section of his book that argues that even after controlling for religious donations, conservatives still give more. Others who criticize his book argue his methodology is flawed. However what you mention is what I thought to be true personally before googling it - that after accounting for religious donations Democrats were at least even with, if not ahead of conservatives - so I'm not sure.

Does his methodology include Bill Gates? Because that man is contributing more than much of the American people, I'd imagine.

[Churchill]

Probably depends on what actual cash money per year breakdowns look like re: political leanings

My parents are conservative, they donate a shitload of money - not because they want to, but because it's the only way to beat obummers tax changes

[Marootsoobutsu]

Lots and lots here; my usual word-bloat:

Does his methodology include Bill Gates? Because that man is contributing more than much of the American people, I'd imagine.

Spoiler: show

Gates and Buffet (and to a lesser extent, Paul Allen), are phenomenal philanthropists, and definitely fall on the secular liberal side of things. Also, they are exceptional liberals in this: MANY wealthy liberal donations to charity are going to operas, art museums, ballets, etc... which, while beneficial to society, help the poor generally less than giving to a church does (particularly since many of these donations go to groups with minimal free events for the poor). Gates, Buffet, and those of their ilk are shaking things up quite a bit, and I hope their influence spreads among the hyper-wealthy, whether liberal or conservative.

That said, there are two discussions: percentage of wealth, and total donations. Republicans give *VASTLY* more as a percentage-- in fact, the 17 best states by that metric *ALL* went to Romney. In terms of raw dollars, even accounting for Gates and Buffet, Republicans still give about twice as much to charity as Democrats do.

Then, there's the question of time. Consider that Republicans are about (at least last I saw) 75% of the folks who are actually volunteering their time for charities-- even non-religious charities (it's vastly higher for religious charities). If you take the value of their time as even minimum wage (something no study of charity does, at least that I'm aware of), Republicans so thoroughly curb-stomp Democrats on the issue that you'd need more than a hundred Gates and Buffets to make a dent in the gap. It's really not even close.

First is that the 1% wing of the GOP party is different from the religious and social conservative. Your personal experience with the latter aside, there are plenty of GOP politicians that care naught for those who would suffer if the social safety net was slashed. They are there to cater to the interests of the people that put them there (i.e. they are the villain that Bum wants to imagine Hillary is)

Spoiler: show

There is definitely a disconnect between Republican politicians and Republican rank-and-file, no doubt. Which is part of why Carson is polling so high, along with Trump: Republicans are as, or more, fed up with business-as-usual as Democrats are (at least for now; I don't expect either to last long). But I suspect that the GOP politicians care every bit as much as the Dem politicians do-- you're going to have the uncaring on both sides, who simply want power. But most probably care.

Second is that the idea that the federal government is inherently inefficient and ill-suited to help. Better functioning, more efficient, social welfare programs in Europe disprove this.

Spoiler: show

No, they don't, because you don't have any European Union programs that are anything like functional. You have programs in homogenous, unified, small nations (and France, the UK, and Germany at least somewhat matched with Texas and California), with people who are essentially all the same race, ethnicity, and of one-of-three religions/non-religions, with a basically shared history, shared language, etc... The ONLY nation in Europe that comes close to America in terms of its diversity of population and ideologies is really Russia, and I'm not sure that's a comparison anyone really wants to make. Every single example you can pull up is one that would be best served on a state level, and Republicans (until EVERYTHING started getting pushed to the Federal level, because screw the 10th Amendment), generally did that-- the moderate Republicans of Yesteryear tended to be very conservative federally, and moderately liberal at the state level-- providing those services and such that folks wanted, but in ways that fit their very unique local needs and situations.

Third is that personal or public assistance is besides the point. The goal is to get help where it's needed. If liberals don't give of their own volition, or give less because public assistance exists, the point is that the increased taxes compensate for that by making sure there are people and programs to do the work. Conversely slashing current levels of public assistance won't necessarily be accompanied by greater efforts by private citizens.

Spoiler: show

Personal or public isn't beside the point. You're right that the goal is to get the help where it's needed-- now, and over the long term. While I *DO* think there is a role for the federal government in this, it's not in establishing policy or in helping directly. It's in supporting charities. Because (and I can't recall who brought it up before), giving DOES go down when it is needed the most-- during times of economic hardship. The government *CAN* serve as a buffer in those times, so that charities can continue to do their good work; that is one area where the federal government could be incredibly more efficient than charities. But as far as the good ACTUALLY done, there's no comparison: government programs are even more wasteful than even many corrupt charities, and are no where near as efficient in their goals as the best charities are. If it were a collect-and-distribute function (something I think best done at state levels, to minimize re-distribution bureaucratic bloat), where it was working hand-in-hand with charities, more than trying to give directly to people based on arcane rules established on nation-wide criteria that doesn't address individual needs, local nuance, or differing situations of particular regions of the country, it would work better-- that is, it would do more good, to more people, who need the most help. My objection isn't just that many federal programs are inefficient-- it's that the often provide long-term harm, rather than help, to people. And I don't have a perfect answer for how to undo that long-term harm without inflicting short-term harm, but I sure-as-hell don't want more stacked on.

If the Republicans actually cared, and their issue was the federal government doing it, why wouldn't they say: "Hey Mississippi, you have x people, take y dollars per person you have and create the best system you can to provide them with quality health care." Boom, state government bloat instead of federal, and the state government gets the financial assistance to help its people. Would that not be a decent Republican idea, in theory? Why is that not happening? Fuck, Obamacare has pretty much exactly that written into it, doesn't it?

Spoiler: show

State government bloat, while not ideal, is smaller than federal (it's one less tier of bureaucracy to wade through); county is smaller, and city is smaller still, and all three of those levels are more immediately accountable to their constituents than anyone at the federal level is. Putting more emphasis on the state level also reduces the influence of business-- it's a lot easier to funnel money to 100 senators, 1 President, and 435 Representatives than it is to 50 governors, and the thousands of state senators and state representatives. Republicans want to help, but that darned fiscal responsibility doesn't want to help bureaucrats-- it wants to help the poor. Last year, $125B was wasted on duplicated efforts and mismanagement alone by the feds (and yes, part of that was by the military). A LOT of that becomes easier to track and solve if its reduced from a massive federal budget and put into smaller state budgets-- especially if people shift their emphasis to that state scale. And that's not even including the costs of bureaucracy.

You're a teacher. Are you aware of how many employees there are in the education system for every teacher? Of how much money is spent on education that never reaches any classroom-- even when you consider a football field a classroom? You, and I, none of us has ANY influence on how much specialists in DC get paid, nor their secretaries, nor their under-secretaries, nor their assistants, and down the line. About 59 cents of every dollar spent on education goes to a classroom or athletic field. Less than 1/2 of the people on the payroll of Department of Education *EVEN WITHIN STATES* are teachers, and when you include Federal DoE employees, the number drops to under 40%. While I recognize that there are a lot of folks-- librarians (and librarians are generally listed as teachers in these studies), principals and administrators, bus drivers, cooks, janitors, and others-- who are essential to running a school, you shouldn't be looking at ratios like that. You just should not. While there's always bloat, when more control was much, much, much more local, that kind of bloat wasn't tolerated by the cities/counties where it happened and was exposed, and was corrected *immediately*.

[Ragnus]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...wifi-password/

Pretty much a non issue, but I just found this funny.

[notorious bum]

Just now finding out that the next Dem debate is on Saturday? DNC is still doing a bang-on job, cranking the hype-machine on all cylinders lol

I guess they just can't stand to give up Hillary's fixer, even though she is an absolutely incompetent chairman.

[archibaldcrane]

Just now finding out that the next Dem debate is on Saturday? DNC is still doing a bang-on job, cranking the hype-machine on all cylinders lol

I guess they just can't stand to give up Hillary's fixer, even though she is an absolutely incompetent chairman.

I agree, Hillary doesn't need the help, she's working Bernie quite nicely on her own.

[Dimmauk]

I'm really starting to believe that Bernie will beat Hillary. I'd rather have Bernie, but Hillary is a billion times better than any of the Republican candidates.