Did CNBC moderators do a sufficient job during the 28 Oct GOP debate?
CNBC hosts progressively lost control of the event
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz turned openly hostile, accusing them all of being Democrats intent on damaging the GOP field
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie soon piled on the network
Donald Trump wrapped up his night by claiming he had strong-armed them into shortening the debate 'so we can get the hell out of here'
'CNBC should be ashamed of how this debate was handled,' Republican Party chairman Reince Priebus said.
Claims of media bias became a major theme of the night, with Cruz letting loose the night's first scathing barrage against moderators Carl Quintanilla, Becky Quick and John Harwood.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3294016/Republican-debate-runs-rails-turns-war-Donald-Trump-bashes-John-Kasich-Jeb-Bush-hits-protege-Marco-Rubio-hammers-CNBC-s-moderators-losing-control.html#ixzz3pwFJvpG5
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
In fact I really enjoy watching debates, even when it’s not my party, and no interest in voting for anybody on the stage I still enjoy watching them. The one thing I can tell you right now is I’ve never seen a Republican primary debate where all the Republicans said it was a well-structured debate, because in Republican politics it pays to be against the media.
"With that said, it’s important not to get lost in the theater criticism of presidential debates. This was supposed to be on the economy, and while it jumped into issues such as same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization, that was largely true. And after the modest but steady gains of the Obama administration where is the Republican Party on growth, wages, and economic security?
The same place it’s always been. As with Mitt Romney’s campaign in 2012, the signature policy plan for every Republican candidate is a tax cut. “We need somebody who can lead. We need somebody who can balance budgets, cut taxes,” said Ohio Gov. John Kasich, touting his record. “We’re reducing taxes to 15 percent. We’re bringing corporate taxes down, bringing money back in, corporate inversions,” said Donald Trump. “Growth is the answer,” declared Cruz. “And as Reagan demonstrated, if we cut taxes, we can bring back growth.” And the cuts are meant for high earners. Under Rubio’s plan, for example, the government wouldn’t tax income from dividends and capital gains, largely benefiting the wealthiest Americans. And while Rubio includes measures that benefit the bottom 10 percent of income earners, the overall effect of his supply-side cuts is to tilt the tax code toward the top at an even greater angle than exists now.
There’s more: Gov. Chris Christie called for Social Security benefit cuts and demogogued the program as broke (despite all evidence to the contrary) while Sen. Rand Paul and Ben Carson pitched the audience on their plans to slash Medicare benefits. Carson called for a flat tax, Cruz praised “sound money” and the gold standard, and Carly Fiorina attacked the federal minimum wage as unconstitutional. Candidates talked about their modest upbringings but couldn’t articulate plans for reducing student loans and debt. At most, Kasich pointed to online education, Bush pointed to “accountability,” and Rubio promised more vocational training."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/10/jeb_bush_suffered_another_crushing_defeat_in_the_cnbc_debate_republican.html
Walt
Wednesday’s Republican presidential debate was critical for Jeb Bush. He had to show donors and voters that he was a fighter, with life in his campaign—tha
The only presidents in 100 years to submit balanced budgets were Democrats. We can agree on that too.
Walt
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001915.htm
Walt
XwâD? Î_ØÙîZRÆÊ}úÑâ·EV}§pË;ð§e+ü])'HíóAfCdÉó84ò·À[u;9ÂÑr·7ÂPÌ;kô9ÁámÒ»CNs=ÃJ3ûø~B}ç§]06'ot5ûþ=ÕRàæÇôD-úµÕc[t?º$]+l.êÊ`ùP6«DptèÌtd&0ÚÐçñå«êËS%Ü2.,QDÔ!¶¿3ïÄ#·âéI|U"ºvéuÚ=v{«ÜW*nbYòXÄÆ1kÓjíÖp-ÛÔ¡*r+0Æ@Ìì`Ø-V ØðN*ÚÿÏz%&ÝR@rjcn=ÙÐ ÉÝVÊQÑÉ:Z_ÕE,ºÅh.\ÀægyqjQ§"ÔÙGw?õ`4Ú@Ì*óAMAË0ìp/7) Q:XEùþß;ãËÐvv'oèfæFÂݵ Ðs+\È·õbµAû ^^TåÉsÄ%Eô_9SºÚ;^Àòó¿ÙÚ8ȵ,^ ÐÊsP^XÔÈÏ'oÔE^%ߪ`(r4~Àéa9u2P_^V[v!û!_yËTQð;ÍkpÄÞ»ölf96Aç§V϶NùÜ¡«?îd§Þ*úê·judóÿÏû ~KIÝ·Í...
That doesn't work. Sometimes the government must step in for the good of the people.
"Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States found Standard Oil guilty of monopolizing the petroleum industry through a series of abusive and anticompetitive actions. The court's remedy was to divide Standard Oil into several geographically separate and eventually competing firms.
Over a period of decades, the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey had bought up virtually all of the oil refining companies in the United States. Initially, the growth of Standard Oil was driven by superior refining technology and consistency in the kerosene products (i.e., product standardization) that were the main use of oil in the early decades of the company's existence. The management of Standard Oil then reinvested their profits in the acquisition of most of the refining capacity in the Cleveland area, then a center of oil refining, until Standard Oil controlled the refining capacity of that key production market.
By 1870, Standard Oil was producing about 10% of the United States output of refined oil.[1] This quickly increased to 20% through the elimination of the competitors in the Cleveland area."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey_v._United_States
Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States found Standard Oil guilty of monopolizing the petroleum industry through a series of abusive and anticompetitive actions. The court's remedy was to divide Standard Oil into several geographically separate and eventually competing firms.
I'm not surprised the left wants a totalitarian government. Of course it's really great until everyone is subject to the camps. I really hope you're good friends with Bill Ayers. He wanted a one party government too. Fortunately for you, his little group didn't target you back when you were serving.
Your confused Standard Oil existed because of Government protection, same as Pan Am Airline, and almost every other monopoly. Big companies lobby for protection and the Government props them up. Rarely do we get a Teddy Roosevelt in office who attacks big businesses, Conservative Republicans have been asking to end the Government sponsored monopolies for decades.
I agree there are instances where the Government must step in, markets that cannot be competed, schools, national defense, road construction. But those markets are a small percentage. Socialism has a long historical record of massive failures and stagnation. Even Karl Marx knew Socialism wouldn't be able to grow the economy.
Does anyone want a planned economy and wages dictated by the state like in the USSR? No, of course not. I guess by your lights, “Social Security” should be abolished.
Teddy Roosevelt 100 years ago, for the good of all, helped turn away the same type of rapacious Robber Baron that you would welcome.
Walt
The fourth GOP debate revealed that Republican candidates are unprepared for a general election that is fought over the economy.
"There are a few things we can get out of the way about Tuesday’s Republican presidential debate. First, after months of decline, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul had his first great night, challenging Sen. Marco Rubio on tax expenditures and defense spending, pushing Donald Trump on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and stepping into his father’s role as the libertarian gadfly in the race. “If you’re a profligate spender and you spend money in an unlimited fashion for the military, is that a conservative notion?” Paul asked in his closing statement. “We have to be conservative with all spending, domestic spending and welfare spending. I’m the only fiscal conservative on the stage.”
More significant for Americans were the actual views of the candidates. Tuesday’s debate, hosted by Fox Business, was on the economy. The first question of the night was on the fight for a $15 minimum wage, and subsequent questions dealt with tax cuts, job growth, and the Federal Reserve. In several places, the candidates showed disturbing ignorance of basic facts of the American economy. Paul, for example, blamed low interest rates for problems faced by the poor, despite all evidence to the contrary. Likewise, Bush attacked Dodd-Frank financial legislation for reducing capital requirements for banks, when the law does the opposite.
The GOP contenders were out of step with the actual economic needs of ordinary Americans.
Even ignoring these flubs, misstatements, and half-truths, the GOP contenders were out of step with the actual economic needs of ordinary Americans. Each candidate talked about relief for workers and families, but outside of Rubio’s child tax credit, few offered it. Instead, candidates came out against raising the minimum wage, called for a new gold standard for currency, and pushed plans for massive upper-income tax cuts. Unlike the first Democratic debate—when Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chaffee tusseled over college affordability and health care costs—there was little in the Republican debate that spoke to the challenges of ordinary people rather than businesses.
Moreover—and more importantly for the politics of economic growth—the Republican candidates were silent on one of the key questions of the 2016 election. “The Democrats will inevitably ask you and voters to compare the recent presidents’ jobs performance,” said moderator Gerard Baker to Carly Fiorina. “In seven years under President Obama, the U.S. has added an average of 107,000 jobs per month. Under Clinton, the economy added about 240,000 per month; under George W. Bush, it was only 13,000 a month. If you win the nomination, you will probably be facing a Democrat named Clinton. How are you going to respond to the claim that Democratic presidents are better at creating jobs than Republicans?”
Fiorina dodged the question. She didn’t have an answer. And neither did anyone else on the stage. Later, moderator Maria Bartiromo threw Rubio a softball on Hillary Clinton. “Why should the American people trust you to lead this country even though she has been so much closer to the office?” His answer was smooth—“[I]f I am our nominee, they’ll be the party of the past”—but it ignored this basic question of economic performance.
This is a problem. Barring disaster, President Obama will finish his term with a growing economy. Republicans need to show Americans that they can do better—that they can deliver growth and resources to the people who need them. Otherwise, little else matters. The Democratic nominee will inherit the Obama economy and prevail."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/republican_candidates_aren_t_prepared_to_argue_over_the_economy_in_a_general.html
Walt
The GOP’s Top Candidates Aren’t Prepared to Argue With a Democrat Over the Economy
There are a few things we can get out of the way about Tuesday’s Republican presidential debate. First, after months of decline, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul ha