I just watched this and WOW what a train wreck CNBC is. This wasn't a "debate" between candidates, it was a "grilling and gotcha" session by the liberal network.
Quite a few of the questions were not unique and were not about a certain candidate's policy issues. The questions were pretty much bait for a "gotcha" by the moderators. Rather than letting the candidates follow up or offer their input, the moderators forced their own biased input. Much of the basis for the moderator's followups were not based on fact, they were based on opinion. If this is supposed to be a "debate", then why not ask a question of subsistence and if a competing candidate has a response or another point of view, allow that candidate to express that?
Consider this.
How many times has Carly Fiorina been asked about her record at HP?
How many times has Marco Rubio been asked about the failed immigration reform bill that he supported?
How many times has Donald Trump been asked about bankruptcy?
The list goes on and on. These questions have already been asked and addressed long ago. Why continue to push these kinds of questions? The answer is to drill into the low-information voter's minds some of the "controversies" to paint a bad picture.
Why not ask a simple question regarding a single topic, and let the candidates each give their viewpoint? Why not allow them to show why their particular plan/policy would be better than the other candidate's?
If I had to pick a "winner" in this "debate" I would say the the winner is the candidates vs. the moderators.
There is a stark difference between asking tough questions and following up aggressively vs. trying to poison the well with your own opinion and then trying to slap someone down when they don't conform to your premise and I think that CNBC crossed the line last night. Not only did they cross the line, they blatantly crossed the line. It got to the point that about a quarter of the way through started to basically unite against the biased moderators. I've never really seen anything like it. I am curious to see how this plays out.
These are strange times that we live in. There has always been a wink and a nod that the mainstream media leaned at least a little left of center. Most republican candidates in the past just accepted it and tried to work around it. Now I think that we are dealing with something a little different. In the last presidential election cycle we had George Stephanopolis ask a random question about a policy position that no republican holds (do states have the power to ban birth control) and the very asking of the question started the war on women narrative. Then you have Candy Crowley working on Obama's behalf about Benghazi in the second debate. Those were direct examples of bias dressed in the veil of objectivity.
Then a few months ago Chris Mathews made the slip, when talking about Hilary Clinton, when he said "Don't worry we'll get you in there." This of course implied that the main stream media would in fact as an agent directly on her behalf. Since that time the viel has gotten progressively thinner and now we are dealing with out and out open hostility towards anyone with an R after their names.
Comic book Villiain, why don't you just go home and resign, you know that you were a rotten CEO why don't you just admit it, Trump you can't build a successful business and you know it. This debate was supposed to be about economics.
We were warned about this. It's gotten worse and worse as the years have gone by. this is the second debate where 45 minutes in one of the candidates had to point out the fact that the questions had absolutely nothing to do with policy positions. Its only going to degenerate further through this election cycle. WHY? Because its the republicans turn. Obviously the presidency isn't a hallpass, but historically it is extremely rare for a party to have a third consecutive term in the executive. In the case of Reagan/Bush you had the greatest peace time economic expansion in history... In the case of the short dynasty of FDR you had the champion of the working man in the face of the great depression and that covers the last 75 years.
Like him or dislike him, the economic performance over the last 8 years hasn't produced the kind of let the good times roll love of the democratic party to up end the historical trend away from third terms. So what's going to have to happen? They're going to have to go negative, and I mean really negative. We're talking "If republicans win they are going to burn down black churches AND the barbeque joint around the street" It's not just that they hate gay people they hate people period. It's not just that they are wrong on taxes but they want to charge YOU interest on the money that they over confiscated. It's not just that they want to put ground troops in IRAQ they want to put ground troops in the HOOD, that sort of thing.
why did the GOP agree to do a debate with CNBC in the first place? Seems like a bad idea. They should have just held their own. In fact that's probably what both parties should do rather than aiding to the growth in revenue the debates land the news channels.
Yeah I said this in the 2016 thread, it was a terrible debate.
Meh I watched the first two debates nothing new I'll wait till the voting starts and see how it all shakes out.
On some level I've given up, we're [BLEEP] and it's just a matter of time now.
The claim that the Social Security Trust Fund has been looted is bunk.
"It's full of IOUs."
No, it's not full of IOUs. Unless you call a US government bond an "IOU." By law, the Social Security Trust Fund must invest in US Government securities. Now, to take that fact and say the Trust Fund has been "looted" to pay for other things is just pure demagoguery. People are made to think there's a box somewhere and if you open it up, it has a post-it note with "IOU several trillion" written on it. There's nothing wrong with understanding the accounting, and if you really stretch the concept, the whole economy runs on "IOUs", but the way they describe the Social Security Trust Fund is irresponsible.
So for Christie to stand up there and tell the American people their money has been "stolen" is an absolute lie.
I wish you understood how financially literate you sound. If an open-end investment company took all of it members accounts and inmediately borrowed 100% of the money to fund other projects they would be put in jail. And you're right a lot of our economy is built up on ious infancia counting that's why I have 5% mortgage default rate almost ended the capitalist system as we understand it. Real quick just to check what are the different objectives of old age insurance versus a general retirement account.
Quote:I wish you understood how financially literate you sound. If an open-end investment company took all of it members accounts and inmediately borrowed 100% of the money to fund other projects they would be put in jail. And you're right a lot of our economy is built up on ious infancia counting that's why I have 5% mortgage default rate almost ended the capitalist system as we understand it. Real quick just to check what are the different objectives of old age insurance versus a general retirement account.
Where would you prefer the Social Security Trust Fund invest their money?
Right now, it's invested in US Government bonds, as required by law. Why would you put them in jail for following the law?
The law is based on a financial scheme that would be ilegal and frankly laughed at in the private sector.
1.) the government confiscates money by force of law put it into a pool and then invests in its own debt instruments. That makes no sense.
2.) as participants in the program we dont get any certificate of ownership of the underlying debt obligation because we dont in fact own anything. If someone bought a government bond or shares in a bond fund that specialized in government debt it would belong to thwm and pass to their heirs if they pass. Thats not the case with social security. You dont own anything, there is no account witg your name on it. You just pay the current beneficiaries of an insurance program with the promise thar it will be there for you. Thats not insignifigant. The only reason that the program survives in a democratic society is because people think there ARE accounts for individuals.
3.) you didnt answer my question. What are the different objectives of old age insurance versus a retirement account?
Id prefer that an entity with a negative 6/1 debt to income ratio didnt invest ANYTHING for me. A private investment company that accumulated that much debt would be shut down by the sec and the fund manager would be civily prosecuted to bankruptcy and barred from ever being a custodian of other peoples money again! As Carly Fiorina correctly pointed out if her company was actuarially projected towards fiscal insolvency and she misrepresented that projection to shareholders shevwould be put in federal prison. The social security system is projected to insolvency within the next couple of decades. When was the last time you heard obama or jack lue talk about that?