Presidential Election Aftermath: What Now / What Next?

Just weird. I guess Carson and Trump wanted to come out last as if they were saving the best for last or something.

 

^^^ I don't think Carson heard his name called, so when they said the next guys name, he let them go ahead. And the next guy, and the next, and the next.

Trump is big on #1 type stuff, so him leading the polls in NH, he wasn't gonna let anyone be last on stage.

 

That was awesome.

 

Take every economic analysis with a grain of salt, but this makes sense to me...

"Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says
by Tami Luhby @LuhbyFebruary 8, 2016: 11:52 AM ET
Related: 5 unanswered questions about Bernie Sanders' health care plan

This more sweeping analysis was not commissioned by the candidate, though Sanders' policy director called it "outstanding work." Friedman previously scored the Vermont senator's Medicare for all plan.

Sanders' plan to pour $14.5 trillion into the economy -- including spending on infrastructure and youth employment, increasing Social Security benefits, making college free and expanding health care and family leave -- would juice GDP and productivity. Also, he would raise the minimum wage, as well as shift income from the rich to the middle and working class through tax hikes on the wealthy and corporations.

"Like the New Deal of the 1930s, Senator Sanders' program is designed to do more than merely increase economic activity," Friedman writes. It will "promote a more just prosperity, broadly-based with a narrowing of economy inequality."

Many presidential hopefuls say their economic programs would boost growth. Donald Trump and Jeb Bush justify their big tax cuts by saying GDP would grow at a 4% rate. But their plans have been panned by experts as overly optimistic.

Friedman, however, argues that Sanders' plan would be more stimulative because it is pouring money into the economy, as opposed to cutting taxes. Several of Sanders' proposals -- such as spending $1 trillion on infrastructure -- will happen in the first few years of his administration.

The thinking goes: This enhanced government spending would increase demand on businesses, who would then hire more workers to meet their needs. The increase in employment will prompt people to buy more, leading other businesses to hire.

"If there is more spending, people will have more to do," Friedman said, noting that the share of the population with jobs could be restored to its 1999 level of more than 64%, up from its current 59.6% rate.

Related: Can Bernie Sanders deliver free college for all? Not so easily

Sanders' policy director, Warren Gunnels, also defended the estimates, noting the candidate is thinking big.

"We haven't had such an ambitious agenda to rebuild the middle class since Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson," he said.

Still, some experts question whether the effects would be that large.

Stimulating demand can boost a weak economy during a recession, but "it's harder to accept as a long-run growth strategy," said William Gale, the former director of Brookings' Economic Studies Program.

Also, it would be very difficult to achieve and maintain an economic growth rate of 5.3% per year after inflation. That target hasn't been hit consistently since the 1960s, when technology was providing big advancements, the workforce was younger and there was increased demand for American products worldwide as other countries fully recovered from World War II.

"The 5.3% number is a fantasy," said Jim Kessler, senior vice president at Third Way, a centrist think tank.

CNNMoney (New York)First published February 8, 2016: 11:52 AM ET"

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/new...s-income-jobs0524PMVODtopLink&linkId=21086984

 

^^ read the article, but can't watch the video right now. Does he say where the $14 Trillion is coming from? Simply printing it or borrowing it isn't gonna help us, IMO. Almost $20 Trillion in debt already.

 

I'm watching the video now. LMAO Gonna raise the taxes $500, but gonna lower medical insurance $5000. Okay, I guess I can keep my doctor too. This is a joke, right? I have an idea: Why not leave my taxes alone and just lower the medical insurance $4500? He can't, because he's lying. He's a politician, that's what they do!

ObamaCare passed, but for some reason, people still don't have insurance. Why is that? Maybe this is just another tax for the rich, disguised as a way to help the poor and middle class. Just maybe.....

I swear, I hate politicians.

 

As I said before, I don't know for sure, but the idea is to not have any medical premiums, copays, or deductibles.

Off hand, I'd say if you reduce the benefits to 4,500, you still have those elements to pay, even if they're greatly reduced, which adds a huge billing and accounting element to the process that wouldn't be there if there were no premiums, copays, or deductibles. We pay for every collections department, every tax writeoff for a bill that wasn't paid, etc. Eliminate those, streamline the process of the medical insurer getting paid, reduce costs.

Just my theory

 

Shots fired.

 

Ever increasing.... but as of yet still a pawn for his, and his partie's "donors" [read: real corporate/union masters]

 

Sanders and Trump both won New Hampshire handily apparently.

 

These 2 being the front runners is scary. A socialist and a buffoon. Amazing how far we've slumped as a country.

 

Quirke? Political corruption at it's best. Whether you like Bernie or not, I hope you all recognize the DNC is trying their damnedest to make sure he doesn't win. If that isn't a sign that they don't think he will maintain status quo, and can't be bought by the typical political money system, I don't know what is...

"After Crushing Defeat, DNC Quirk Still Gives Hillary More New Hampshire Delegates Than Sanders
DEREK HUNTER
Contributor
9:11 AM 02/10/2016

Completing this poll entitles you to Daily Caller news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policyand Terms of Use.

Though Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire primary in a landslide over Hillary Clinton, he will likely receive fewer delegates than she will.


Sanders won 60 percent of the vote, but thanks to the Democratic Party’s nominating system, he leaves the Granite State with at least 13 delegates while she leaves with at least 15 delegates.

New Hampshire has 24 “pledged” delegates, which are allotted based on the popular vote. Sanders has 13, and Clinton has 9, with 2 currently allotted to neither.

But under Democratic National Committee rules, New Hampshire also has 8 “superdelegates,” party officials who are free to commit to whomever they like, regardless of how their state votes. Their votes count the same as delegates won through the primary.


New Hampshire has 8 superdelegates, 6 of which are committed to Hillary Clinton, giving her a total of 15 delegates from New Hampshire as of Wednesday at 9 a.m.

The state’s 2 remaining superdelegates remain uncommitted.

In the overall delegate count, Clinton holds a commanding leadafter a razor-thin victory in Iowa and a shellacking in New Hampshire. Clinton has 394 delegates, both super and electorally assigned, to only 42 for Sanders.
"

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/10/h...egates-than-sanders-after-loss/#ixzz3zn6CRQEV

 

Superdelegates... Whatever.

F*** this system.

 

Because who really cares about who the people actually vote for?...

 

The popular vote literally doesn't matter anymore.

 

Christie and my girl Fiorina dropped out.

 

I couldn't care less about that Christie guy. Seems like a total whackjob.

Fiorina just doesn't know the politics game. I liked a lot of her economic/fiscal ideas.