Can Rand Paul beat Hillary?

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Well, it does, since Bush and his buddies in Congress pioneered a left-corporatist economic policy.

He did have some policies that one would consider centrist, but the deficits were all driven by foreign conflicts and unnecessary tax cuts. Hardly leftist.

The tax cuts had little to do with the deficits of the Bush years. They did not spawn the declining revenues of his first term, the early 2000s recession and the following jobless recovery did. It's important to note how much spending grew on welfare programs and social services. Obama is not the "Food Stamp President" - Bush is, and was considered so.

[Spoder]

(Image)

No understanding of modern economics? Check.

So I can't post a funny to lighten up the mood without somebody calling me an ignorant dumbass who should know this shit and be a better American, yaddah yaddah yaddah...

[Arkolon]

Were their practices really discriminatory? Sure, some of the proceeds went to some dodgy guys, but were any LGBT people directly discriminated against when they purchased from the CfA? Is there a sign near below the counter that says "don't serve LGBT"?

The point is, were laws against discrimination repealed, and Chick-fil-a decided implicitly not to hire LGBT individuals, there would not be a huge outcry from their main base.

You're making huge assumptions. There was a minor problem where the profits of a big company went to dubious political campaigns the bosses liked, which eventually led to them not being able to finance these campaigns anymore because of the outcry from the public and outcry from parts of the business community. If it was as major as you assume, there would have been a much, much bigger response.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Irving Kristol was a notable figure in the 70s and 80s, and no way is it different now, unless you can somehow convince me that the Bush Presidency, Medicare Part D and the Food Stamps explosion didn't happen.

Again, not every NeoCon is pro-market. But many are, like me, or most Republicans in Congress.

You don't seem very pro-market to me. By the sounds of it, you would trade tax increases, socialised medicine and enormous increases in the size of government just for a war or two abroad. If you're pro-market, you'd prioritise shrinking government over war, which is just what Rand Paul is.

[Murkwood]

That might have played a tiny factor, but it mostly had to do with Saddam's illegal annexation of Kuwait.

And why was it important that the US kept a Saddam-free Kuwait?

1. Saddam was a tyrant, much much worse than the Emir.
2. Kuwait was a somewhat ally of ours.
3. What he did was a violation of international law.
4. Saddam could use the oil profits to fuel, pardon the pun, his evil regime.

Also, it wasn't a US operation. It was a UN one.

[Kelinfort]

He did have some policies that one would consider centrist, but the deficits were all driven by foreign conflicts and unnecessary tax cuts. Hardly leftist.

The tax cuts had little to do with the deficits of the Bush years. They did not spawn the declining revenues of his first term, the early 2000s recession and the following jobless recovery did. It's important to note how much spending grew on welfare programs and social services. Obama is not the "Food Stamp President" - Bush is, and was considered so.

Yeah, the recovery was quite terrible, but the tax cuts were largely unnecessary; there was no real benefit from the cuts, and the spending increases that caused a large deficit and may have been curbed by higher taxes continued to be terrible. Since revenues had not declined during the taxes of the late 90's and only declined during the recession as a natural part of the business cycle, there was no real incentive to lower the tax rate.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

And why was it important that the US kept a Saddam-free Kuwait?

1. Saddam was a tyrant, much much worse than the Emir.
2. Kuwait was a somewhat ally of ours.
3. What he did was a violation of international law.
4. Saddam could use the oil profits to fuel, pardon the pun, his evil regime.

Also, it wasn't a US operation. It was a UN one.

Also, annexing Kuwait meant that Saddam would have controlled 40% of the world's oil supplies.

[Murkwood]

Again, not every NeoCon is pro-market. But many are, like me, or most Republicans in Congress.

You don't seem very pro-market to me. By the sounds of it, you would trade tax increases, socialised medicine and enormous increases in the size of government just for a war or two abroad. If you're pro-market, you'd prioritise shrinking government over war, which is just what Rand Paul is.

If being pro-market means that shrinking the size of government is the only thing that matters, ever, then I guess I'm the next Marx. I'm pro-market, but I'm also pro-US and pro-human rights. Sometimes, you have to sacrifice a pro-market agenda for the good of people in another country.

Also, I'd never support Socialized medicine.

[Kelinfort]

Again, not every NeoCon is pro-market. But many are, like me, or most Republicans in Congress.

You don't seem very pro-market to me. By the sounds of it, you would trade tax increases, socialised medicine and enormous increases in the size of government just for a war or two abroad. If you're pro-market, you'd prioritise shrinking government over war, which is just what Rand Paul is.

Most neocons also support protectionism, along with policies to benefit corporations.

[Murkwood]

You don't seem very pro-market to me. By the sounds of it, you would trade tax increases, socialised medicine and enormous increases in the size of government just for a war or two abroad. If you're pro-market, you'd prioritise shrinking government over war, which is just what Rand Paul is.

Most neocons also support protectionism, along with policies to benefit corporations.

Those kinda protectionist views are going away.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

The tax cuts had little to do with the deficits of the Bush years. They did not spawn the declining revenues of his first term, the early 2000s recession and the following jobless recovery did. It's important to note how much spending grew on welfare programs and social services. Obama is not the "Food Stamp President" - Bush is, and was considered so.

Yeah, the recovery was quite terrible, but the tax cuts were largely unnecessary; there was no real benefit from the cuts, and the spending increases that caused a large deficit and may have been curbed by higher taxes continued to be terrible. Since revenues had not declined during the taxes of the late 90's and only declined during the recession as a natural part of the business cycle, there was no real incentive to lower the tax rate.

I think tax cuts could have stimulated economic expansion like they did in the 80s and 90s if they were coupled with a stabilised dollar and interest rate increases. One of the reasons economic expansion continued strongly into the 1990s was because of very good monetary policy. But instead, the Bush Administration and the Federal Reserve pursued Keynesian weak-dollar policies, unsustainable interest rate cuts and increased government spending that surely drove foreign capital away. Greenspan also, unfortunately, dropped the "gold price rule" that had been so successful in the previous two decades. Such policies also led to the enormous increase in the price of oil, which was a disadvantage to us but benefited Putin and the government of Iran.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

You don't seem very pro-market to me. By the sounds of it, you would trade tax increases, socialised medicine and enormous increases in the size of government just for a war or two abroad. If you're pro-market, you'd prioritise shrinking government over war, which is just what Rand Paul is.

If being pro-market means that shrinking the size of government is the only thing that matters, ever, then I guess I'm the next Marx. I'm pro-market, but I'm also pro-US and pro-human rights. Sometimes, you have to sacrifice a pro-market agenda for the good of people in another country.

Also, I'd never support Socialized medicine.

But if Hillary got into office she would surely keep and expand Obamacare. You don't want that, do you? Surely, the lesser of the two evils to you would be Rand Paul?

[Murkwood]

If being pro-market means that shrinking the size of government is the only thing that matters, ever, then I guess I'm the next Marx. I'm pro-market, but I'm also pro-US and pro-human rights. Sometimes, you have to sacrifice a pro-market agenda for the good of people in another country.

Also, I'd never support Socialized medicine.

But if Hillary got into office she would surely keep and expand Obamacare. You don't want that, do you? Surely, the lesser of the two evils to you would be Rand Paul?

Again, sometimes you have to put foreign affairs ahead of domestic ones.

[Murkwood]

Was the thread just locked, and then unlocked, or was that just me?

[Spoder]

Was the thread just locked, and then unlocked, or was that just me?

No, I saw it too.

I think the message was "cool of yew grotz, else we're goin'a 'ave to crumpz this thread".

[Arkolon]

Was the thread just locked, and then unlocked, or was that just me?

We were way off topic, then Lerodan said the words Hillary and Rand Paul in the same post, so I guess a mod unlocked it again.

[Murkwood]

Was the thread just locked, and then unlocked, or was that just me?

We were way off topic, then Lerodan said the words Hillary and Rand Paul in the same post, so I guess a mod unlocked it again.

If the mods were trying to warn us, you think one of them would post something about it.

[Farnhamia]

Was the thread just locked, and then unlocked, or was that just me?

No, I saw it too.

I think the message was "cool of yew grotz, else we're goin'a 'ave to crumpz this thread".

The thread keeps wandering away from Rand and Hillary. People wanting to debate other topics like free market economics can start their own threads.

[Myrensis]

This, I agree with. Supporting Saddam in the 80s was not good, but it was necessary to prevent an Iranian victory.

So we had to back Saddam in starting a war to make sure the Iranians didn't win the war we backed Saddam to start?

But hey, totally worth it. I mean look how humble the Iranians are now, and what a bastion of peace, prosperity and pro-western sentiment Iraq is now.

I'd say in terms of brilliant foreign policy successes supporting Iraq in the 80's is just below our great work in stopping the Soviets in Afghanistan.

[Spoder]

No, I saw it too.

I think the message was "cool of yew grotz, else we're goin'a 'ave to crumpz this thread".

The thread keeps wandering away from Rand and Hillary. People wanting to debate other topics like free market economics can start their own threads.

I preferred my Orkish explanation, but fair enough.

[Arkolon]

No, I saw it too.

I think the message was "cool of yew grotz, else we're goin'a 'ave to crumpz this thread".

The thread keeps wandering away from Rand and Hillary. People wanting to debate other topics like free market economics can start their own threads.

Can't we have a free-market economics megathread? Or maybe just an economics HQ megathread? Every political debate ends up either going on to be Hitler-related or economics-related.

[Farnhamia]

The thread keeps wandering away from Rand and Hillary. People wanting to debate other topics like free market economics can start their own threads.

Can't we have a free-market economics megathread? Or maybe just an economics HQ megathread? Every political debate ends up either going on to be Hitler-related or economics-related.

Mega-thread is a somewhat special designation but go start one. If it's that popular and Father Nanna help me, I cannot understand the fascination economics has for you people, it'll stay on the first two pages until we have spawn a new one after it reaches 500 pages. Go, multiply and fill the forum.

[Valica]

I'd assume so. I mean, Rand Paul looks like a pretty strong guy. I'd say if he caught her by surprise...

Oh, you mean in the Presidential election. Whoops.

Hilary would pummel him while he cried and moaned about under-representation and dual-party abuse.

It's not under-representation when the amount of libertarians in office actually represents the percentage of libertarians in the US.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

This, I agree with. Supporting Saddam in the 80s was not good, but it was necessary to prevent an Iranian victory.

So we had to back Saddam in starting a war to make sure the Iranians didn't win the war we backed Saddam to start?

But hey, totally worth it. I mean look how humble the Iranians are now, and what a bastion of peace, prosperity and pro-western sentiment Iraq is now.

I'd say in terms of brilliant foreign policy successes supporting Iraq in the 80's is just below our great work in stopping the Soviets in Afghanistan.

I don't think we encouraged him to start it. I'm pretty sure we only started funding him once it started.

[Murkwood]

The thread keeps wandering away from Rand and Hillary. People wanting to debate other topics like free market economics can start their own threads.

Can't we have a free-market economics megathread? Or maybe just an economics HQ megathread? Every political debate ends up either going on to be Hitler-related or economics-related.

I'd support that. Go make one, that's a good idea. I just made a NeoCon thread, so there would be less chance of a threadjack.