[US Election 2016] Republican Primary Megathread

[Grenartia]

1. You must be an Olympic gold medal winner in jumping hurdles, to jump to that conclusion so swiftly.
2. You had the time to spare to volunteer. You were lucky.
3. You had a family member who had a business and was willing and able to provide you with a job so you could have experience. You were lucky.
4. Again, you were lucky to be able to obtain whatever opportunity you did which allowed you to gain that experience.
5. No, but you've obviously had many opportunities that the rest of us don't get (or at least don't get similar to), therefore, you were lucky.

Please read my post that Dyakovo so rudely dismissed as hogwash.

Without investments or businesses stuff to organize, itemize, or otherwise account for, taxes are quite easily capable of being handled by young individuals. One could perhaps ask Gallo about it, but particularly if one qualifies for the -EZ form it's just a repetitive number of additions and subtractions.

There are all of like five places on our 1040 (not an EZ, given that I'm a dependent. Certainly not the fresh hell of the 1040A though) that aren't blanks or zeroes. We have two incomes, a pension incoming, and no non-residence assets beyond whatever's in our checking accounts.

I did. And still stand by my assertion that you are lucky.

[Grenartia]

Actually, solving the first problem merely requires mandating that the minimum wage constantly keep up with an area's cost of living, plus a certain extra percentage (to encourage saving and/or splurging). This is known as a living wage, and is economically sound.

As a fellow Social Democrat (apparently) I don't agree with the underlined. Certainly the minimum wage should be partially indexed to the local cost of living, 1. but to fully index it removes any incentive for people who can only get minimum wage to move away from areas with high cost of living. Which frankly is the rational thing for them to do.

What if they can't move away? If they're living with their parents, or someone else who gives them a nice rate of rent because of family or friendship connections? 2. Well in that case, why should their minimum wage be set by the cost of living in that area, which includes a large component of rent/mortgage expense for other minimum wage earners.

3. And if they need to stay where they are to attend college, and need a part time job as well, then they should consider the cost of living near that college before choosing it.

1. Actually, it doesn't remove any incentive, since buying power is effectively equalized across every location (thus making moving incentives based on more arbitrary things). $18/hr in a city maintains the same general level of livability as $10/hr in a suburb (examples, but still, I assume my point is getting across).

2. I'm pretty sure that's what's called favoritism, and is illegal.

3. Again, I'm not seeing the problem here.

[Grenartia]

What's the point in being rich if you live in a gilded cage?

The same point as being rich at all. Many people don't care much about their free speech, rights to a fair trial, etc. Even many who have those freedoms don't care much about them.

I could have a billion dollars, but I'd still be pretty fucking miserable if I couldn't do as I wanted (as long as I didn't infringe others' rights, because I know somebody's going to come along and say "what if you wanted to murder somebody, huh?).

[AiliailiA]

The same point as being rich at all. Many people don't care much about their free speech, rights to a fair trial, etc. Even many who have those freedoms don't care much about them.

I could have a billion dollars, but I'd still be pretty fucking miserable if I couldn't do as I wanted (as long as I didn't infringe others' rights, because I know somebody's going to come along and say "what if you wanted to murder somebody, huh?).

That's you.

And frankly, I suspect you'd have to take a long hard think about the billion dollars, if the only condition put on it was that you had to live the rest of your life in Singapore or China.

It actually seems selfish to me that you wouldn't. Yes, selfish. You wouldn't give up your personal freedoms for all the good you could do with one billion dollars?

[Evil Grantica]

I stand with Rand.

Rand Paul all the way.

[Norstal]

You're saying an internship for mechanical engineering is less than $10/hr? I could believe that, but you have to realize that's below competition rates. At least, compared to other engineering internship position.

Then again, my internship was for software developers. But if I had college debts, I would not be happy with below competition wage rates. Because those people who get paid less DID worked hard and they're not getting what they need to earn. The solution isn't to tax workers in general, the solution is to tax those who would withheld such earnings to those who worked hard for it. I doubt Grenartia is advocating taxing the poor. I am assuming that he would be for taxing the other end of the spectrum.

*They, and yes.

Right, sorry. I was in a rush, heh.

[AiliailiA]

As a fellow Social Democrat (apparently) I don't agree with the underlined. Certainly the minimum wage should be partially indexed to the local cost of living, 1. but to fully index it removes any incentive for people who can only get minimum wage to move away from areas with high cost of living. Which frankly is the rational thing for them to do.

What if they can't move away? If they're living with their parents, or someone else who gives them a nice rate of rent because of family or friendship connections? 2. Well in that case, why should their minimum wage be set by the cost of living in that area, which includes a large component of rent/mortgage expense for other minimum wage earners.

3. And if they need to stay where they are to attend college, and need a part time job as well, then they should consider the cost of living near that college before choosing it.

1. Actually, it doesn't remove any incentive, since buying power is effectively equalized across every location (thus making moving incentives based on more arbitrary things). $18/hr in a city maintains the same general level of livability as $10/hr in a suburb (examples, but still, I assume my point is getting across).

If minimum wage is the same everywhere, there's a financial incentive to move somewhere cheaper.

If it's "equalized" the incentive is removed.

Note that I support partial indexation, to cover the cost details that aren't covered by price-of-living assessments. Price of living is calculated on a standard basket of things people are all assumed to need: housing, food and transport mainly. But even those aren't in the same balance for everyone ... as the example later shows.

2. I'm pretty sure that's what's called favoritism, and is illegal.

It totally isn't. What law prohibits your mother from charging $5 a fortnight rent for the basement, when market rents for a basement flat are $400?

If you were applying for a government benefit you might have to mention that, and you'd be committing fraud if you declared you paid your mother $400 when really you paid $5.

But how can a legal minimum wage adjust according to such personal circumstances? Do you say to your employer "I live in my mother's basement for $5 a fortnight" and then your employer looks up a table of minimum wages and pays you $2 an hour less?

The correct way to adjust such inequalities of opportunity (what it is: not everyone's mother is so generous) is with a housing subsidy. Low income earners get a subsidy for their rent, mom's basement dwellers don't.

Minimum wage indexation is far too blunt an instrument. You're using the wrong tool!

[AiliailiA]

I stand with Rand.

Catchy slogan. But I am going to be soooooo sick of it by this time next year.

[The Black Forrest]

I stand with Rand.

Catchy slogan. But I am going to be soooooo sick of it by this time next year.

Would Rand want to stand with them?

[AiliailiA]

Catchy slogan. But I am going to be soooooo sick of it by this time next year.

Would Rand want to stand with them?

One night stand with Rand!

I might consider it actually. He's not a swimsuit model, but he has a cheeky grin and that counts a lot for me

[Occupied Deutschland]

I stand with Rand.

Catchy slogan. But I am going to be soooooo sick of it by this time next year.

It doesn't even make much sense anymore.

I mean, to my knowledge, it started when Rand filibustered the appointment of Brennan as the head of the CIA by using a good ol' fashioned holdin' the floor and yakking up a storm filibuster (necessitating his remaining standing). In which case symbolizing one's support via 'stand with Rand' as a slogan makes sense.
I get how it's expanded to a slogan for the guy's presidential campaign, but it seems a bit...contextually awkward to adapt a slogan like that just for the sake of rhyme.

[AiliailiA]

Catchy slogan. But I am going to be soooooo sick of it by this time next year.

It doesn't even make much sense anymore.

I mean, to my knowledge, it started when Rand filibustered the appointment of Brennan as the head of the CIA by using a good ol' fashioned holdin' the floor and yakking up a storm filibuster (necessitating his remaining standing). In which case symbolizing one's support via 'stand with Rand' as a slogan makes sense.
I get how it's expanded to a slogan for the guy's presidential campaign, but it seems a bit...contextually awkward to adapt a slogan like that just for the sake of rhyme.

Thanks for telling me that, I wasn't aware.

President Rand's first State of the Union would be funny.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

It doesn't even make much sense anymore.

I mean, to my knowledge, it started when Rand filibustered the appointment of Brennan as the head of the CIA by using a good ol' fashioned holdin' the floor and yakking up a storm filibuster (necessitating his remaining standing). In which case symbolizing one's support via 'stand with Rand' as a slogan makes sense.
I get how it's expanded to a slogan for the guy's presidential campaign, but it seems a bit...contextually awkward to adapt a slogan like that just for the sake of rhyme.

Thanks for telling me that, I wasn't aware.

President Rand's first State of the Union would be funny.

It sounds far more personal. If the people are taught to call him 'Rand' rather than 'Paul.' Something Obama tried for a bit and failed.

[Sebtopiaris]

The people. I support the people.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

The people. I support the people.

All of them?

[Stormaen]

I looked through that list and sighed. How many of them are re-runs from 2012? Of course, I realise it's all subject to speculation.

I would support a Republican who is moderate on social issues and has a good track record on their stance (not like Romney and his, "I oppose Obamacare even though I did the same thing in Massachusetts...").

Honestly, the demographics are increasingly shifting in the Democrats' favour and if the Republicans ever want to win the White House, they will – I hear Christian mothers weeping – have to step out of their traditional (and dwindling) support base.

Luckily, there are a great deal of younger Republicans who seem either indifferent or even accepting of gay marriage and are essentially Republicans for economic rather than social reasons. That is the kind of Republican that will win 2016. I know not everyone is a fan of the British Conservative Party but it's immeasurably better than the big state when it comes to spying on Americans, little state when it comes to helping Americans Republicans of McConnell and Boehner.

However, I suspect we'll ultimately see some firebrand conservative with a Hispanic as the running mate, because minorities (who will one day be a majority) love being patronised by a rich white man.

In all honesty, I hope the Republicans can do it – all the more so if Hillary (as expected) wins the Democratic nomination. The last thing the U.S. needs is another Bush or Clinton in the White House...

[Stormaen]

Catchy slogan. But I am going to be soooooo sick of it by this time next year.

It doesn't even make much sense anymore.

I mean, to my knowledge, it started when Rand filibustered the appointment of Brennan as the head of the CIA by using a good ol' fashioned holdin' the floor and yakking up a storm filibuster (necessitating his remaining standing). In which case symbolizing one's support via 'stand with Rand' as a slogan makes sense.
I get how it's expanded to a slogan for the guy's presidential campaign, but it seems a bit...contextually awkward to adapt a slogan like that just for the sake of rhyme.

The U.S. loves catch phrases... "Yes we can." being chief amongst them (and look how that turned out...)

[AiliailiA]

Thanks for telling me that, I wasn't aware.

President Rand's first State of the Union would be funny.

It sounds far more personal. If the people are taught to call him 'Rand' rather than 'Paul.' Something Obama tried for a bit and failed.

Now that you point it out ... I said President Rand rather than President Paul didn't I? How embarrassing.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I looked through that list and sighed. How many of them are re-runs from 2012? Of course, I realise it's all subject to speculation.

I would support a Republican who is moderate on social issues and has a good track record on their stance (not like Romney and his, "I oppose Obamacare even though I did the same thing in Massachusetts...").

Honestly, the demographics are increasingly shifting in the Democrats' favour and if the Republicans ever want to win the White House, they will – I hear Christian mothers weeping – have to step out of their traditional (and dwindling) support base.

Luckily, there are a great deal of younger Republicans who seem either indifferent or even accepting of gay marriage and are essentially Republicans for economic rather than social reasons. That is the kind of Republican that will win 2016. I know not everyone is a fan of the British Conservative Party but it's immeasurably better than the big state when it comes to spying on Americans, little state when it comes to helping Americans Republicans of McConnell and Boehner.

However, I suspect we'll ultimately see some firebrand conservative with a Hispanic as the running mate, because minorities (who will one day be a majority) love being patronised by a rich white man.

In all honesty, I hope the Republicans can do it – all the more so if Hillary (as expected) wins the Democratic nomination. The last thing the U.S. needs is another Bush or Clinton in the White House...

Only Santorum. Huckabee is a re-runner from 2008.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Rand Paul. Supports repealing the PATRIOT Act, auditing the Fed, reducing taxes, reducing regulations, balancing the budget and using congressional authority before declaring war, everything I need. Now, I know that he isn't perfect, but he is the next best thing we got. Or else we can have Marco Rubio, or Jeb Bush, who will not end warrantless searches, allow for the Fed to be an opaque organization, and be basically doing the same thing as Bush and Obama.

[AiliailiA]

Audit the Fed you say?

[Dyakovo]

It doesn't even make much sense anymore.

I mean, to my knowledge, it started when Rand filibustered the appointment of Brennan as the head of the CIA by using a good ol' fashioned holdin' the floor and yakking up a storm filibuster (necessitating his remaining standing). In which case symbolizing one's support via 'stand with Rand' as a slogan makes sense.
I get how it's expanded to a slogan for the guy's presidential campaign, but it seems a bit...contextually awkward to adapt a slogan like that just for the sake of rhyme.

The U.S. loves catch phrases... "Yes we can." being chief amongst them (and look how that turned out...)

Pretty well?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

The U.S. loves catch phrases... "Yes we can." being chief amongst them (and look how that turned out...)

Pretty well?

Yes...is Guantanamo closed yet?

[Patridam]

If minimum wage is the same everywhere, there's a financial incentive to move somewhere cheaper.

Oddly enough, it seems a lot places that have no state minimum wage (above and beyond the federal) are also places that have some of the cheapest cost of living. I'll have to dig up something more concrete, but from watching House Hunters, I can say that houses that would cost in the vein of $300,000 the northeast are more like $120,000 in the bible belt (i.e. Texas, Alabama), alongside somewhat cheaper gas, more readily available used cars (less rust, old people dying after retiring to the sun belt), cheaper utility (water & electric) rates, etc. So if the whole of the country is indexed by cost of living, to (for example) what is equivalent to $10 an hr in the suburban northeast, I wonder if Texas would even see an increase.

[Dyakovo]

Pretty well?

Yes...is Guantanamo closed yet?

It would be if Congress had approved the funds to transport the prisoners elsewhere.