[US Election 2016] Republican Primary Megathread

[Vaticantopia]

Yes...is Guantanamo closed yet?

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

No, they'll just move gitmo somewhere else with a different name to keep it out of the eyes of the media.

[Dyakovo]

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

No, they'll just move gitmo somewhere else with a different name to keep it out of the eyes of the media.

The funding that Obama asked for (and was denied by Congress) was to transfer the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay to Federal penitentiaries state side, so your claim is blatantly false.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

No, they'll just move gitmo somewhere else with a different name to keep it out of the eyes of the media.

The funding that Obama asked for (and was denied by Congress) was to transfer the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay to Federal penitentiaries state side, so your claim is blatantly false.

Prisoner transports are done very regularly. This denial of funds is a President who's failed at his promises trying to give reasons why he failed short of 'I betrayed the people.'

[Poptropia]

To fix America we need to have a real Conservative Republican as President and I feel Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio will be the best candidates to be that President to fix America.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

To fix America we need to have a real Conservative Republican as President and I feel Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio will be the best candidates to be that President to fix America.

Ted Cruz as Republican candidate means a Democrat as President. He's too polarising.

[Shazbotdom]

To fix America we need to have a real Conservative Republican as President and I feel Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio will be the best candidates to be that President to fix America.

Don't get me started on Rubio.....

[Ashmoria]

To fix America we need to have a real Conservative Republican as President and I feel Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio will be the best candidates to be that President to fix America.

the republicans want to suckify America by taking us back to the miserable 1950s. no thank you.

[Patridam]

To fix America we need to have a real Conservative Republican as President and I feel Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio will be the best candidates to be that President to fix America.

the republicans want to suckify America by taking us back to the miserable 1950s. no thank you.

As a Social Democrat, you might be interested to know that America's income ineqeuality was at its absolute lowest in 1959, and has been increasing ever since.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

the republicans want to suckify America by taking us back to the miserable 1950s. no thank you.

As a Social Democrat, you might be interested to know that America's income ineqeuality was at its absolute lowest in 1959, and has been increasing ever since.

Okay. But there was also all that, you know, very violent and vocal sexism, racism, and homophobia.

[Ashmoria]

the republicans want to suckify America by taking us back to the miserable 1950s. no thank you.

As a Social Democrat, you might be interested to know that America's income ineqeuality was at its absolute lowest in 1959, and has been increasing ever since.

well there then.

I don't actually expect this or the next president to be able to do much about income inequality. it just doesn't seem like its in the cards. I would be content if we went back to making sure the people on the very bottom were taken care of.

[Patridam]

As a Social Democrat, you might be interested to know that America's income ineqeuality was at its absolute lowest in 1959, and has been increasing ever since.

Okay. But there was also all that, you know, very violent and vocal sexism, racism, and homophobia.

I don't support social conservatism, and the racism/sexism/homophobia you seem to assign it. I do however, support fiscal conservatives who are at least socially moderate (I think Rand could be better with gay marriage but he'll probably leave it to the states, which is pretty much what Obama is doing and Hillary probably would do) but I can certainly see value in trying to recreate the economy of the 1950s ( I also like the cars and the music, but that's a personal matter). There's nothing saying we have to recreate the social situation of the era, and we'd be remiss if we tried.

[Dyakovo]

The funding that Obama asked for (and was denied by Congress) was to transfer the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay to Federal penitentiaries state side, so your claim is blatantly false.

Prisoner transports are done very regularly. This denial of funds is a President who's failed at his promises trying to give reasons why he failed short of 'I betrayed the people.'

Prisoner transfers within the US are done all the time. Congress denied the funds for transfer of prisoners from Guantanamo to Federal Penitentiaries.

[Patridam]

As a Social Democrat, you might be interested to know that America's income ineqeuality was at its absolute lowest in 1959, and has been increasing ever since.

well there then.

I don't actually expect this or the next president to be able to do much about income inequality. it just doesn't seem like its in the cards. I would be content if we went back to making sure the people on the very bottom were taken care of.

If the choice to help with poverty is to either to:
A.) Make it easy for people to rise from the very bottom to a pleasant-enough position
B.) Make it perhaps a little bit harder to rise for everyone but make the very bottom itself more lievable
I'd take option A, you know "teach a man to fish" and whatnot. The problem is really that most politicians don't really do too much to further either method of alleviating poverty.

[Geilinor]

Okay. But there was also all that, you know, very violent and vocal sexism, racism, and homophobia.

I don't support social conservatism, and the racism/sexism/homophobia you seem to assign it. I do however, support fiscal conservatives who are at least socially moderate (I think Rand could be better with gay marriage but he'll probably leave it to the states, which is pretty much what Obama is doing and Hillary probably would do) but I can certainly see value in trying to recreate the economy of the 1950s ( I also like the cars and the music, but that's a personal matter). There's nothing saying we have to recreate the social situation of the era, and we'd be remiss if we tried.

The 1990's are still in view, we should recreate that economy.

[Geilinor]

well there then.

I don't actually expect this or the next president to be able to do much about income inequality. it just doesn't seem like its in the cards. I would be content if we went back to making sure the people on the very bottom were taken care of.

If the choice to help with poverty is to either to:
A.) Make it easy for people to rise from the very bottom to a pleasant-enough position
B.) Make it perhaps a little bit harder to rise for everyone but make the very bottom itself more lievable
I'd take option A, you know "teach a man to fish" and whatnot. The problem is really that most politicians don't really do too much to further either method of alleviating poverty.

A needs, first of all, more education funding, not the less most of these candidates will give us.

[The Orson Empire]

Even if such a movement were to happen, the corporatocracy in D.C. would never let any reforms pass.

Then we need civil disobedience and marches on Washington.

Such tactics may have worked in the 1960's, but this is a completely different time period, and the circumstances are also very different.

The U.S. government is too broken to be repaired. The system needs to be completely scrapped and redone. One possible way to do this would be a revolt that overthrows the government, however it is probably not a good idea to take on the most powerful military on the planet.

[Ashmoria]

well there then.

I don't actually expect this or the next president to be able to do much about income inequality. it just doesn't seem like its in the cards. I would be content if we went back to making sure the people on the very bottom were taken care of.

If the choice to help with poverty is to either to:
A.) Make it easy for people to rise from the very bottom to a pleasant-enough position
B.) Make it perhaps a little bit harder to rise for everyone but make the very bottom itself more lievable
I'd take option A, you know "teach a man to fish" and whatnot. The problem is really that most politicians don't really do too much to further either method of alleviating poverty.

I don't think those are the 2 options but I do agree that politicians never do much to alleviate poverty. at least not in the past 30 years. I do wish the democrats would go back to actually fighting poverty instead of folding to the deficit hawks and supply siders.

[Patridam]

I don't support social conservatism, and the racism/sexism/homophobia you seem to assign it. I do however, support fiscal conservatives who are at least socially moderate (I think Rand could be better with gay marriage but he'll probably leave it to the states, which is pretty much what Obama is doing and Hillary probably would do) but I can certainly see value in trying to recreate the economy of the 1950s ( I also like the cars and the music, but that's a personal matter). There's nothing saying we have to recreate the social situation of the era, and we'd be remiss if we tried.

The 1990's are still in view, we should recreate that economy.

Well, if the aim is income equality (as it seems to be for socDems) then the 90s would be somewhat poor model as it wasn't a whole lot better than now.

Also, along with the 90s comes grunge and SUV's and ain't nobody want that.

[AiliailiA]

the republicans want to suckify America by taking us back to the miserable 1950s. no thank you.

As a Social Democrat, you might be interested to know that America's income ineqeuality was at its absolute lowest in 1959, and has been increasing ever since.

As a ... whatever you are ... you may be interested to know that the top marginal tax rate in 1959 was 91%.

The Tax Foundation did not approve

[Salandriagado]

Ideally, the minimum wage would be set at a level where you would make enough working 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year to put you above the poverty level, with yearly increases tied to the rate of inflation.

I was bored, so I checked this out: for an individual, that would work out at about $6. With one dependent, that goes up to about $8. With two, it's up to about $10 (for the contiguous states + DC - the poverty guidelines are higher in Alaska & Hawaii - that goes up to $7/$10/$13, and for Hawaii, it's $7/$9/$12). Rounded up to the nearest dollar throughout, using the numbers from here.

[AiliailiA]

Ideally, the minimum wage would be set at a level where you would make enough working 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year to put you above the poverty level, with yearly increases tied to the rate of inflation.

I was bored, so I checked this out: for an individual, that would work out at about $6. With one dependent, that goes up to about $8. With two, it's up to about $10 (for the contiguous states + DC - the poverty guidelines are higher in Alaska & Hawaii - that goes up to $7/$10/$13, and for Hawaii, it's $7/$9/$12). Rounded up to the nearest dollar throughout, using the numbers from here.

Did you remember to tax that?

[The Wolven League]

For those who are wondering to why I consider Jeb Bush to be such a left winger here are the reasons.

He supported the murder of Terry Shiavo, opposes a federal marriage amendment, supports contraceptive and abortion, and supports amnesty for illegals. He also supports affirmative action, opposes English Only, supports common core, hates business, and wants us to "respect" the homosexual lifestyle. Furthermore he refuses to call out global warming as a hoax and he supports forcing parents to inject their kids with poisonous chemicals. And he is an evolutionist.

How are any of those bad?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

For those who are wondering to why I consider Jeb Bush to be such a left winger here are the reasons.

He supported the murder of Terry Shiavo, opposes a federal marriage amendment, supports contraceptive and abortion, and supports amnesty for illegals. He also supports affirmative action, opposes English Only, supports common core, hates business, and wants us to "respect" the homosexual lifestyle. Furthermore he refuses to call out global warming as a hoax and he supports forcing parents to inject their kids with poisonous chemicals. And he is an evolutionist.

How are any of those bad?

Hating the wealth-creating part of the economy is bad.
Supporting common core is bad as it doesn't allow for specialisation or regional differences in education.
Supporting abortion is bad because it kills unborn, innocent children.
Supporting affirmative action is bad as it does not give places to people based on merit, but instead decides that skin color, gender or sexual preference has something to do with it.
Supporting compulsory vaccination is bad as it undermines parental rights.

I'm with you on all the rest, however.

[Salandriagado]

I was bored, so I checked this out: for an individual, that would work out at about $6. With one dependent, that goes up to about $8. With two, it's up to about $10 (for the contiguous states + DC - the poverty guidelines are higher in Alaska & Hawaii - that goes up to $7/$10/$13, and for Hawaii, it's $7/$9/$12). Rounded up to the nearest dollar throughout, using the numbers from here.

Did you remember to tax that?

... No. I should definitely not try to arithmetic on Friday nights. It never works out well. Adding federal taxes in bumps the contiguous states up to $7/$9/$12, Alaska to $9/$12/$15, and Hawaii up to $8/$11/$13. I can't be bothered to work out the details for all of the state taxes, but taking Maine as an example (yes, chosen purely because of how short the word is to type), that would go up to $7/$10/$12.

[Patridam]

I was bored, so I checked this out: for an individual, that would work out at about $6. With one dependent, that goes up to about $8. With two, it's up to about $10 (for the contiguous states + DC - the poverty guidelines are higher in Alaska & Hawaii - that goes up to $7/$10/$13, and for Hawaii, it's $7/$9/$12). Rounded up to the nearest dollar throughout, using the numbers from here.

Did you remember to tax that?

Whether or not the poverty thresholds are considered to be before or after-tax income varies. But I'll entertain this.

Just looking at the individual, they'd pay a 10% low bracket income tax, an average (it varies) 2% low bracket state income tax, and the 0.9% Medicare tax. That adds up to 12.9% total tax, which is probably more like 13.5% after local taxes and fees.

The poverty threshold for an individual earner is a $11,720 yearly income. Divided by 86.5 then multiplied by 100 that results in $13,550 before tax income necessary to be earned per year. Divided by 50 weeks a year (assuming two weeks off), that's $271 before-tax income each week . $271 divided by 40 hours worked per week is a wage of $6.78 per hour.

And that's before considering the average tax return of 7% of your before-tax yearly income. If you consider that as part of the after-tax income, the effective tax rate drops to 6.5%, which means that (after some math) the wage per hour need only be $6.27.