Ted Cruz Wins Iowa Republican Vote

[Abyssal Echo]

Texas Senator Ted Cruz has won the Republican Iowa caucus, the first vote of the U S 2016 Presidential election.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35468776


Related: Hillary wins Iowa on a coin toss
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/sometimes-iowa-democrats-award-caucus-delegates-coin-flip/79680342

[Uniquemind]

Seems he did.

Don't think he's any better than Trump though.

How big was the difference between Cruz and Trump?

[Judean Zealot]

Cruz: 28%
Trump: 24%
Rubio: 23%

I must say, while this is great for Cruz it's pretty good for Rubio as well.

[West Coast Sheriff]

Cruz: 28%
Trump: 24%
Rubio: 23%

I must say, while this is great for Cruz it's pretty good for Rubio as well.

Rubio is my candidate. :D. Although I really like Carson, I think Rubio is the best presidential candidate.

[Judean Zealot]

Rubio is my candidate. :D. Although I really like Carson, I think Rubio is the best presidential candidate.

I agree.

While he's still a sleazy politician, he's better than any other relevant contender. Unless Bloomberg runs as independent. :D

[DriveAlive]

I'm putting all of my Judeo-Christian prayers behind Trump!

[Judean Zealot]

Any opinions on Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife's poor showing in Iowa?

[mattsmith48]

Any opinions on Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife's poor showing in Iowa?

Deciding who wins an election on a coin toss doesnt sound really democratic just call it a tie and move on. I think its a big loss for her and US media are finally going to consider Bernie Sanders as a serious opponent to Hillary Clinton

[mattsmith48]

Im really happy to see Trump almost finishing 3rd

[DriveAlive]

Sanders is a joke

[West Coast Sheriff]

Any opinions on Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife's poor showing in Iowa?

I saw something about Clinton's campaign miscounting votes or something. Google "Clinton voter fraud" for more details.

Sanders is a joke

So many people love what sanders has to say. He ignites fire and passion in people and they love that. He makes it about the people. He promises free stuff and this appeals to young people. Sanders is not a joke. He's a very legitimate candidate that could still the nomination from Hillary.

[DriveAlive]

Sanders wanted 90% income tax for the 1% and free college. QED a joke.

[Judean Zealot]

I hope Sanders does take it, so Bloomberg jumps in as independent. Sanders vs Trump vs Bloomberg = hands down Bloomberg.

[Uniquemind]

I'm kinda worried for Trump now.

If I had to choose I'd prefer Trump over Cruz.

[Judean Zealot]

@Drive Alive

I think it's achievable to subsidise a higher education for performing students; the better the performance, the more rigorous the university.

[Vlerchan]

Sanders wanted 90% income tax for the 1% and free college. QED a joke.
You're incorrect on the first count.

The second count is both feasible and desirable. Though I should add that free tuition would just extend to public colleges.

[Porpoise101]

The second count is both feasible and desirable. Though I should add that free tuition would just extend to public colleges.
I agree with you on this point. But I think that if this happens the government needs to take over the universities more directly in order to manage expenses. Go example, the university of Michigan spends $1 million dollars on a football coach annually. Many of the highest paid public employees are sports coaches. These excessive practices need to be curbed in order to make something like Sanders' proposals possible.

[DriveAlive]

The world will always need janitors...there is no point in having the rest of us pay for them to go to college. College is too expensive, everyone will agree, but the government paying for everyone is not the solution. Also, Sanders DID propose a 90% tax on the 1% and has just recently changed it to a more palatable (yet still absurd) 50% tax. He is a socialist and his tax plan would destroy this country.

[West Coast Sheriff]

You're incorrect on the first count.

The second count is both feasible and desirable. Though I should add that free tuition would just extend to public colleges.

I believe he narrowed it down to in-state public colleges

The world will always need janitors...there is no point in having the rest of us pay for them to go to college. College is too expensive, everyone will agree, but the government paying for everyone is not the solution. Also, Sanders DID propose a 90% tax on the 1% and has just recently changed it to a more palatable (yet still absurd) 50% tax. He is a socialist and his tax plan would destroy this country.

Sanders is dead on about the wealth inequality facing this nation. It's an injustice, however, his economic plan just doesn't work. It would be nice if the rich gave more money away to the poor but, it isn't exactly fair for government to take the money they earned/inherited.

[Vlerchan]

For example, the university of Michigan spends $1 million dollars on a football coach annually.
In Ireland the state bans colleges from collecting tuitions and then supplies a set level of funding. We don't have these excesses as a result because these tend to find themselves quote down the pecking order.

---

The world will always need janitors...
Ireland has free higher level education and still has janitors. The likes of the Netherlands and other continental European states fund masters courses too and still maintain a no-skill sector.

You're acting as if all people are cut out for higher education or that spaces are unbounded in the [most extreme circumstances] where this might occur.

---

If there was also a lack of janitors the wage would increase and people would fill these positions so even if we pretend the argument precedes from the premise it's not an actual problem regardless.

[...] there is no point in having the rest of us pay for them to go to college.
There's also no point having them able to access education from about 8 onwards.

College is too expensive, everyone will agree, but the government paying for everyone is not the solution.
I'm open to others.

Also, Sanders DID propose a 90% tax on the 1%.
Please provide verifiable evidence supporting this claim. Thank you.

[...] and has just recently changed it to a more palatable (yet still absurd) 50% tax.
Q: Who are the "richest Americans" on whom you'd raise taxes?
A: These are the Americans who qualify for the top income tax bracket. Right now, the top tax bracket begins with money made beyond $400,000, and any additional money is taxed at 39.6%.
Q: I heard Bernie wants to raise the top tax bracket to 90%. That seems too high.
A: Bernie has never said he wants to do that. He has recently said that he is "working right now on a comprehensive tax package, which I suspect will, for the top marginal rates, go over 50%."
Q: But has it ever been that high?
A: Actually, yes. The top tax rate was over 90% from 1944 until 1964. The 39.6% tax is low compared to historical tax rates.
Q: How are capital gains and 'dividends related to this?
A: Capital gains and dividends are sources of income almost exclusively made by the wealthiest Americans. While historically these were taxed at similar rates to normal income, since the 1970's the tax rates have been lowered dramatically.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Tax_Reform.htm

That's from September. That means I'm being generous in even allowing the 'recent' remark to hold up.

He is a socialist and his tax plan would destroy this country.
Ireland had a top tier tax rate of 55% those earning above seventy-thousand and still grew at a rate approaching 7% in 2015. I'm not claiming that higher taxation rates are justified but this fearmongering is plain sad. Sanders is moderate when compared to historical European leaders.

[Uniquemind]

I believe he narrowed it down to in-state public colleges



Sanders is dead on about the wealth inequality facing this nation. It's an injustice, however, his economic plan just doesn't work. It would be nice if the rich gave more money away to the poor but, it isn't exactly fair for government to take the money they earned/inherited.


True but I can't help but laugh at the "fairness card". It's not fair now so why is that argument even put forth?

Corporate (some of these tax breaks) for giant corporations should be tied to job maintenance and job creation. That's the one major factor in a shrinking economy is the whiplash from layoffs.

[Vlerchan]

Corporate (some of these tax breaks) for giant corporations should be tied to job maintenance and job creation.
Interesting because corporate taxation stunts job growth.

Forcing firms to maintain jobs - i.e. malinvest - compounds this further.

[DriveAlive]

Any way you cut it, too much government intervention is bad for the economy. Sure, Norway, Ireland, etc. are doing just dandy with their government-run, tax-funded education for all, but these countries are extremely small and have extremely tight borders compared to the United States. Socialism works when in a small, controlled environment. That is why all of the socialist European countries are so worried about the incoming migrants.

I am not sure what you mean by janitors needing higher education. Some people are just not cut out for it. Others can afford it without government assistance. I think a big problem in this country today is that education is no longer seen as a privilege and is not as highly valued as it used to be. Those who are smart enough to pursue a higher education should have the opportunity to get it, but that does not mean we need to fund all of the country to go to college.

I also do not understand why you are in favor of higher taxes on the wealthy. The 1% work hard (this is a generalization, I know) and deserve to keep their wealth. The government is already bloated, so adding free college is just ridiculous. It is time for some streamlining...

[Vlerchan]

Any way you cut it, too much government intervention is bad for the economy.
Too much of the wrong sort of government intervention is. Higher education available to the average person promotes human capital accumulation and thus supports sustained long run growth.

Sure, Norway, Ireland, etc. are doing just dandy with their government-run, tax-funded education for all, but these countries are extremely small and have extremely tight borders compared to the United States. Socialism works when in a small, controlled environment. That is why all of the socialist European countries are so worried about the incoming migrants.
It's quite possible to restrict access to free higher education through having citizenship requirements. Ireland has this. Far as I'm aware most European states have this.

I'll also address the broader points about welfare when we've settles this one. Though the issue with high influx's of refugees is the shock.

I am not sure what you mean by janitors needing higher education.
I never said that janitors need higher education. I in fact said the exact opposite and outlined mechanisms for their continued existence in European societies.

Some people are just not cut out for it.
This aligns with the point I'm making.

I think a big problem in this country today is that education is no longer seen as a privilege and is not as highly valued as it used to be.
This isn't a bad thing in the same sense as people becoming literate and then no longer treating that as a privilege isn't a bad thing. Educated populations exhibit all sorts of positive externalities.

The actual problem arises when people won't accept their education in which case we're making the presumption that them being educated would be a superior outcome. Thus arguments in the vein outlined are fallacious.

[...] but that does not mean we need to fund all of the country to go to college.
Not what the aim of the programme is.

I also do not understand why you are in favor of higher taxes on the wealthy.
There's diminishing marginal returns on wealth acquisition - in general. Transfers produce welfare gains.

It is time for some streamlining...
That the government in general needs streamlining is no reason in itself to support streamlining any given component of government expenditure.

[Porpoise101]

The 1% work hard (this is a generalization, I know) and deserve to keep their wealth.
Do their children deserve it? What is your position on the taxation of inheritance? Should it happen and if so how much?

[DriveAlive]

Do their children deserve it? What is your position on the taxation of inheritance? Should it happen and if so how much?

Taxation on inheritance is just another way for the gov. to make money. In this capacity, I do not see a huge problem with it as long as it is kept at a low amount, maybe 2-10% and certainly no more. The problem is when the government uses this tax as a way to redistribute wealth by massively punishing the wealthy.

[West Coast Sheriff]

Any way you cut it, too much government intervention is bad for the economy. Sure, Norway, Ireland, etc. are doing just dandy with their government-run, tax-funded education for all, but these countries are extremely small and have extremely tight borders compared to the United States. Socialism works when in a small, controlled environment. That is why all of the socialist European countries are so worried about the incoming migrants.

I am not sure what you mean by janitors needing higher education. Some people are just not cut out for it. Others can afford it without government assistance. I think a big problem in this country today is that education is no longer seen as a privilege and is not as highly valued as it used to be. Those who are smart enough to pursue a higher education should have the opportunity to get it, but that does not mean we need to fund all of the country to go to college.


Very well said! I bolded the parts I think everyone should read a few times.

[Judean Zealot]

DriveAlive

The idea that education is a privilege is one that I find, quite frankly, horrific. On what grounds do people have the right to commodify knowledge? If one truly wishes to learn, how can you just tell him to go away?

I don't believe much in transcendent nor utilitarian human rights, but it is the duty of those in power to ensure that knowledge has the potential to be accessed by the maximum amount of people, for the good of both the individual and the public at large.

[DriveAlive]

DriveAlive

The idea that education is a privilege is one that I find, quite frankly, horrific. On what grounds do people have the right to commodify knowledge? If one truly wishes to learn, how can you just tell him to go away?

I don't believe much in transcendent nor utilitarian human rights, but it is the duty of those in power to ensure that knowledge has the potential to be accessed by the maximum amount of people, for the good of both the individual and the public at large.

I was not clear when I said privilege. What I mean is that many people take education for granted. They see it as somethings that they are given and it holds no significance to them. In the past, people who chose to learn did so because they understood the value of education. I believe that this created a culture that valued knowledge. Today, many people could not care less about education simply because they do not perceive any value in it. The value comes from the understanding that it is available to those who are willing to pursue it.

[Judean Zealot]

I was not clear when I said privilege. What I mean is that many people take education for granted. They see it as somethings that they are given and it holds no significance to them. In the past, people who chose to learn did so because they understood the value of education. I believe that this created a culture that valued knowledge. Today, many people could not care less about education simply because they do not perceive any value in it. The value comes from the understanding that it is available to those who are willing to pursue it.

If that's what you meant, than what relevance does this have to the discussion whether higher education ought to be free or not? Are you saying that not making people pay for it will lead to them negating it's value? If yes, can you please outline the mechanism by which this occurs?

[DriveAlive]

If that's what you meant, than what relevance does this have to the discussion whether higher education ought to be free or not? Are you saying that not making people pay for it will lead to them negating it's value? If yes, can you please outline the mechanism by which this occurs?

I go to a private school. A great many of the students at my school do not care about their education whatsoever. They do not see the importance of learning. They also know that they will attend some college in the future because their parents will pay for that too. When I have talked to some very poor students from an inner city school, they saw education as a privilege and truly valued learning. They also knew that the only way that they would be able to go to college was if they succeeded in school and excelled on testing.

I think that if you just tell everyone that they will get free college regardless of their effort, then there is no longer the motivation to succeed in school.

[Vlerchan]

I go to a private school [...] They do not see the importance of learning.
No. They don't see the utility of it. There's a large contingent of people in my course that come from private schools and money. Most of them are quite secure in that their fathers can secure a nice internship - or two: whatever it takes- when it's all done. On a further anecdotal level the people here on grants tend to be the hardest workers. We'll get twice the grades but never a Summer at CITI.

Your inner-city pals aren't working harder because education is more difficult to obtain - they're working harder because there's a much bigger gain.

[phuckphace]

what's everyone's opinion on Microsoft rigging the voting machines in Iowa? to me it sounds like it may have a teeny bit of merit considering MS has a vested interest in keeping the H1Bs flowing. on the other hand, Iowa is kind of a strange land, being one of the first states to legalize gay marriage - odd given its location far from the coastal Babylons.

my dislike of Cruz deepens by the day and if it came down to Sanders vs. Cruz in the national election I'd honestly rather vote for Sanders

[Porpoise101]

what's everyone's opinion on Microsoft rigging the voting machines in Iowa? to me it sounds like it may have a teeny bit of merit considering MS has a vested interest in keeping the H1Bs flowing. on the other hand, Iowa is kind of a strange land, being one of the first states to legalize gay marriage - odd given its location far from the coastal Babylons.

my dislike of Cruz deepens by the day and if it came down to Sanders vs. Cruz in the national election I'd honestly rather vote for Sanders
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160205/12eb4de6b4212908255292f31c3e9aaf.jpg
It was aliens.

Sorry for the snark, but you are seriously going tonymontana on me right now. I think that Cruz cheated but not by the means you say. There is evidence saying that his campaign told voters to switch from Carson to Cruz and that Carson dropped out of the race. But I don't care because Cruz is "Trump-fat free". In other words more easy to enjoy publicly, but essentially the same stuff. I feel that Donald will do better in the voting mostly because they might be less afraid to vote behind a box.

[phuckphace]

Porpoise101 - I actually wasn't trying to tinfoil but yes I agree that Cruz's underhanded tactics are probably going to pan out more. it's always the case that the losing side will scream "fraud!" but I just figured I'd throw it out there

[StoppingTom]

I think that if you just tell everyone that they will get free college regardless of their effort, then there is no longer the motivation to succeed in school.

Some people may not be motivated, but just because they get into college for free doesn't guarantee they will graduate or get their degree.

[DriveAlive]

If you want to give free education to everyone, make it vocational school. That way, the less intelligent can get an education that will actually be useful to them.

[Vlerchan]

For the record: in no political jurisdiction that I'm aware of does state-subsidised education refer to the elimination of entrance standards.

There would still be people that wouldn't receive higher education by-way of simply not being capable.

[Porpoise101]

I feel that Donald will do better in the voting mostly because they might be less afraid to vote behind a box.
I was right; Trump is expected to win NH by at least a 10% margin. Kasich is an expectant second. But NH is more rural than most of the American population. And it's also much wealthier. So this is Trump's court in almost every way.