Courtesy Fox Business Network and the Wall Street Journal. No opening statements. Follow in the comments. Add your own insights, fact-checking, anything I misunderstood or just missed, etc. about the various points in replies to the respective comments. I have to keep up so I will not be editorializing or fact-checking on the fly. Please therefore also forgive bad punctuation, sentence fragments, misspellings or any other non-standard written English.
Final reaction: I thought only sports events went over the allotted time:) I actually think it was one of the better debates. It stayed substantive – no electability, gotcha, fight-picking, or otherwise silly questions.
Please share widely!
TRUMP: Economy can’t handle a raise.
CARSON: Job losses follow wage hikes.
RUBIO: Less regulation will cause wages to rise.
Balanced budget, reduce Medicare spending, done it before.
10% flat tax; create 4.9 mil new jobs
Regulatory reform
Sound money
Great results when done by Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan
Tax reform, most pro-growth per WSJ, create “explosion” of investment.
Repeal every Obama regulation and start over (listed examples); costs exceed social benefits. More small business closing than opening. Cited poverty stats.
Moderator cited records of Obama, Bush, Clinton.
Blamed “big business called politics”
zero-based budgeting, three page tax code
top to bottom review of regs; put Congress rather than bureaucrats in charge.
Moderator cited stats
Paul claimed the gap is greatest in cities and states run by Dems.
Placed most blame on Federal Reserve, shouldn’t play with rates so much.
Claims to have been “lied about”
Thought HRC’s inconsistency regarding cause of Benghazi not criticized enough.
Pleased by court decision pushing back on Obama orders.
Blames immigration for many social ills.
Country of laws, need borders, need walls (Israel proves they work.)
Some could come back legally.
Kasich commented that Reagan handled this appropriately, which did not include mass deportation; law-abiders should pay fine but stay.
Trump claimed Eisenhower figured out how to move 1.5 million out.
Tangent about Ohio jobs – Kasich and Trump back and forth.
Bush commented that mass deportation was impractical, immoral, and handing Dems a victory.
Trump says illegal immigration unfair to legal immigration.
Claims highest business taxrate in the world
Outdated higher ed system, to expensive, hard to access
Repea/replace ACA, regulatory reform
Raise retirement age for younger workers, slower benefit growth
Circled back to immigration reform, claims story would be different if high-end professionals were crossing border. “Offensive” that they are called anti-immigrant.
Moderator set up question stipulating business trying to dodge ACA.
Fiorina claims ACA hurting those it is designed to help, too cozy w/drug companies. Calls for free market and government-enforced transparency.
Free market, but states can and should manage high-risk pools.
CARSON: Flat is the fairest way, but get rid of deductions/loopholes, will be more generous if they have more money, rebate for poverty level
PAUL: Wants very small government, more money in private hands, admits to wanting to choke off government, 1% across the board over 5 years will bring budget into balance, wants to eliminate payroll tax, 14.5% on corps and individual, only keep mortgage and charitable deductions.
CRUZ: “More words in IRS code than in Bible and no word nearly as good”. !0% flat tax across the board for persons above poverty, 16% for all businesses, eliminates “death” and payroll tax, abolishes IRS, all income levels will see an extra 14% in their pocket, plan is competitive, costs less than other plans. 5Bil in spending cuts, several departments to be cut (IRS, HUD, e. g.)
BUSH: Will fight in first year to move more power and spending to the states. Tax reform is top priority. HRC’s approach is too top-down.
RUBIO: Tax reform will be pro-family, child-care costs more than college, child tax-credit increase. Paul claimed this was a welfare transfer that does not qualify as fiscally conservative. Rubio claims this was their money too when you consider payroll tax.
This was supposed to be an economy debate, but Paul called out Rubio about military spending in the context of not being fiscally conservative. Back and forth about isolationism. Cruz interjected that not defending was more expensive than defending. Trump backed up Cruz and Rubio regarding need for strong defense.
TPP a horrible deal, and a way for China to sneak in the back door and take advantage; prefers to make one-on-one deals with various countries. Cited several stats regarding trade imbalances with various countries. Says he is generally a free-trader. China takes advantage by currency manipulation, “the greatest weapon” against us.
Paul pointed out that China not part of TPP, but agrees we should negotiate through strength. Congress should seize authority back from executive and not fast-track agreements.
TPP China boogedy boogedy!
[China not actually part of TPP]
#Awesome
Yes to special ops in Syria, must stand up to Putin, who is using Syria as a base in that region. Must continue to face ISIS – destroy, not contain.
Islamic terrorism
Must create safe zones in the region rather than have refugees go to Europe. US not leading and should.
Started by citing other problem countries, China, North Korea, Iran (bad recent deal). Knows Putin because they appeared on 60 Minutes together. We should protect Ukraine, but their neighbors should take the lead.
Bush says Trump wrong on US not leading, need no-fly zone in Syria. Christians and moderate Muslims in danger.
Trump says we don’t know whom we would really be helping in Syria.
Fiorina says that she would not talk to Putin because we are weak thanks to Obama; would rebuild sixth fleet “under his nose” (has also met him, but not in a green room). Also knows the King of Jordan, who has asked us for help as have others. Says they all want US leadership.
Not only did she commit to an unfunded neo Cold War arms race, but her posturing was fact free and nonsensical.
Putin’s economy is in the dumpster. Russia’s “covert” action in eastern Ukraine has bogged down and it’s losing badly. The push into Syria reeks of desperation, a flailing attempt to recapture the enormous amount of global influence that has slipped from Putin’s grasp. Obama has, without firing a shot, wrecked Putin.
Beyond that, part of being President is you talk to the people/factions you need to talk to when you need to talk to them. If the U.S. and Russia need to talk about Syria then it would be a pretty sorry excuse for a President who neglected to do it for the sake of optics. I don’t recall Barack Obama refusing to engage with the rest of the world because GWB had made a mess of things.
Says shutting down communication doesn’t work. A no-fly zone won’t work because it would mean shooting down Russians. Says we ended up arming ISIS. (never heard answer to Iran question)
Rubio calls Putin a gangster, responding to Obama’s weakness. Accused Obama of treating Israel PM w/ less respect than he treats Ayatollah.
Circled back to previous question, supports no-fly zone, cut off funding to radical regimes (Saudi Arabia). We should not criticize Israel in public. Says China does not own South China Sea. Need defensive posture against cyber attacks. Economic and military programs better be strong when competing against HRC.
I cannot agree with the Trump/Carson cheerleading in the promotion. Whomever they nominate actually has a decent chance of being elected. I do not want that for my country regardless of how fun or easy we might think it would be to run against them.
Also, just saw the anti-CFPB commercial that I got an email from Sen. Warren about today that claims it takes away our financial decisions.
Increase capital requirements, ease burden on small banks. Claims Dodd-Frank does the opposite. HRC wants to double-down, captive of the Dem left.
Carson asked if banks should be broken up. Sounded sympathetic, then waxed about history of US economic expansion. All the wealthy’s money won’t help. Policies (not specific) to not allow the banks to get big.
Rubio claims government made banks bigger because it gave incentive to hire lawyers and accountants to keep their size. Says Dodd-Frank codifies “too big to fail”.
Kasich says Wall Street too greedy. Free enterprise needs ethics and values.
Yes, absolutely, and added he would not bail out banks. Said GOP not the party of the rich, wealthy actually benefit under Dems. Blames financial crash on Federal Reserve “philosopher kings”. Sound money, fed should be lender of last resort at higher rates, praised gold standard.
Back and forth with Cruz about failing banks and effect on depositors. Must deal with real-world problems.
Fiorina says Dodd-Frank “is how socialism starts”. Both parties conspired to create a problem that now needs solving. Criticized CFPB.
(audience boos as moderator rattles off HRC’s record)
This is a generational challenge. Many people suffering due to Dem decisions. Past vs. future
Cruz concedes her long resume, but says her leadership has made every region of the world worse.
We can’t get money back into the US due to tax code. Reduce rates, bureaucracy.
Concedes human agency in global warming, but wants to balance regulation with economy. Says policies devastating to KY and harming Dem party in that state in the process. “All of the above” solutions.
Bush says lower emissions and energy costs due to natural gas. Cited FL record on conservation.
PAUL: richest, freest, most humanitarian nation; can you be conservative if you aren’t on ALL spending including defense?
KASICH: worried about 16-year old kids if Sanders or Clinton elected, run US from bottom up, all have responsibility to reach out
FIORINA: military will deteriorate and inequality will increase under HRC, who represents bad DC values
BUSH: We need commander-in-chief, not divider in chief
CRUZ: Cited father fleeing Cuba, all children of such immigrants; return to free market and constitutional liberties
RUBIO: DC out of touch, both parties to blame; fears next generation first to be worse off than the last
CARSON: Cited stats just during the past two hours re: drugs, suicide, abortion. All Americans need to help fix it.
TRUMP: Created 10Ks of jobs in his businesses; HRC worst SoS in history of the country.
I didn’t watch, so your marathon updates have given me a fairly good impression of how it went. Seems like a good night for Kasich then? Whether that translates into polling is another question…
…but then I think he’s done well in all of them. Since I look for who is best prepared to be POTUS I think if I were a Republican there’s a good chance I would support him. He consistently comes across as someone with conservative principles who also lives in the real world.
But NH prove to be an asset to his campaign depending on how Rubio fares.
Rubio’s claim that the cost of child care is higher than the cost of college can’t be right. The increasingly unaffordable cost of college and the ever increasing debt burden it imposes on college graduates are among this country’s most pressing economic problems. Republicans in Congress consistently oppose funding for college grant and loan programs, and they oppose efforts to reduce the debt burden on graduates. Maybe the candidates last night should have been asked about that, or would that have been a gotcha question?
In half the states, the annual cost of child care for a 4-year-old is greater than the annual cost of public college tuition according to the Economic Policy Institute.
That said, both are too expensive and he (and all the Republicans) is still wrong on the answers. A tax credit won’t cut it and what the Repubs have done for college affordability is nothing.
Here’s where the Dems stand on child care:
The US could, of course, join the civilized world by providing both child care AND college. We could, for example, emulate the German approach to child care — government-regulated child care with trained and registered providers, as well as significant government tax breaks for low-income families (child care subsidies up to 67% of net income).
The GOP, as usual, lies (using GOP double-speak) about their dogma by speaking platitudes about families and children while destroying the ability of all but the 1% to afford either children or college.
These are areas where I get really depressed. We are so far from this very obvious and smart goal. We can’t even make it so that our government student loan system isn’t a massively profitable operation crushing young graduates.
Even on the state level, we’re failing badly. The Commonwealth’s support for public higher education (including very recent actions) has been nothing short of shameful and incredibly stupid.
Far too many of our communities, legislators, and local power brokers and leaders came from the many fine private colleges and universities we are blessed to have. Which has, shamefully in my view, led to the UMASS system being an also ran to their more internationally renowned local private competitors.
Support for public universities is imperiled everywhere, even the noted Pat Brown system in California, the land grant colleges like Wisconsin in the Midwest, and the University of Virginia, which is a public institution largely in name only. But all of those systems have had legacies of commitment or system has never enjoyed. And we should have the best ranked, best known, and most affordable public colleges in the country, instead of treating it like a second tier.
I went to UMass-Amherst and had a wonderful time and life-changing academic experiences – especially learning economics from Richard Wolff and Stephen Resnick, who incidentally looked and talked like Bernie Sanders, which makes the current campaign even more delightful.
It really has been completely neglected, and despite of Massachusetts usually being in the bottom 5 states in terms of per capita funding on higher education, the system has been performing well. With just average levels of state spending, it would likely be a top tier system nationally. Instead we’re failing on quality potential and, even more heart-breakingly, on affordability and access. And still, every year the knuckle draggers at the Herald trot out the state employee salaries list and scream about how many professors are overpaid, even though the number of highly paid professors and administrators does not even come close to what one sees at other research universities (and, of course, does not consider that a professor, especially in medicine or other sciences, might earn $300K but also might be bringing in millions of dollars each year in research grants), and the average salaries are really pitiful, with most professors outside of the sciences often earning $60K or less.
I meant second tier in terms of treatment and reputation, and all avoidable in my view if we had a robust commitment to it. Strongly looking at CPPA at Amherst for their MPPA. HKS comes with a full ride and stipend for Cambridge kids, but if I can’t get in the CPPA is the next affordable option and everyone I talked to there seemed really excited about their program. It’s just a shame this isn’t treated like the crown jewel it should be.
In treatment, it’s definitely not top tier, but for quality it’s not in the same league as UVA, UNC, Michigan, and Berkeley. It’s also not in the same conversations as Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, etc, but with proper support, it probably could be.
I hate to say it, but I doubt it, for a few reasons.
1. Those schools don’t compete against nearly the number of moderate and high quality private school seats.
2. The citizenry in those states isn’t anywhere nearly as private-school-educated as the citizens here, and parents .are awfully influential on their kids’ choices.
3. Those schools have a long history of being strong state institutions. They’re also far bigger — about 50 percent more undergraduate students.
4. Those schools all have law degrees. That means that there are loads of state legislators who went to their flagship state school for undergrad or law or both. Don’t have that built in long term support in MA.
5. Those schools have successful sports programs, which helps bake in broader support state-wide. UMass doesn’t.
6. Endowment. So far as I can tell, UMass isn’t even close.
I mean, if by “proper support” you mean adding $2B to its endowment, increasing the physical plant by 50 percent, gaining a law school, developing D1 football, and getting the WASPy yankee Brahmin attitude to yield to a level-field public common good for all to percolate, then sure. It probably could be.
The Northeast just doesn’t have a tradition of strong state universities, for a variety of reasons. That doesn’t mean that we can’t make UMass better. We can — and should. But I don’t think its fruitful to compare UMass to land grant universities in the South or Midwest, where for a variety of reasons those universities have had more support for the past century than UMass has had.
My son is a senior in HS and my daughter is a sophomore and I’ve been impressed by what we have for public college options. The in-state cost needs to be lower, but I think the strength of the system is it’s so much deeper than the flagship in Amherst. It’s a lot like the Virginia system in that respect. Lowell, Dartmouth and Boston have some excellent programs. My wife got her masters from UMB and one of the most impressive parts of the graduation ceremony was that something like 2/3 of the graduates were the first people in their families to attend college. My thought was that is exactly what we hope our public colleges can achieve.
MassArt is the only, let me stress that – ONLY, public art and design college in the nation. It’s an amazing resource. My son happens to be looking at art colleges and you can imagine the relief it is to have an excellent program available at state tuition prices. Mass Maritime is also a fairly unique public school. I’ve heard some good things about the Mass College of Liberal Arts and Salem State. Know a young lady who went to Framingham State (ed major) and she turned out great. I get the impression our state colleges are doing a very good job.
Maybe our public colleges aren’t athletic powerhouses and our political power brokers aren’t singing the UMass school anthem in the halls of the Statehouse, but my experience is we do have strong state universities. As someone in the thick of the college shopping process, I’m pretty happy to be a Massachusetts resident. For all of the areas we’d like to see improvement and investment, there is a baby in that bathwater. You can get a very good education in a wide variety of programs at Massachusetts public colleges. Somewhere along the way we’ve done a lot of things right.
after graduating from Wellesley College with honors on a full scholarship with a major in Spanish languages and a minor in music, my daughter is pursuing a degree in music and education at UMass Lowell where she hopes to teach bilingual music at the high school level. She raves about their music program and is developing her talent as an operatic soprano.
My late Mom was the first in her immigrant family to graduate from Lowell Normal School ( 2 year ) during the Great Depression to become a public school teacher.
Public colleges have made it possible for millions to enter the middle class.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
I think we agree on a lot of this, and maybe it’s just a chip on my shoulder as an alum, but I view the system as a great system and as a remarkable one given the type of support it has received over recent decades.
Yes, that’s true. But still, 72% of state students remain in the state after graduation compared to 47% at private colleges and universities. The wealth of private colleges is definitely one of the reasons the state system gets overlooked, but it is still shortsighted.
Absolutely. I think that’s one of the clear reasons why the system has not been as well supported. Looking at the alma maters of those in the state legislature, the natural support you would expect is missing. If BC was a public school it would probably be the best funded public school in the country.
In a lot of states, those schools are some of the only games in town, and despite a lot of state focus and much larger size, the performance of many of those schools hasn’t always matched up. Is the University of Kentucky better than UMass?
Probably a reason, although I think the undergrad alum issue among legislators is a bigger concern. UMass has a law school now, although I think it is not a well-designed plan. There are no great law schools in the country that are not on the campus of (or tightly connected to) a major research university or in an urban center. And starting now during a risky time for the legal profession was questionable. They should have put the law school in Amherst, where it could utilize the resources of the university or in Boston which would allow for increased practical education, internships, and professional synergies.
A lot of things at play here, but having a a system that makes an investment in this area for the associated benefits of increased alumni engagement, sports revenue (which is overrated), and increased donations matters. Statewide love based on sports can also come on quickly given the right circumstances (like for UMass basketball in the mid 90s). Also, look at UConn (which, by the way, increased state funding between 2001 and 2013, compared to a decrease in state funding by Massachusetts of 31% during that same period).
Yes. The endownment is small. Underfunding the system, and thus underfunding the institutional advancement for the last few decades have hampered that. Multi-billion dollar university campaigns are the norm now, but UMass has been starved in institutional advancement for decades, so there is a lot to do to catch up. In the last few years, there have been huge leaps in the right direction.
Even by a very flawed metric like the US News ranking, having UMass-Amherst be the #29 state university in the country is impressive. With investments in the right areas, I don’t think it’s a wild stretch to think that the system could get to a place where it’s held in similar regard as other top state systems (which, to a certain extent, it already is). Or at least I hope so.
Anecdotal evidence (from parents of teenagers whom I know) reveals a spike in applications to UMass-Amherst from high-achieving high school kids who don’t want to go into major debt. Evidently the Commonweath Honors College has proved to be a big draw.
The scuttlebut on professional degree programs at UMass has always been that there is major opposition from well-connected private schools. For instance, that’s rumored to be the reason that Massachusetts has never had a public pharmacy school despite brisk demand for pharmacists (one is finally in the works, at UMass-Lowell).
There are more high-achieving students applying, especially with sights on the honors program. Also, many students who would have had the grades to get in a decade ago are now not getting accepted.
Many high-achieving students, especially those from middle and lower income families and ones not quite at the top 1% of a high school class, are often getting better, sometimes much better financial packages at private universities than they can get from the state system.
I’m a supporter of UMass, and I’m a product of a large, land grant state university. Don’t misunderstand my post — I’m not pooh poohing UMass.
My point is simply that I don’t think we should judge UMass by comparing it to Wisconsin, Illinois, or Minnesota. Those institutions have substantial, structural advantages over UMass that are impossible to neutralize in the near term. Aspire to that level of success and productivity? Sure.
She is finishing up an ASN at a community college now and would eventually like to get an MSN for an NP or think about going back into the med school route. UMASS Medical is a top 10 Med School, comparatively affordable, and it’s other MS programs in that field are also top notch. I will strongly consider the CPPA program if I don’t get into HKS.
I do think it could use substantial investment, though I actually think Meehan is the right leader for the system and had a great tenure at Lowell. It helps he is an alum and really cares about the system.
Just saying.
Wow, me too.
That dates both of us, me bucko. But the econ department at UMass sure was on a roll in those days.
The Econ department has been great. Unfortunately, heterodox views are only welcomed in about 5 or 6 departments in the country (New School, Utah, and Notre Dame come to mind) and there are not enough academic jobs to go around that we can expect these views to expand. It’s unfortunate, but it has been exciting to see Wolff try to take the Marxian approach to a larger audience in recent years.
When I was in college and would talk with friends learning economics at other schools, it was remarkable how different the education was. They were all taught the “right way” and didn’t even know there were other approaches and theories worth grappling with.
probably have to convince Democrats first
He is as out of his league as any major candidate I’ve ever seen. He lacks both substance and insight. Almost every question he gets seems to confuse him.
I get the desire of voters to slap the political establishment upside its head when answering poll questions, but I can’t believe people would actually vote for this guy.
I don’t think we can belabor that point too much, but he is literally getting his tax plan from the Old Testament, which resonates with many Republican primary voters as a more moral tax plan even though it fucks them over economically.
I’ve actually had this argument in real time with real people. Surprisingly many of them people of color, that tithing to the government doesn’t make any sense. It was very common for clients of mine at my old firm, many of them filing for bankruptcy way past the brink of insolvency, to insist that they would a) continue their tithes to the churches and b) they could settle with the IRS as a tithe since it was ‘in the Bible’ and ‘God’s law’.
The Flat Tax is the rare issue where the religious right and Chamber of Commerce wings of the party are in full agreement. The corrupt bargain of the modern GOP is to get Jesus following voters to willingly adopt an atheists tax plan.
…that Biblical economic policy also includes the cancellation of all debt every seven years?:)
and I mean everyone reads the Bible selectively.
Keeping the injunctions regarding the Amalekites in mind, this is not always a bad thing.
er, I mean diminishes his chances.
Carson represents an alarming tendency toward regarding facts as malleable to one’s religion, ideology, or story. For example, it is not such a large step to go from not believing climate scientists about climate and evolutionary biologists about evolution to not believing archaeologists and historians about Fourth Dynasty Egypt. This is part of the epistemic closure on the Right: few climate scientists, evolutionary biologists, archaeologists, or historians are conservatives; so their conclusions are suspect and, by their lights, probably just partisan attempts to push the liberal agenda.
This has had an amusing side-effect on the Right.
A number of PACs (for example one supporting Cruz) seem to be raking in money from contributors and using the funds to lavishly compensate their executive team but hardly at all to affect public opinion, i.e. they are beginning to smell like scams, like affinity fraud. Someone has learned something from all those ads on right-wing shows pushing gold — and it isn’t economics at the macro level; it’s the personal economics of opportunity.
So yeah, this looks bad. We’ll find out soon enough how deep the gullibility lies.