How long can the triple lock on pensions be sustainable ?
I suspect quite long, for the very simple reason that the state pension is so low - max £6K a year for the old-style basic state pension, or £7.9K for the 'new' one. This is not exactly wealth beyond the dreams of avarice however you look at it. The idea that pensioners are being treated lavishly is a myth.
I doubt the usual suspects are going to take much notice of you, but thanks for trying.
"If we focussed on being healthy, not just on treating sickness, it would ease pressure tremendously on the 'NHS'"
Quite the reverse I would have thought. The situation we have now is due in no small measure to the emphasis on healthy living over the last thirty years or so.
No, because overall health is key. Chronic diseases that coincide with age are not inevitable. If people are healthy, robust, and free of sickness until very late in life, they will cost the NHS less. It's being ill and weak but treatable where the problem lies. Most here seem to be advocating not treating - I'm advocating not being sick.
I'm up for not being sick. Will you lay hands on me please.
So, next time, Labour are going to have to spell out what they'd cut?
Or take, Mr. Nabavi, or take. If the politicians are to be required to spell out in detail what they would cut then they must also spell out in detail what taxes they would raise.
The whole argument as put forward by OGH is, of course, a load of dingos' kidneys and, I regret to say, appears to be just another sad example of someone not being able to come to terms with his party's catastrophic election result.
The SNP cannot spell out their currency for gawds sake! They can spell out virtually nothing about running their entire country.
How long can the triple lock on pensions be sustainable ?
I suspect quite long, for the very simple reason that the state pension is so low - max £6K a year for the old-style basic state pension, or £7.9K for the 'new' one. This is not exactly wealth beyond the dreams of avarice however you look at it. The idea that pensioners are being treated lavishly is a myth.
What would the equivalent "pot" be to create this pension btw ?
No, because overall health is key. Chronic diseases that coincide with age are not inevitable. If people are healthy, robust, and free of sickness until very late in life, they will cost the NHS less. It's being ill and weak but treatable where the problem lies. Most here seem to be advocating not treating - I'm advocating not being sick.
Alas, it is those chronic illnesses that are contracted in later life that are so expensive. You can eat well, exercise and follow every fad you like but at some stage your body will, in some way, start to fail. You may advocate not contracting, say, dementia but you cannot decide whether you will or will not spend the last years of your live as a drooling vegetable in a nursing home. Nor can you decide whether you will or will not contract some viral disease for which there is no cure but which can be managed.
The NHS spends huge amounts treating conditions related to diet, type 2 diabetes etc. If we weren't spending so much on this, then later life illnesses would not be unaffordable.
Also cancer, allergic conditions, pregnancy complications and childhood illnesses - all running wild. All to a great extent a result of aspects of modern lifestyles.
Where's the research into cancer prevention vs. cancer treatment? Could this be because there's no money in prevention but treatment is a gravy train?
How long can the triple lock on pensions be sustainable ?
I suspect quite long, for the very simple reason that the state pension is so low - max £6K a year for the old-style basic state pension, or £7.9K for the 'new' one. This is not exactly wealth beyond the dreams of avarice however you look at it. The idea that pensioners are being treated lavishly is a myth.
I doubt the usual suspects are going to take much notice of you, but thanks for trying.
Yeah, the myth that pensioners are raking it in seems to be very widespread. It comes a quite a shock when you discover what the reality is.
No, because overall health is key. Chronic diseases that coincide with age are not inevitable. If people are healthy, robust, and free of sickness until very late in life, they will cost the NHS less. It's being ill and weak but treatable where the problem lies. Most here seem to be advocating not treating - I'm advocating not being sick.
Alas, it is those chronic illnesses that are contracted in later life that are so expensive. You can eat well, exercise and follow every fad you like but at some stage your body will, in some way, start to fail. You may advocate not contracting, say, dementia but you cannot decide whether you will or will not spend the last years of your live as a drooling vegetable in a nursing home. Nor can you decide whether you will or will not contract some viral disease for which there is no cure but which can be managed.
I think we have a basic disagreement over what constitutes health. Dementia is a disorder. A healthy person by definition doesn't develop a disorder.
Christ - I have this overwhelming desire to shout "hallelujah!" or maybe even "allahuakba!"
No, because overall health is key. Chronic diseases that coincide with age are not inevitable. If people are healthy, robust, and free of sickness until very late in life, they will cost the NHS less. It's being ill and weak but treatable where the problem lies. Most here seem to be advocating not treating - I'm advocating not being sick.
Alas, it is those chronic illnesses that are contracted in later life that are so expensive. You can eat well, exercise and follow every fad you like but at some stage your body will, in some way, start to fail. You may advocate not contracting, say, dementia but you cannot decide whether you will or will not spend the last years of your live as a drooling vegetable in a nursing home. Nor can you decide whether you will or will not contract some viral disease for which there is no cure but which can be managed.
I think we have a basic disagreement over what constitutes health. Dementia is a disorder. A healthy person by definition doesn't develop a disorder.
A healthy person doesn't develop dementia? Perhaps not on the planet Sausage but it happens on Earth quite often.
A person with dementia may be outwardly free of sickness, but clearly by definition they are not healthy.
What would the equivalent "pot" be to create this pension btw ?
A couple of hundred grand, at the current derisory annuity rates (index linked, single-life, no guarantee, at 65 would be something like 3% to 3.5% I believe).
No, because overall health is key. Chronic diseases that coincide with age are not inevitable. If people are healthy, robust, and free of sickness until very late in life, they will cost the NHS less. It's being ill and weak but treatable where the problem lies. Most here seem to be advocating not treating - I'm advocating not being sick.
Alas, it is those chronic illnesses that are contracted in later life that are so expensive. You can eat well, exercise and follow every fad you like but at some stage your body will, in some way, start to fail. You may advocate not contracting, say, dementia but you cannot decide whether you will or will not spend the last years of your live as a drooling vegetable in a nursing home. Nor can you decide whether you will or will not contract some viral disease for which there is no cure but which can be managed.
I think we have a basic disagreement over what constitutes health. Dementia is a disorder. A healthy person by definition doesn't develop a disorder.
Christ - I have this overwhelming desire to shout "hallelujah!" or maybe even "allahuakba!"
29 officers investigating Madeleine McCann. I appreciate it's heartbreaking that a little girl is missing - but 29 officers - what on earth were they all doing.
Add in Assange's minders...
The police are being hit very hard by the cuts but perhaps it will focus a bit of mind shifting onto worthwhile/non infinite resource sucking activities
The police really can be pretty bloody stupid sometimes but I think that's pretty universal and in the stupidity/ corrupt stakes we come way down the field.
My uncle was KIA in the police (Before I was born) so I have alot of respect for the rank and file officer, the bods at the top though. Well.
To put 29 officers onto 1 missing person strikes of policing by fear of tabloid press.
I mostly agree with you sentiments, but I disagree with your last sentence. This can only be put down to stupidity on a scale so stupid that the initiators should have the cost stopped out of their salaries and be banned from taking any further expenses paid jaunts to anywhere warmer than the UK or having more snow (the Royal protection officers included).
No doubt you both think you are both being very clever, but huge numbers of police officers get put on similar cases. It's a pity the Portuguese police were so useless in the outset and the UK press contented itself with sensasionalism. We have done all we could in a strange and controversial case. One way or another I feel sorry for a poor poor poor little girl. How about you?
Where the hell are you coming from? What's been posted that suggests anything about our attitude towards the "poor little girl" which justifies either Pulpstar or myself being called out by you about our feelings towards her. You're an obnoxious toad.
No, because overall health is key. Chronic diseases that coincide with age are not inevitable. If people are healthy, robust, and free of sickness until very late in life, they will cost the NHS less. It's being ill and weak but treatable where the problem lies. Most here seem to be advocating not treating - I'm advocating not being sick.
Alas, it is those chronic illnesses that are contracted in later life that are so expensive. You can eat well, exercise and follow every fad you like but at some stage your body will, in some way, start to fail. You may advocate not contracting, say, dementia but you cannot decide whether you will or will not spend the last years of your live as a drooling vegetable in a nursing home. Nor can you decide whether you will or will not contract some viral disease for which there is no cure but which can be managed.
I think we have a basic disagreement over what constitutes health. Dementia is a disorder. A healthy person by definition doesn't develop a disorder.
A healthy person doesn't develop dementia? Perhaps not on the planet Sausage but it happens on Earth quite often.
A person with dementia may be outwardly free of sickness, but clearly by definition they are not healthy.
What would the equivalent "pot" be to create this pension btw ?
A couple of hundred grand, at the current derisory annuity rates (index linked, single-life, no guarantee, at 65 would be something like 3% to 3.5% I believe).
As you imply this is not a huge sum, allowing for compound interest over a lifetimes employment over say 45 years .
No, because overall health is key. Chronic diseases that coincide with age are not inevitable. If people are healthy, robust, and free of sickness until very late in life, they will cost the NHS less. It's being ill and weak but treatable where the problem lies. Most here seem to be advocating not treating - I'm advocating not being sick.
Alas, it is those chronic illnesses that are contracted in later life that are so expensive. You can eat well, exercise and follow every fad you like but at some stage your body will, in some way, start to fail. You may advocate not contracting, say, dementia but you cannot decide whether you will or will not spend the last years of your live as a drooling vegetable in a nursing home. Nor can you decide whether you will or will not contract some viral disease for which there is no cure but which can be managed.
I think we have a basic disagreement over what constitutes health. Dementia is a disorder. A healthy person by definition doesn't develop a disorder.
A healthy person doesn't develop dementia? Perhaps not on the planet Sausage but it happens on Earth quite often.
A person with dementia may be outwardly free of sickness, but clearly by definition they are not healthy.
Yeah, right, whatever.
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Dementia can manifest itself in many different ways. It can be aggressive or slow, and it strikes people at different times of life -even many young people. It's not unlike any other disease - it isn't a symptom of time spent on the earth, it is a symptom of wear and tear. We shouldn't accept it as being inevitable.
No, because overall health is key. Chronic diseases that coincide with age are not inevitable. If people are healthy, robust, and free of sickness until very late in life, they will cost the NHS less. It's being ill and weak but treatable where the problem lies. Most here seem to be advocating not treating - I'm advocating not being sick.
Alas, it is those chronic illnesses that are contracted in later life that are so expensive. You can eat well, exercise and follow every fad you like but at some stage your body will, in some way, start to fail. You may advocate not contracting, say, dementia but you cannot decide whether you will or will not spend the last years of your live as a drooling vegetable in a nursing home. Nor can you decide whether you will or will not contract some viral disease for which there is no cure but which can be managed.
The NHS spends huge amounts treating conditions related to diet, type 2 diabetes etc. If we weren't spending so much on this, then later life illnesses would not be unaffordable.
Your medical expertise is obviously extensive if you can isolate the cause of illnesses exclusively to diet; also the breadth of your knowledge of the relative costs of illnesses avoided versus costs of illnesses consequentially suffered because of such avoidance. Life must be very simple for you.
No, because overall health is key. Chronic diseases that coincide with age are not inevitable. If people are healthy, robust, and free of sickness until very late in life, they will cost the NHS less. It's being ill and weak but treatable where the problem lies. Most here seem to be advocating not treating - I'm advocating not being sick.
Alas, it is those chronic illnesses that are contracted in later life that are so expensive. You can eat well, exercise and follow every fad you like but at some stage your body will, in some way, start to fail. You may advocate not contracting, say, dementia but you cannot decide whether you will or will not spend the last years of your live as a drooling vegetable in a nursing home. Nor can you decide whether you will or will not contract some viral disease for which there is no cure but which can be managed.
The NHS spends huge amounts treating conditions related to diet, type 2 diabetes etc. If we weren't spending so much on this, then later life illnesses would not be unaffordable.
Also cancer, allergic conditions, pregnancy complications and childhood illnesses - all running wild. All to a great extent a result of aspects of modern lifestyles.
Where's the research into cancer prevention vs. cancer treatment? Could this be because there's no money in prevention but treatment is a gravy train?
no money in prevention but treatment is a gravy train
How long can the triple lock on pensions be sustainable ?
I suspect quite long, for the very simple reason that the state pension is so low - max £6K a year for the old-style basic state pension, or £7.9K for the 'new' one. This is not exactly wealth beyond the dreams of avarice however you look at it. The idea that pensioners are being treated lavishly is a myth.
I doubt the usual suspects are going to take much notice of you, but thanks for trying.
Yeah, the myth that pensioners are raking it in seems to be very widespread. It comes a quite a shock when you discover what the reality is.
No, because overall health is key. Chronic diseases that coincide with age are not inevitable. If people are healthy, robust, and free of sickness until very late in life, they will cost the NHS less. It's being ill and weak but treatable where the problem lies. Most here seem to be advocating not treating - I'm advocating not being sick.
Alas, it is those chronic illnesses that are contracted in later life that are so expensive. You can eat well, exercise and follow every fad you like but at some stage your body will, in some way, start to fail. You may advocate not contracting, say, dementia but you cannot decide whether you will or will not spend the last years of your live as a drooling vegetable in a nursing home. Nor can you decide whether you will or will not contract some viral disease for which there is no cure but which can be managed.
I think we have a basic disagreement over what constitutes health. Dementia is a disorder. A healthy person by definition doesn't develop a disorder.
A healthy person doesn't develop dementia? Perhaps not on the planet Sausage but it happens on Earth quite often.
A person with dementia may be outwardly free of sickness, but clearly by definition they are not healthy.
It begins to look like you speak from direct personal experience
No, because overall health is key. Chronic diseases that coincide with age are not inevitable. If people are healthy, robust, and free of sickness until very late in life, they will cost the NHS less. It's being ill and weak but treatable where the problem lies. Most here seem to be advocating not treating - I'm advocating not being sick.
Alas, it is those chronic illnesses that are contracted in later life that are so expensive. You can eat well, exercise and follow every fad you like but at some stage your body will, in some way, start to fail. You may advocate not contracting, say, dementia but you cannot decide whether you will or will not spend the last years of your live as a drooling vegetable in a nursing home. Nor can you decide whether you will or will not contract some viral disease for which there is no cure but which can be managed.
I think we have a basic disagreement over what constitutes health. Dementia is a disorder. A healthy person by definition doesn't develop a disorder.
Christ - I have this overwhelming desire to shout "hallelujah!" or maybe even "allahuakba!"
No, because overall health is key. Chronic diseases that coincide with age are not inevitable. If people are healthy, robust, and free of sickness until very late in life, they will cost the NHS less. It's being ill and weak but treatable where the problem lies. Most here seem to be advocating not treating - I'm advocating not being sick.
Alas, it is those chronic illnesses that are contracted in later life that are so expensive. You can eat well, exercise and follow every fad you like but at some stage your body will, in some way, start to fail. You may advocate not contracting, say, dementia but you cannot decide whether you will or will not spend the last years of your live as a drooling vegetable in a nursing home. Nor can you decide whether you will or will not contract some viral disease for which there is no cure but which can be managed.
I think we have a basic disagreement over what constitutes health. Dementia is a disorder. A healthy person by definition doesn't develop a disorder.
A healthy person doesn't develop dementia? Perhaps not on the planet Sausage but it happens on Earth quite often.
A person with dementia may be outwardly free of sickness, but clearly by definition they are not healthy.
Yeah, right, whatever.
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Dementia can manifest itself in many different ways. It can be aggressive or slow, and it strikes people at different times of life -even many young people. It's not unlike any other disease - it isn't a symptom of time spent on the earth, it is a symptom of wear and tear. We shouldn't accept it as being inevitable.
Does whether you believe in god influence the end result?
There is no way on God's green earth that Cuban-Canadian Cruz is a natural born citizen of the USA, and if American patriotism means anything he should be heckled and hounded from the stage...
I will try to live comment this debate again. I think the question right now is about "what is your greatest weakness". So far all of them are telling nice jokes.
Paul is announcing that he is filibustering the budget tomorrow.
Now a deficit plan question, CNBC are attacking Trump on his tax plan.
Trump is trying to explain his tax plan adds his immigration plan using the great wall of china as an example.
CNBC really is extremely hostile on Trump, this is a debate between CNBC and Trump. This debate is a mess, Trump tries to say something the moderators kick in, Bush tries to comment the moderators kick in, Carson tries to answer the moderators kick in (that woman is annoying).
There is no way on God's green earth that Cuban-Canadian Cruz is a natural born citizen of the USA, and if American patriotism means anything he should be heckled and hounded from the stage...
In the same way that Obama was "heckled and hounded" from the stage?
Kasich is trying to explain that a balance budget is all about creating spending, and now he talks about his record in Ohio. Attacks the entire republican platform on cutting medicare and taxes.
Kasich is trying to run as a democrat on the republican party.
Trump attacks Kasich on his record on Lehman Bros.
Just seen Spectre. Wow: fantastic fun. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
It's a bit 'super-slick action-flick' - and light on plot depth with a few loose ends that I didn't think were satisfactorily tied off, or even made sense. However, it had exoticness, breadth and a real sense of adventure. The locations were superb, and the Bond girl was absolutely beautiful.
The Sam Smith song works exceptionally well with the titles and I loved the subtle nod to one of the original Fleming stories.
They possibly tried to cram a tad too much action in it, and I wouldn't necessarily have finished it off in London/UK again.
But, overall? Much more satisfying and enjoyable than Skyfall.
Fiorina is talking about think tanks and tax reform of the tax record she wants to make 7000 pages of tax code into just 3, once again the moderators interrupt.
There is no way on God's green earth that Cuban-Canadian Cruz is a natural born citizen of the USA, and if American patriotism means anything he should be heckled and hounded from the stage...
In the same way that Obama was "heckled and hounded" from the stage?
In Obama's case they were hunting for birth certificates in Kenya while his real disability was in plain sight, although in very old law which had not been closely scrutinized for over a century.
In Cruz's case there is no possibility of doubt about his disability.
Now they ask Rubio about his immigration plan, they literally said that republicans hate Rubio's plan!
Rubio doesn't answer, veers in the "we have to act now because something"
CNBC just asked like if Rubio will resign! "Do you hate your job, will you resign as people ask you because you don't do your job?" Rubio counterattacks using Obama.
Oh Bush who said he is his constituent of Rubio has called on Rubio to go because he doesn't show up for work. Rubio vs Bush fight.
Rubio is using John McCain as an example saying that Bush is saying that because Bush is running against him. Rubio sounds like he's on crack.
Now a question on Bush about why he has difficulties on the campaign.
CNBC are trying to support him using Bernanke.
Bush goes an a tirade against "do nothing". Now on Fiorina, an HP question, why did your stock slump, why did the board fire you?
Fiorina, the NASDAQ fell, HP was already in trouble before I came, I turned it around and saved jobs I made tough calls and yes I was fired and now they said the want me as president.
Ouch CNBC just said that a Fiorina supporter from HP that she just quoted, wants more votes for rich people.
Hands on Cruz has done a Gingrich and has WON the debate already. HUGE FIGHT now between CNBC and Cruz.
Now they go to Paul. He is against the budget deal because it cuts spending on medicare and raising defence spending.
Now they go to Christie, its getting boring after the Cruz-CNBC battle. Christie I got a detailed plan, Hillary wants to raise social security taxes blah blah blah.
Huckabee is attacking the social security cuts to fund other programs. Christie says the seniors shouldn't have money because the government stole it.
Cruz is back also riding the social security cuts, offers a gradual solution for young people. Huckabee goes back to means testing, he's against because the government shouldn't choose who takes what.
Theodore Dalrymple wonders why one of the most famous lines in Hamlet — "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" — was left out of a recent production at the South Bank:
J BLACK, dissenting 'Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word "naturalize" in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, § 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen. The first congressional exercise of this power, entitled "An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," was passed in 1790 at the Second Session of the First Congress.
'However, the clearest expression of the idea that Bellei and others similarly situated should for constitutional purposes be considered as naturalized citizens is to be found in United States v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U. S. 649 (1898): "Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts."'
J BRENNAN, dissenting 'Concededly, petitioner was a citizen at birth, not by constitutional right, but only through operation of a federal statute. ...citizens whose naturalization was carried out within the physical bounds of the United States, and those, like Bellei, who may be naturalized overseas... includes those naturalized through operation of an Act of Congress, wherever they may be at the time.'
In Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), the SCOTUS was unanimous in both the opinion and dissent(s) that people like Cruz (identical to Bellei) are naturalized citizens.
J BLACKMUN, delivering the opinion of the Court 'Mr. Justice Gray has observed that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was "declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law," United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 169 U. S. 688. Then follows a most significant sentence: "But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. .... The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.
'Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship... rather than to deny him citizenship outright, as concededly it had the power to do, and relegate the child, if he desired American citizenship, to the more arduous requirements of the usual naturalization process.... The proper emphasis is on what the statute permits him to gain from the possible starting point of noncitizenship, not on what he claims to lose from the possible starting point of full citizenship to which he has no constitutional right in the first place.'
The CNBC moderators are terrible, continuously attacking and interrupting all the candidates, most of it was simply a mush of noise between the moderators berating the candidates and the candidates trying to answer. Cruz put them in place.
“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency." Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 24 (1913)
"We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the "natural born" citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II,§ 1." Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163, 165 (1964)
Trump I used the chapter 11 laws, uses the economic collapse of Atlantic City as an excuse hitting Christie too with one stone. Trump:"The country has an enormous debt problem, and oh boy I know about solving debt problems"
And now a pharmaceutical drug question on Carson.
Carson is analyzing how to reduce the price of drugs by cutting regulations.
The moderators are demanding Christie to jail General Motors because of faulty switches.
Christie says that the government is taking a blind eye and persecuting Petreus, "with me justice will be a way of life".
Bush question on congressional budget deal, and why he supported it.
Bush says he cut taxes every year, triple AAA bond rating, and don't support it anymore.
Fiorina question, why are you against an internet tax?
What is crony capitalism, when the big get bigger they feel that they need to get bigger it's called socialist and government intervention is behind it. The government favour the big crushes the small.
Now about Rubio, you said that you are not good with numbers then they list the long list of his personal finance problems.
Rubio: I'm not rich, my family is not rich, i'm poor and i'm a christian, I worry about the finances of americans not mine, provide blah.
But you are a senator and a multimillionaire book dealer?
Rubio: My book is available on paperpack, imagine about americans worse off than me.
Trump came across badly on the debt question I reckon. If he ever became president, US interest rates would soar. You have a known defaulter in the top seat.
Question on Kasich, why subsidies are good for Ohio companies but not for other companies.
Kasich: I cut taxes, jobs grew, Washington does its usual things, balanced budget with a roadmap by cutting taxes and spending, balanced budget.
Question to Cruz, on minimum wage and women
Cruz: Turn the economy around, my sisster was a single mom, my mom was a single mom , my father did a born again study, big government benefits the big and hammers hispanics. Fiorina intervenes, every policy that Obama and Hillary is against women, record poverty for women lift women.
Carson, the constitution defends the rights of minorities but I think that marriage is between men and women, government is trying to terrorize people who disagree.
A corporate question, why were you involved with a terrible company.
Carson: It's a lie, I don't know those people
CNBC: Does that mean that you were not vetted Audience boos the moderators Carson :They know (to the audience)
Round 3 After Cruz demolished CNBC, the moderators were mostly quiet, making the debate more boring and stable but also more comprehensible.
Trump is nowhere because once again it takes a long time between turns. Cruz and Carson are doing the best, Kasich is in Ohio mode again, Rubio sounds like he's on 100 cups of coffee, the others are invisible.
Question on Rubio, Rubio wants to save the tech industry by supporting immigration reform.
Rubio: We need to add reforms, we need to pay them more not less, and training more people in america to work with their hands, modernize education.
Question on Trump, why are critical on Rubio on immigration.
Trump: I;m in favour of keeping the talented in Harvard, I don't knwo were you get that stuff, I will be putting a lots of money superpacs are a disaster for the country, I don't blame them but very bad people are doing a big problem with dishonesty in benefit of lobbyist.
Trump: I never said that about Rubio.
Rubio: the democrats have the ultimate superpack called the media, Hillary was exposed as a lier and the media said that it was great for Hillary.
Cruz: I supported Paul's legislation to audit the FED, QE 1 2 3, wallstr is doing great common people see their costs going up do to loose money from the FED, sound money and gold.
Same question to Paul.
Paul: We need to audit the FED, FED should lobby congress, it's their fault for income inequality, and the housing crisis and the stock bubble, interest rate control should be abolished.
Question on Carson, why are you against pharmaceutical subsidies but you want to move oil subsities to ethanol.
Carson; I changed my mind, regulations cost poor people, Sanders blamed the rich.
Question on Huckabee, you supported to jail bankers.
Huckabee: That blip that when out of control is a perfect example of why government is useless, CEO are taking a lot of raises but common people have barely taken a raise in 40 years. Why cut benefits for poor people, reduce illness .
Question on Bush, why tax labour more than investment, Reagan had a higher tax rate that your plan.
Bush: regulations are behind the problem, radical chance, obama tried and failed, reform taxes and regulation.
CNBC, tax foundation says that Rubio's plan is worse for the middle class and the poor.
Rubio, the biggest gains are on the bottom people, under my plan 25% flat tax on business no tax on investment.
Paul: who decides who answers on this? Moderators: the moderators
Paul: my tax plan is unique, takes rid of payroll tax. Cruz: Paul's plan is right, my tax plan has a 10% flat tax, everyone should write taxes on postcards.
Question on Kasich, marijuana gives more tax revenue why are you against.
Kasich: drugs are bad, my program would move 140 programs of department of education to 4 programs, freeze regulations , cut taxes, balance budges, welfare and education to be outsourced to states, wages rise in Ohio, Ohio Ohio Ohio.
I think Rubio is edging it a bit on this round but not by much, Cruz and Huckabee made somewhat of an impression. Trump is still nowhere , so is Carson but he wasn't asked anything or talked at all in this round.
The moderators are returning to their bad manners again.
Question on Fiorina, should the government set retirement plans for workers.
Fiorina: no, the government shouldn't provide benefits, business should but are crushed, 700 thousand businesses go bush because of obamacare, the government should set minimum wages.
Question on Kasich, student loan debts.
Kasich: In Ohio, no students pay a dime and you get in college without any cost, we are looking into why universities have such high costs and reducing them, students can pay debt by providing public services.
Bush: let the states do it not the government, no to more government. Kasich: remember a thousand points a lot.
Question on Christie about fantasy Football.
Christie: WHO CARES?
Question, climate change Christie: don't do what obama kerry and hillary do, invest on alternative energy.
Question on Paul, social security is socialism by Reagan who he opposed it.
Paul: the government doesn't do a good job, enormous mismatch between the money families give in and take out, it's your grandparents fault for having too many kids!
It goes to Christie thanks to the ridiculous question from CNBC about fantasy football. Trump is juggling between his business and his policy platform, Rubio is also juggling on immigration.
Paul had a gasping moment when he accused grandparents of undermining social security by having too many kids 50 years ago.
Huckabee replying to Paul: War on cost drivers on chronic disease, we eradicated polio and earned billions, to fix medicare eliminate illness.
Bush: I have a plan, encourage savings, baseline.
Question on Trump, who do you boost the economy and not to cut social security.
Trump: we are going to bring back jobs, from japan, china, mexico.
Bush: reform social security, rich people don't need it, private savings, 4% GDP growth.
Kasich: In Ohio we didn't reduce medicare, I agree with Bush but keep people healthy. Paul: you can't do nothing, increase the retirement age and introduce means testing.
Question on Carson, why abolish medicare.
Carson: you can opt out, medicare is costing 600 billion $, there are a lot of that you can do with 2600$, government should be out of it.
Christie: Carson is right, don't put money to social security, increase the retirement age, don't replace medicare, the democrats don't have ideas for medicare reform they are out to take your money.
Rubio: the GOP is blessed with 11 candidates, don't be a demagogue, reforms should be for the next generation not about my mom, i love my mom.
Fiorina: get back to basics by 0 base budget time in congress, nice ideas but tackle basics.
Paul: small government, too small to see it, the government is too big, no debt raise, see my filibuster tommorow.
Christie: Are you concerned, are you serious, I'm deadly serious, i'm deadly serious in New Jersey.
Cruz: Who stood up to the democrats, obamacare, amnesty, abortion, I lead the fight on all, freeddom is personal and I will fight.
Fiorina: we need a proven laeder, I was a secretary and became the CEO, you can't wait too see a debate with Fiorina and Hillary.
Carson: I like to thank the candidates, the audience, people are waking up, we the people should decide and america.
Trump: we don't win anymore, we're losers, the iran dean was terrible, I beat CNBC to cut the debate time to 2 hours with Carson, I will do again with the country. CNBC the debate was always going to be 2 hours. (audience boos moderators) Trump: that is not right
Rubio: the american dream is special, we have to save it and vote for me. Bush: I have 33 years of experience, i will change the culture, we need a unifier, rising income, extraordinary country.
Huckabee: the media thinks that we are their game, but I have 5 grandkids and i don't want them to be raised in the ruins of america saddled with debt the candidates who run should do something.
Kasich: If you save one life you change the world, we need to know, america is great, and the bottom up is us, renew by working together, god bless america.
Cruz was the winner thanks to CNBC behaving like jerks most of the time, you couldn't understand what was going on or what was said because the CNBC moderators were talking all the time on top of the candidates interrupting constantly, the audience turned very hostile to the moderators for that and Cruz put them in place to vast applause (reminded me of Gingrich in 2011, the CNN debate were he attacked John King).
After Cruz it was just a mush, I can't decide who came a far away second, I'm between Trump, Rubio, Carson and Christie for far away second.
Huckabee was quite emotional, and Paul will have to explain himself for attacking grandparents for having too many kids.
Kasich was in his usual Ohio mode.
Bush was trying to copy Kasich by talking all the time about his record in Florida.
Christie had a very good moment on the stupid Fantasy Football question. Rubio was veering towards foreign policy too much on an economy debate and juggled on immigration.
Carson's strength is that he can make the most absurd statement sound totally logical, it's the way that he speaks.
I wonder what percentage of the black electorate would vote GOP with Carson as candidate.
According to the polls it's about 1/6th, Carson's strength is with other minorities where he gets between 1/3 and 40% , in comparison Rubio gets 1/5 with hispanics.
I also seem to have misplaced a big fight between Trump vs Kasich and Bush in which Trump beat them easily. I missed the first 20 minutes of the debate so I have a small gap.
Ted Cruz had the moment of the night, attacking the moderators, as did Rubio. The questions were designed to bait the candidates. The questions were terrible, and I cannot recall another debate where the audience lustily booed the questions. Harwood asked Rubio a question about his tax plan, and was completely demolished by Rubio pointing out that after he had written a NY Times article about it, he had to correct it to show what Rubio was saying, when Harwood was arguing the original anti-Rubio thrust of the article. It was that bad.
The moderators would ask a question, then interrupt the response.
Bush was awful, and if he's not done he's on the way to it.
Rubio helped himself. Fiorina spoke the most.
If you want proof of the liberal bias of the media, this was it.
Comments
I'm up for not being sick. Will you lay hands on me please.
Where's the research into cancer prevention vs. cancer treatment? Could this be because there's no money in prevention but treatment is a gravy train?
What are you on?
I think the question right now is about "what is your greatest weakness".
So far all of them are telling nice jokes.
Now a deficit plan question, CNBC are attacking Trump on his tax plan.
Trump is trying to explain his tax plan adds his immigration plan using the great wall of china as an example.
CNBC really is extremely hostile on Trump, this is a debate between CNBC and Trump.
This debate is a mess, Trump tries to say something the moderators kick in, Bush tries to comment the moderators kick in, Carson tries to answer the moderators kick in (that woman is annoying).
Kasich is trying to explain that a balance budget is all about creating spending, and now he talks about his record in Ohio.
Attacks the entire republican platform on cutting medicare and taxes.
Kasich is trying to run as a democrat on the republican party.
Trump attacks Kasich on his record on Lehman Bros.
And the stream goes pop !
In Cruz's case there is no possibility of doubt about his disability.
Rubio doesn't answer, veers in the "we have to act now because something"
CNBC just asked like if Rubio will resign!
"Do you hate your job, will you resign as people ask you because you don't do your job?"
Rubio counterattacks using Obama.
Oh Bush who said he is his constituent of Rubio has called on Rubio to go because he doesn't show up for work.
Rubio vs Bush fight.
Rubio is using John McCain as an example saying that Bush is saying that because Bush is running against him. Rubio sounds like he's on crack.
CNBC are trying to support him using Bernanke.
Bush goes an a tirade against "do nothing".
Now on Fiorina, an HP question, why did your stock slump, why did the board fire you?
Fiorina, the NASDAQ fell, HP was already in trouble before I came, I turned it around and saved jobs I made tough calls and yes I was fired and now they said the want me as president.
Ouch CNBC just said that a Fiorina supporter from HP that she just quoted, wants more votes for rich people.
"Strictly Come Dancing announcer claims cocaine and ecstasy are regularly delivered directly to 'more than half' of BBC staff at their desks"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3293526/Strictly-Come-Dancing-announcer-claims-cocaine-ecstasy-regularly-delivered-directly-half-BBC-staff-desks.html
Fiorina going through a Director's fiduciary duties now...
You got a reply.
HUGE FIGHT now between CNBC and Cruz.
Now they go to Paul.
He is against the budget deal because it cuts spending on medicare and raising defence spending.
Now they go to Christie, its getting boring after the Cruz-CNBC battle.
Christie I got a detailed plan, Hillary wants to raise social security taxes blah blah blah.
Give me Cruz back.
Christie says the seniors shouldn't have money because the government stole it.
Cruz is back also riding the social security cuts, offers a gradual solution for young people.
Huckabee goes back to means testing, he's against because the government shouldn't choose who takes what.
http://takimag.com/article/something_is_rotten_theodore_dalrymple/print#axzz3paxk5pOV
Lots of time for the betting outsiders there. Barely any air time for the Donald.
'Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word "naturalize" in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, § 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen. The first congressional exercise of this power, entitled "An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," was passed in 1790 at the Second Session of the First Congress.
'However, the clearest expression of the idea that Bellei and others similarly situated should for constitutional purposes be considered as naturalized citizens is to be found in United States v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U. S. 649 (1898):
"Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts."'
J BRENNAN, dissenting
'Concededly, petitioner was a citizen at birth, not by constitutional right, but only through operation of a federal statute. ...citizens whose naturalization was carried out within the physical bounds of the United States, and those, like Bellei, who may be naturalized overseas... includes those naturalized through operation of an Act of Congress, wherever they may be at the time.'
[my emphasis]
J BLACKMUN, delivering the opinion of the Court
'Mr. Justice Gray has observed that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was "declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law," United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 169 U. S. 688. Then follows a most significant sentence:
"But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."
Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. .... The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.
'Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship... rather than to deny him citizenship outright, as concededly it had the power to do, and relegate the child, if he desired American citizenship, to the more arduous requirements of the usual naturalization process....
The proper emphasis is on what the statute permits him to gain from the possible starting point of noncitizenship, not on what he claims to lose from the possible starting point of full citizenship to which he has no constitutional right in the first place.'
Cruz has won the debate.
The CNBC moderators are terrible, continuously attacking and interrupting all the candidates, most of it was simply a mush of noise between the moderators berating the candidates and the candidates trying to answer. Cruz put them in place.
Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 24 (1913)
"We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the "natural born" citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II,§ 1." Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163, 165 (1964)
[my bold]
Trump I used the chapter 11 laws, uses the economic collapse of Atlantic City as an excuse hitting Christie too with one stone.
Trump:"The country has an enormous debt problem, and oh boy I know about solving debt problems"
And now a pharmaceutical drug question on Carson.
Carson is analyzing how to reduce the price of drugs by cutting regulations.
The moderators are demanding Christie to jail General Motors because of faulty switches.
Christie says that the government is taking a blind eye and persecuting Petreus, "with me justice will be a way of life".
Bush says he cut taxes every year, triple AAA bond rating, and don't support it anymore.
Fiorina question, why are you against an internet tax?
What is crony capitalism, when the big get bigger they feel that they need to get bigger it's called socialist and government intervention is behind it. The government favour the big crushes the small.
Now about Rubio, you said that you are not good with numbers then they list the long list of his personal finance problems.
Rubio: I'm not rich, my family is not rich, i'm poor and i'm a christian, I worry about the finances of americans not mine, provide blah.
But you are a senator and a multimillionaire book dealer?
Rubio: My book is available on paperpack, imagine about americans worse off than me.
http://www.livenewschat.eu/the-republican-debates-live-stream/
Kasich: I cut taxes, jobs grew, Washington does its usual things, balanced budget with a roadmap by cutting taxes and spending, balanced budget.
Question to Cruz, on minimum wage and women
Cruz: Turn the economy around, my sisster was a single mom, my mom was a single mom , my father did a born again study, big government benefits the big and hammers hispanics.
Fiorina intervenes, every policy that Obama and Hillary is against women, record poverty for women lift women.
Carson, the constitution defends the rights of minorities but I think that marriage is between men and women, government is trying to terrorize people who disagree.
A corporate question, why were you involved with a terrible company.
Carson: It's a lie, I don't know those people
CNBC: Does that mean that you were not vetted
Audience boos the moderators
Carson :They know (to the audience)
After Cruz demolished CNBC, the moderators were mostly quiet, making the debate more boring and stable but also more comprehensible.
Trump is nowhere because once again it takes a long time between turns.
Cruz and Carson are doing the best, Kasich is in Ohio mode again, Rubio sounds like he's on 100 cups of coffee, the others are invisible.
Rubio: We need to add reforms, we need to pay them more not less, and training more people in america to work with their hands, modernize education.
Question on Trump, why are critical on Rubio on immigration.
Trump: I;m in favour of keeping the talented in Harvard, I don't knwo were you get that stuff, I will be putting a lots of money superpacs are a disaster for the country, I don't blame them but very bad people are doing a big problem with dishonesty in benefit of lobbyist.
Trump: I never said that about Rubio.
Rubio: the democrats have the ultimate superpack called the media, Hillary was exposed as a lier and the media said that it was great for Hillary.
Cruz: I supported Paul's legislation to audit the FED, QE 1 2 3, wallstr is doing great common people see their costs going up do to loose money from the FED, sound money and gold.
Same question to Paul.
Paul: We need to audit the FED, FED should lobby congress, it's their fault for income inequality, and the housing crisis and the stock bubble, interest rate control should be abolished.
Carson; I changed my mind, regulations cost poor people, Sanders blamed the rich.
Question on Huckabee, you supported to jail bankers.
Huckabee: That blip that when out of control is a perfect example of why government is useless, CEO are taking a lot of raises but common people have barely taken a raise in 40 years. Why cut benefits for poor people, reduce illness .
Question on Bush, why tax labour more than investment, Reagan had a higher tax rate that your plan.
Bush: regulations are behind the problem, radical chance, obama tried and failed, reform taxes and regulation.
Rubio, the biggest gains are on the bottom people, under my plan 25% flat tax on business no tax on investment.
Paul: who decides who answers on this?
Moderators: the moderators
Paul: my tax plan is unique, takes rid of payroll tax.
Cruz: Paul's plan is right, my tax plan has a 10% flat tax, everyone should write taxes on postcards.
Kasich: drugs are bad, my program would move 140 programs of department of education to 4 programs, freeze regulations , cut taxes, balance budges, welfare and education to be outsourced to states, wages rise in Ohio, Ohio Ohio Ohio.
I think Rubio is edging it a bit on this round but not by much, Cruz and Huckabee made somewhat of an impression.
Trump is still nowhere , so is Carson but he wasn't asked anything or talked at all in this round.
The moderators are returning to their bad manners again.
Question on Trump, about visas and Rubio on the Trump website.
Trump: I'm in favour of people coming people here legally, I'm the only one that I have created thousands of jobs, we are a country of laws.
Rubio: We have a law about illegal immigration, immigration reform should be about education and americans.
Question on Trump why do you have a gun should your employees carry guns.
Trump: yes, and I carry a permit, ISIS and mentaly ill look for gun free zones, are a catastrophe, I will change the policies for Trump resorts.
Question on Huckabee, do you thing Trump is a moral man
Huckabee: I wear a Trump tie tonight.
Trump: Thank you.
Huckabee: Trump will be twice as good as Hillary, I fought the Clinton machine and I beat them in Arkansas.
Christie: the police is afraid to enforce the law because obama doesn't support the police., I will support the police.
Fiorina: no, the government shouldn't provide benefits, business should but are crushed, 700 thousand businesses go bush because of obamacare, the government should set minimum wages.
Question on Kasich, student loan debts.
Kasich: In Ohio, no students pay a dime and you get in college without any cost, we are looking into why universities have such high costs and reducing them, students can pay debt by providing public services.
Bush: let the states do it not the government, no to more government.
Kasich: remember a thousand points a lot.
Question on Christie about fantasy Football.
Christie: WHO CARES?
Question, climate change
Christie: don't do what obama kerry and hillary do, invest on alternative energy.
Paul: the government doesn't do a good job, enormous mismatch between the money families give in and take out, it's your grandparents fault for having too many kids!
It goes to Christie thanks to the ridiculous question from CNBC about fantasy football.
Trump is juggling between his business and his policy platform, Rubio is also juggling on immigration.
Paul had a gasping moment when he accused grandparents of undermining social security by having too many kids 50 years ago.
Bush: I have a plan, encourage savings, baseline.
Question on Trump, who do you boost the economy and not to cut social security.
Trump: we are going to bring back jobs, from japan, china, mexico.
Bush: reform social security, rich people don't need it, private savings, 4% GDP growth.
Kasich: In Ohio we didn't reduce medicare, I agree with Bush but keep people healthy.
Paul: you can't do nothing, increase the retirement age and introduce means testing.
Question on Carson, why abolish medicare.
Carson: you can opt out, medicare is costing 600 billion $, there are a lot of that you can do with 2600$, government should be out of it.
Christie: Carson is right, don't put money to social security, increase the retirement age, don't replace medicare, the democrats don't have ideas for medicare reform they are out to take your money.
Rubio: the GOP is blessed with 11 candidates, don't be a demagogue, reforms should be for the next generation not about my mom, i love my mom.
Fiorina: get back to basics by 0 base budget time in congress, nice ideas but tackle basics.
[cue Moby's "Extreme Ways"]
Paul: small government, too small to see it, the government is too big, no debt raise, see my filibuster tommorow.
Christie: Are you concerned, are you serious, I'm deadly serious, i'm deadly serious in New Jersey.
Cruz: Who stood up to the democrats, obamacare, amnesty, abortion, I lead the fight on all, freeddom is personal and I will fight.
Fiorina: we need a proven laeder, I was a secretary and became the CEO, you can't wait too see a debate with Fiorina and Hillary.
Carson: I like to thank the candidates, the audience, people are waking up, we the people should decide and america.
Trump: we don't win anymore, we're losers, the iran dean was terrible, I beat CNBC to cut the debate time to 2 hours with Carson, I will do again with the country.
CNBC the debate was always going to be 2 hours.
(audience boos moderators)
Trump: that is not right
Rubio: the american dream is special, we have to save it and vote for me.
Bush: I have 33 years of experience, i will change the culture, we need a unifier, rising income, extraordinary country.
Huckabee: the media thinks that we are their game, but I have 5 grandkids and i don't want them to be raised in the ruins of america saddled with debt the candidates who run should do something.
Kasich: If you save one life you change the world, we need to know, america is great, and the bottom up is us, renew by working together, god bless america.
And thats it.
Cruz was the winner thanks to CNBC behaving like jerks most of the time, you couldn't understand what was going on or what was said because the CNBC moderators were talking all the time on top of the candidates interrupting constantly, the audience turned very hostile to the moderators for that and Cruz put them in place to vast applause (reminded me of Gingrich in 2011, the CNN debate were he attacked John King).
After Cruz it was just a mush, I can't decide who came a far away second, I'm between Trump, Rubio, Carson and Christie for far away second.
Huckabee was quite emotional, and Paul will have to explain himself for attacking grandparents for having too many kids.
Kasich was in his usual Ohio mode.
Bush was trying to copy Kasich by talking all the time about his record in Florida.
Christie had a very good moment on the stupid Fantasy Football question.
Rubio was veering towards foreign policy too much on an economy debate and juggled on immigration.
Fiorina was just gray.
I rate them:
Cruz 8/10
Trump 5/10
Rubio 5/10
Carson 5/10
Christie 5/10
Kasich 4/10
Bush 4/10
Fiorina 4/10
Huckabee 4/10
Paul 2/10
Goodnight.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
0% up to $36,000
Above that - flat rate 10%
Certainly popular! But credible?
For sure it won't raise enough to pay any UK style "Tax credits"!
I also seem to have misplaced a big fight between Trump vs Kasich and Bush in which Trump beat them easily. I missed the first 20 minutes of the debate so I have a small gap.
Andrew Parker says current level of threat from homegrown jihadis the highest he has seen in a career spanning 32-years"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11962037/Islamic-State-planning-mass-attack-on-Britain-warns-head-of-MI5.html
https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/about-us/what-we-do/the-threats/terrorism/threat-levels.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc-QzRulUWU
Goodnight or good morning.
The moderators would ask a question, then interrupt the response.
Bush was awful, and if he's not done he's on the way to it.
Rubio helped himself. Fiorina spoke the most.
If you want proof of the liberal bias of the media, this was it.
CNBC should be utterly ashamed.