Clay Bennett for October 30, 2015

If they don’t like the heat, get out of the kitchen.

The real irony is that CNBC is Wall Street (aka .01%er) friendly channel.

You know…Clay Bennett is one of the most liberal cartoonists on Gocomics, while Steve Kelly is possibly the most conservative guy here.And it says something when two such polar opposites agree wholeheartedly on a subject, ( as they do here. )

Honest question — I did not watch the Republicans debate, only read about it after.

Were there any answers that proposed stuff to resolve economic issues?

I assume Trump stated he would solve whatever the issue was because he’s so great.

And I heard Kasich is against repealing Medicare and SS.

Were there any others?

The questions were good, and insightful. The candidates couldn’t answer them and look good, so they lied repeatedly, distorted their own well-documented records, and attacked CNBC for asking “gotcha” questions about their actual policies. The crowd, of course, loved it, because they believe politicians and don’t believe reporters. There are good recaps at Slate and at the New York Times.

It was a game of 20 unanswered questions. Granted, some were pretty stupid, but nothing as bad as the “Benghazi Committee” came up with.

The Noive of those guys.Asking Questions about the Candidates Weaknesses…

OK, I went back and looked at some of the exchanges. This is one from http://www.vox.com/2015/10/28/9633420/ted-cruz-republican-debate

======

Similarly, Ben Carson wasn’t asked whether he could do math. He was asked whether his tax plan’s math added up.

“You have a flat tax plan of 10 percent flat taxes,” said moderator Becky Quick. “This is something that is very appealing to a lot of voters, but I’ve had a really tough time trying to make the math work on this. If you were to take a 10 percent tax, with the numbers right now in total personal income, you’re gonna bring in $1.5 trillion. That is less than half of what we bring in right now. And by the way, it’s gonna leave us in a $2 trillion hole. So what analysis got you to the point where you think this will work?”

The ensuing exchange is worth quoting at length:

CARSON: The rate — the rate — the rate is gonna be much closer to 15 percent.

QUICK: 15 percent still leaves you with a $1.1 trillion hole.

CARSON: You also have to get rid of all the deductions and all the loopholes. You also have to some strategically cutting in several places.

Remember, we have 645 federal agencies and sub-agencies. Anybody who tells me that we need every penny and every one of those is in a fantasy world.

So, also, we can stimulate the economy. That’s gonna be the real growth engine. Stimulating the economy — because it’s tethered down right now with so many regulations…

QUICK: You’d have to cut — you’d have to cut government about 40 percent to make it work with a $1.1 trillion hole.

CARSON: That’s not true.

QUICK: That is true, I looked at the numbers.

CARSON: When — when we put all the facts down, you’ll be able to see that it’s not true, it works out very well.

The question was extremely substantive. Carson’s answer was laughably vague. The problem here isn’t that Carson was asked whether he can do math, but that he couldn’t show that his tax plan was based on sound math. And that’s because it isn’t.

===

So, Fox “news” viewers do not consider a question about the math of a candidate’s proposed tax plan to be “substantive”?

Or is that a gotcha question?Seriously?

Oh, cool.

So you think it’s unfair to ask a question about a tax plan that the candidate himself has proposed? ‘Cuz he should have never prepared an answer about the numbers not adding up other than ’They do so’.

I can’t explain the current tax code in 60 seconds, but then I didn’t propose it, either. And he wasn’t limited to 60 seconds.

The problem is that neither he nor anyone else in Republicanland, except for Kasich, did the math.

It reminds me of when Paul Ryan was the R candidate for VP and proposed a budget. He was asked why it did not balance. His answer? ‘Well, we haven’t run the numbers yet’. If it had been Carson, he would have said ‘Does too!’.

And this is a guy you want for president? Seriously?

The problem was that the moderator was editorializing and interrupting the answers, pure and simple. He also was baiting them into attacking each other; Huckabee and Trump, for example.

CNBC, being as 100% pro big business as it is, did not expect to be targeted in the way that it was..But since it is not flamboyantly Rightist, like Mr. Murdoch’s FOX news, many GOP conservatives think it must be Leftist!

Having read the transcripts, I wonder if any of the candidates ever had to interview for a job before this?

@ superposition Yes but the question was easier: If I donate millions to get you elected will you work to pass my lobbyists write for you?