GOP South Carolina debate

On Thursday night, five Republican presidential candidates faced off in the first debate of the 2012 election cycle. The debate took place in Greenville, South Carolina. The state of South Carolina will hold the nation's second primary election (and the first primary in the South) sometime in February of next year.

The participants in the debate were: Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, 50; former CEO of Godfather's Pizza Herman Cain, 65; former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, 58; current Congressman from Texas Ron Paul, 74; and former Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum, 52.

Let's do a quick rundown of the candidates:

Tim Pawlenty - Served two full terms as governor, but did not win a majority in either election; seriously considered as a possible running mate by John McCain in 2008; received an "A" grade from the Cato Institute; known for balancing budgets without raising taxes despite facing massive deficits.

Herman Cain - Was briefly chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City; newspaper columnist and radio talk-show host; opposes abortion even in the cases of rape and/or incest; colon and liver cancer survivor; the only black Republican candidate running for president this year.

Gary Johnson - Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003; considered a libertarian Republican; was a successful businessman prior to entering politics; supports the legalization of marijuana and used marijuana "medicinally" as recently as 2008; climbed Mount Everest; a major tax-cutter.

Ron Paul - Ran unsuccessfully for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008; also known as a libertarian Republican; considered one of the main inspirations for the Tea Party movement; opposed the war in Iraq; worked as an OB-GYN for many years; can raise funds from individual donors like few candidates.

Rick Santorum - Served in the House of Representatives for two terms before serving in the Senate for two terms; was crushed in his reelection bid in 2006 by roughly 18 points; known for being very socially conservative; absolutely despised by the Left; endorsed Mitt Romney in 2008.

Read the rest:

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-orlando/rating-the-debate-republican-presidential-candidates-face-off-south-carolina

>>Ran unsuccessfully for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008

He didn't get the nomination but it was a pretty successful run in terms of fund raising.

>>2
He didn't get the nomination but it was a pretty successful run in terms of fund raising.
He will never be nominated.  Why do you seem to pretend otherwise?

RONPAUL

PCKAFORUS





































































































































http://about.me/digitalnasties

















































































































dont do this!

""A" grade from the Cato Institute"

Are you fucking kidding me????    Cato which is mostly funded by the Koch brother and many other Mega-corps...    Is a joke, they go to the highest bidder, the heritage group also...

Looking up a vote or public office record isn't hard, make you OWN decisions and don't follow so called "think tanks"

>>6
Bigcorps are fearful of institutions like Cato. The last thing they want is a large scale political movement aimed at stripping them of the privileges they receive from the state. God forbid educated professional scientists run the economy instead of ivy league playboys.

Does god get mad when you use his name as a figure of speech?

>>6
lol @ liberals with their slander, oh my god rich people financing people who aren't leftists? evil evil evil!!

Mega-corps LOVE liberals and regulation since it's the reason they exist in the first place.
Further, what do you think is better, financing from jewish communists and foreigners? Or financing from proud americans? It's obvious where the liberal stands.

Herman Cain is now a front-runner thanks to this debate.

>>9
lol @ conservaties with their cluelessness.

>>11
ur dumb
Oh my word, what a compelling counter-argument. You have bested me sir and I concede.

>>12
Well, at least you admitted it.
Now go watch a reality tv show like a good little conservatie.

>>13
You're accusing me of being a sheeple yet you don't have a counter-argument beyond "ur dumb".

>>14
I thought you conceded?

>>15
I lied.

>>16
typical.

>>17
It was pretty obvious I lied, it's called sarcasm. I obviously vastly over-estimated your sanity.

i just fuck me dog...

>>18
Hey, you wanna be a liar, that's your business.

>>18
>>20
18 is trolling 20.
Just letting you guys know so you could end this pointless faggotry.

I even think that 18 is libtard acting like cuntservatard.
>Mega-corps LOVE liberals and regulation since it's the reason they exist in the first place.
>Mega-corps LOVE liberals and regulation
>Mega-corps LOVE regulation

This gave you away.
I still loled at the obvious fool who fell for it.

>>21
They do love regulation, it stamps out medium and small sized businesses who cannot afford the divisions of lawyers and accountants to get through the clusterfuck of tax codes, subsides, tariffs and laws needed to compete.

>>22
Ouch.  You are so very right about that.  Large businesses use government to stamp out budding competition.

>>22
>>23
If that were true, why were large companies so successful and so much better at fucking people over during the early 20th century than they are now?

Also, why is the quality of life in Europe better than in America?

If a country with a truly free market really leads to a more well off people, are there any modern day examples? Are there any examples in history?

>>24
They weren't, a far greater proportion of people were self-employed and big business paid about 50% of taxes.

>>21
>pointless faggotry
It's not pointless if it's fun!

>>26
true, /b/roseph...
I just couldn't take it that he really fell for it. XD

>>22
>>23
Hmm, I agree with 24.

22&23 might be right in the sense that regulation doesn't hurt a big company as much as it does small-middle companies, but that is just that way because a big company has economy of scale.
A bigger company can push competitors out of the market by a price-war (going far under prices and even running at a loss).
Meaning that it is inherent to big companies, not the government measures, to push out small competitors.

In other words, small companies are always easily knocked out of the market because big companies have economies of scale and can therefore sustain blows like heavier government taxation.

Also, are we talking about proportional, regressive or progressive taxes?? (and this is the point where you ultimately fail... progressive taxes are per definition good for small and middle companies)

Nice trolling, fagtard...
It makes me kind of mad because there are so many people like you who really think like this.

>>27
>but that is just that way because a big company has economy of scale.
No, it's because regulators fucking conspire with these businesses to destroy competitors and limit liability and cover up problems.

>Meaning that it is inherent to big companies, not the government measures, to push out small competitors.
When it's using the GOVERNMENT MONOPOLY OF FORCE to do it, there is nothing inherent about this! other then it is the natural result of big government.

>progressive taxes are per definition good for small and middle companies)
P. sure that they don't have progressive taxes for companies, and anyways taxes are irrelevant since its on profit. Small/medium companies are not profitable in the west.

>A bigger company can push competitors out of the market by a price-war
Through greater efficiency and better business practices, which is how it's supposed to be, but hasn't been that way for decades thanks to leftist statist regulation.

>>24
Obviously things were harder across the board due to less technology and progress. However in many ways they were better off, especially in terms of freedom of speech and the free market.

>>28
Small and medium sized companies definitely are profitable, otherwise we wouldn't have any...also in a capitalist state power will eventually accumulate in the hands of the few even without regulation.  In fact this is the stated goal of all companies, to garner as much market share as possible.  That's why we need antitrust laws to break up big companies.  The accumulation of power in the hands of the few is the natural result of an unregulated capitalist system and a successful business model.  A bigger company does not have to necessarily run a better business to win out.  Especially when one considers all the possible avenues that a business could be judged better than one another in.

Ron Paul 2016!

>>30

He'll be too old by then, he'd be running at the age of 81.

>>29
There are none, outside of internet startups, and companies which exist on government corruption.

>The accumulation of power in the hands of the few is the natural result of an unregulated capitalist system
Provide an example of this happening even once.

>>32

Standard Oil
Carnegie Steel

It's called a Monopoly and the fact that you think one couldn't happen shows just how little you know.

>>32

There are no small businesses outside of internet startups?  Wtf what world do you live in?

My father owns a small business which was very profitable for us and he still operates it.  My girlfriends father's primary source of income is his own small business which runs a profit.  So no, you're just wrong on that.

>>24
>>27
>>29
You're still confusing corporatism with free markets, in the past corporations would break strikes and generally shit and piss over everyone exactly because they had power over the state and could get away with it.

Second you're not thinking in terms of functionalism, situations like this are set of interoperating factors, all of which are either difficult to predict or unkown, claiming the sole reason big business exists is due to the need for an economy of scale is like saying you only need to drink water to live. Big businesses exist because they have an advantage over small and medium sized businesses that allows them to compete, this is in part due to the need for an economy of scale and in part due to corporatism giving them special privileges and allowing them to warp and corrupt the economy in their favor. Remove the privileges and there would still be big businesses, just only where they actually do a better job.

>>33
Standard oil was not a monopoly.
Carnegie Steel was not a monopoly. Highly successful businesses gaining a large proportion of market share is not a monopoly.
The fact that you consider it to be one shows how brainwashed and idiotic you are.

>>34
ya what kind of business? Landscaping? There is no REAL productive work going on in our country anymore.

>>35
It is almost entirely government granted privilege, there really is no such thing as economy of scale. In fact its usually the opposite.

But the tax breaks, corrupt and self-serving dictators called regulators, licensing, and all such government intervention either drives the businesses completely out of the country, or permits one/two big companies in a cartel.

People seem to have misinterpreted my opinion.
The special privileges of the really big players in the market granted by the government is all because of lobbying.
In my country we use the word corporatism for the negociation-model between workers and companies.
It "tries" to realise "proportional representation" on both sides to reach compromises.
So a free-market economy & the corporatist model are perfectly combinable but certainly not the same thing.

>>35
I did not imply any of that.
monopolies and oligopolies in cartel are more efficient because they have the size to have economies of scale. Some sectors are more efficient when having a monopolistic marketform.

But at the same time I don't believe such sectors should be under control of private companies.
Why would the government run a company less efficient? Doesn't government-ownership imply a monopoly?

In Western-Europe (not the stupid britfags ofc), the government has a monopoly on education and healthcare.
I am not joking.
Tuition = 100 euro in my cuntry

One might say that big companies are beneficial in terms of research and development...
In that case you can explain me why companies tend to show free-rider behaviour concerning the adaptation of state-financed research?


financial crisis... I think we can all agree that a few bankers were very greedy, some were plain stupid and most of them are simply clueless.
The no-prime/subprime mortgage crisis is pretty much caused by greed --> abnormal risktaking, against everything you learn in economics classes --> with the idea of the accumulation of massive bonusses.

Isn't this market failure?
Why did these 'free-market' advocates suddenly cry for government intervention? (was the invisible hand pleasuring itself or something?)


>>35 tl;dr -->
>"Remove the privileges and there would still be big businesses, just only where they actually do a better job."

Privileges are obtained because of the blending of public and private intrests.
Like I said before, politicians have mandates for big companies & prominent businessmen (lol women.. yah right) become politicians.

>>37
no idea what you are rambling about. The "Free market advocates" recognize that the government has caused the problems in the first place.

>>36
Many industries require astronomical capital to operate efficiently, they will never be conducted by a plethora of small business model administrations.
>>37
I'm already aware how wonderful economies of scale is and that central planning has some uses but it doesn't change the fact it is just one factor among many, one of which is corruption. Many sectors of the economy are less effective when managed under the corporate/bureaucratic model, if the state subsidizes corporations while penalizing small and medium sized businesses then corporations will begin to take over these sectors and they will be administrated inefficiently. I'm proposing to make critical structual changes that would eliminate substantial corruption, if the corporations can compete in a free market due to the advantage of an economy of scale then they shouldn't have any problems.

The bankers were greedy but they weren't stupid and they could not have created such a huge real estate bubble without intervention from the state. In a free market bubbles are often small, quick and limited only to those who threw wads of cash at the snake oil salesman, without the federal reserve and government sponsored enterprises fredmac and fanmay the credit for the crunch could not have been maintained beyond individuals willing to take the risks. I'm not sure if you are trying to argue that banksters who are obviously corporatist are in fact operating in a free market or you ignored me when I said "you confuse corporatism with free markets" here.

>>39
I'd suggest you should look into the 4 or 5 episodes containing series "Silly money".
It contains a few funny sketches (in the form of an interview) with an investmentbanker.
The series is good for a few laughs and actually sums up the causes of the crunch.

I don't see the Federal reserve as the major cause of the crunch, not because it's effect are insignificant, but mainly because every fed in the world consists of exactly the same people who are in - or have intrests in - the financial sector.
It's all part of the same powerstructure.

Anyway, I think most people could agree that there are excessive bonusses and wages involved in the financial sector.
High staff (managers) - and this is not an isolated incident or a once a few years occasion - enrichen themselves with risks taken BY the company. (taking risks means making more profit in a shorter amount of time, which gives them the right to recieve higher/ or additional salaries/ bonusses)


And this is actually why I think that it's not only Fed (or central bank) that is causing this market failure.
As long as people get rewarded (or better yet, reward themselves) for taking risks, not with their own money but money from a company, we will never see an end to the greed within the financial system.

Oh by the way, in my country and I'm sure in a lot more across the globe, some banks invested in weapon industries.

I think these are all negative externalities that affect a fucking whole lot of people and should be internalised by the government.


Btw, how can 'the government' or the 'fed' cause the crunch?
The fed consists mainly of prominent bankers...
They pretty much make their own rules and that is inherent to our system in general. (private intrests are overly represented)