From Factcheck.org

 

Rubio said CNBC’s John Harwood was “wrong” that the Tax Foundation analysis of his tax plan found “you give nearly twice as much of a gain in after-tax income to the top 1 percent as to people in the middle of the income scale.” But that is what the Tax Foundation found.

 

Rubio responded that the largest percentage gains would be for those with the lowest incomes, which is also true, according to the Tax Foundation’s analysis. But that doesn’t make Harwood’s statement wrong.

 

The Tax Foundation concluded that Rubio’s plan, when scored “dynamically” to account for expected economic growth, would result in an after-tax income increase of nearly 28 percent for those in the top 1 percent, while those in the middle income deciles — 40 percent to 50 percent and 50 percent to 60 percent — would see their after-tax income rise by 15.7 percent and 15.3 percent, respectively. People with incomes in the lowest 10 percent would see the greatest percentage gains, nearly 56 percent.

 

In other words, the greatest percentage income gains would be realized by those with low or high incomes, with smaller percentage gains for those in the middle.

In response, CNBC spokesman Brian Steel issued a one-sentence reply Wednesday night: “People who want to be President of the United States should be able to answer tough questions,” his statement said.

 

Geez I won't hear more whining about the officials at this Friday night's game. :ohbrother:

If you libs want to pretend there isn't a huge difference in the way questions are framed to the R candidates as opposed to the D candidates then go right ahead . makes you even more disconnected from reality . In the first 30 minutes , just 30 minutes Trump was referred to as a comic book character , they insinuated Rubio should resign from the senate , they tried to get Kasich to attack with leading questions . It was a joke . I knew it would be bad but didn't really expect the first 30 minutes to be an all out war on the candidates . Its as if the democrat party chair wrote and phrased every question . Without a unbiased media democracy cant flourish . And last night was another blow to all of us . Not just conservatives . But libs don't seem to care .

Anyone with come sense under 50 is planning retirement without social security.

 

Cause we don't have any other choice.

I didn't watch but read this debate had the most substance in regards to questions. What did the moderators say to upset so many ?

 

In my opinion Clyde, they came off as (fill in the blank because I've tried two different words and keep getting a word filter warning haha). At times they were arguing with the candidates. Many times interrupting what the candidates had to say to interject something.

 

Find the clip of Cruz hammering them for what they were doing with this debate. I thought it was awesome and I don't care much for him.

 

A lot of the questions were able to drive good answers but I felt like they very much lacked tact and were too busy trying to bait the candidates. I didn't care for them at all and thought they came off as childish and the candidates did a good job of not stooping to a lower level and just bickering with each other.

In response, CNBC spokesman Brian Steel issued a one-sentence reply Wednesday night: “People who want to be President of the United States should be able to answer tough questions,” his statement said.

 

They weren't tough questions. They came off as childish ones in my opinion.

In my opinion the best three last night were:

 

Rubio

Christie

Fiorina

 

Carson and Kasich lost points for me.

 

Bush & Trump stayed about the same.

I found the debate to be interesting and entertaining. It helped me understand some of the subtle differences between candidates. There were 3 or 4 that I could probably support.

I didn't watch but read this debate had the most substance in regards to questions. What did the moderators say to upset so many ?

 

The gravest sin of the moderators was incompetence. I didn't find their questions terribly different from other debates, but their justification for them and attempts at follow-ups and managing the exchanges were bizarrely off key.

 

An example: A moderator called out Trump for opposing H-1B visas. Trump denied this and said he loved the program. The moderator brought up and some of Trump's related rhetoric about Mark Zuckerberg and how Marco Rubio was his personal senator (because of both of their support for H-1B immigration). Trump claimed he never said it. The moderator said something like "then why are people reporting it?" It cued up an easy slam dunk for Trump to rip on the media. Twitter lit up at the same time linking to Trump's immigration plan on his website where he said all of these thing. How on earth does the moderator ask that question and not know or have the source sitting right there? In this case the moderator was correct but looked buffoonish.

 

They otherwise simply lost control of the debate. They were struggling to define who was allowed to talk or follow-up to questions/points which led to a lot of yelling and talking over each other. There was also a relatively decent exchange between the candidates over the budget the moderators interrupted to ask Kasich about pot then cut to commercial. After Cruz's theatrics the debate turned into the candidates versus the moderators and they simply sat and endured the abuse without pushing back.

 

Lastly, I never watch CNBC but I watched their "pre-game" and I thought their personalities were going to go to blows over who was the most conservative. There wasn't a hint of objectivity. It would have made Roger Ailes blush. Then during the debate the candidates were teeing off about the network being the "liberal media." It was an odd juxtaposition.

The Republican candidates met once again, and we found several claims worthy of fact-checking. Here are some of the highlights from the debate:

 

Former CEO Carly Fiorina claimed that 92 percent of the job losses in President Obama’s first term belonged to women, but women — and men — gained jobs by the end of Obama’s first term.

 

Businessman Donald Trump disputed the idea that he had criticized Sen. Marco Rubio and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg for supporting H-1B visas. In fact, Trump’s immigration plan, posted on his website, is critical of both of them.

 

Trump also claimed his campaign was 100 percent self-funded, but more than half of the money his campaign has raised came from supporters’ contributions.

 

Fiorina blamed the Affordable Care Act for a large disparity in firm closings versus openings every year. But closings outnumbered firm births by the widest margin in 2009, a year before the law was enacted.

 

Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson said it was “total propaganda” to say he was involved with a controversial nutritional supplement company, but he appeared in promotional videos for the company, touting its products.

 

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said that Social Security would be insolvent in seven to eight years. But even after the trust funds are exhausted — estimated to be in 14 to 19 years — the program can still pay out 73 percent of benefits for several decades.

 

Sen. Ted Cruz said women’s wages have declined under Obama, when in fact the latest figures show their wages have increased.

 

Rubio claimed CNBC’s John Harwood was wrong that a Tax Foundation analysis of his tax plan found those in the top 1 percent of earners would get nearly twice the gain as those in the middle. Harwood was right, and that’s on a percentage basis.

 

In the undercard debate, former New York Gov. George Pataki claimed the Iranians, Russians and Chinese “hacked” the private server Hillary Clinton used as secretary of state and obtained “state secrets.” There’s no evidence of that.

 

 

FactChecking the CNBC Debates

Excellent post, Sportsguy, but you might be spreading your seeds of information on parched earth. I suspect quite a few party faithful who watched the debate last night are ranking their "winners" as those who most vociferously attacked those asking the questions. Style over substance.

Jeb! has looked awful in these things. The more I watch him the harder it is to get my head around the idea of him taking control of the nomination. I don't know if his style isn't cut out for these debates or if he is just nonchalant because he doesn't care, but he's coming across pitifully.

 

Rubio had a hot crowd in Boulder for some reason. He was getting a big round of applause whenever he opened his mouth, but it never seemed connected to what he was saying compared to the other candidates. He had to answer the question about his Senate record and whether he was serving Floridians, and with the help of a flaccid Jeb! attack he probably put the issue to rest.

 

I think Cruz's endgame is to get Paul out of the race and take his supporters with him. He never attacks Paul, but he knows Paul is marginalized and he kills him with kindness. He had a good performance though.

 

I have no clue what the appeal of Trump or Carson is so I can't handicap. I will say that whenever someone thinks they've got the perfect punchline to knock down Trump, and even when I'm sitting at home thinking "how's he going to get around this," he always does in a crowd-delighting way. In that regard, Trump was on his game.

 

Kasich seemed like the sober guy and he made some good points. Far more compelling than Jeb! as the "establishment" guy. But he's still kind of weird. Definitely has more of the vibe of a candidate that gets run out against an incumbent than one who would be the party's best hope in an open election.

 

Fiorina had some nice moments but she sort of fades into the background when no one is attacking her. Long-winded disquisitions on why she got fired and how it was a mistake aren't compelling and are bad PR, in my estimation.

 

Huckabee is the candidate of old people.

 

Christie, like Cruz, is a theatrician. I don't think he packs much substance, but when he puts his weight behind a thunderous brow-beating people like it. Case in point, his hysterics over why the candidates were getting asked about fantasy football. It got a roaring applause, but it also completely ignored the meat of the question (should gambling be regulated?).

 

Is that everyone? :lol2:

Edited October 29, 201510 yr by Habib

The gravest sin of the moderators was incompetence. I didn't find their questions terribly different from other debates, but their justification for them and attempts at follow-ups and managing the exchanges were bizarrely off key.

 

An example: A moderator called out Trump for opposing H-1B visas. Trump denied this and said he loved the program. The moderator brought up and some of Trump's related rhetoric about Mark Zuckerberg and how Marco Rubio was his personal senator (because of both of their support for H-1B immigration). Trump claimed he never said it. The moderator said something like "then why are people reporting it?" It cued up an easy slam dunk for Trump to rip on the media. Twitter lit up at the same time linking to Trump's immigration plan on his website where he said all of these thing. How on earth does the moderator ask that question and not know or have the source sitting right there? In this case the moderator was correct but looked buffoonish.

 

They otherwise simply lost control of the debate. They were struggling to define who was allowed to talk or follow-up to questions/points which led to a lot of yelling and talking over each other. There was also a relatively decent exchange between the candidates over the budget the moderators interrupted to ask Kasich about pot then cut to commercial. After Cruz's theatrics the debate turned into the candidates versus the moderators and they simply sat and endured the abuse without pushing back.

 

Lastly, I never watch CNBC but I watched their "pre-game" and I thought their personalities were going to go to blows over who was the most conservative. There wasn't a hint of objectivity. It would have made Roger Ailes blush. Then during the debate the candidates were teeing off about the network being the "liberal media." It was an odd juxtaposition.

 

Finally, an objective post about the moderators. Refreshing after reading crybaby after crybaby post.

Excellent post, Sportsguy, but you might be spreading your seeds of information on parched earth. I suspect quite a few party faithful who watched the debate last night are ranking their "winners" as those who most vociferously attacked those asking the questions. Style over substance.

 

I can't take any credit, both of my post this morning were facts from Fact Check. There are a few sites that I go to quite a bit that are run by regular republicans who want their party back, their not upset, they want most of their candidates to come off as whiners and narrow the field to just a few. Most of them want the dems to win again in 2016 so it delivers a death blow to the radicals and crazies so the party sees that they need to get more normal candidates. BTW, the Tea Party is at only a 17% rating now.

I can't take any credit, both of my post this morning were facts from Fact Check. There are a few sites that I go to quite a bit that are run by regular republicans who want their party back, their not upset, they want most of their candidates to come off as whiners and narrow the field to just a few. Most of them want the dems to win again in 2016 so it delivers a death blow to the radicals and crazies so the party sees that they need to get more normal candidates. BTW, the Tea Party is at only a 17% rating now.

More solid analysis. By the way, last night's audience was mostly populated by Republican party hacks and fat-cat donors. Fewer than 100 college students at nearby CU got tickets. Several times I wondered why the audience reacted as it did -- cheering wildly when yet another of the candidates bashed the media, and remaining silent on other topics. The link below explains why.

 

https://www.cpr.org/news/story/frustrated-cu-boulder-students-question-gop-debate-ticket-limits

The cable networks are less about news and all about ratings and viewers. Entertainment sells. Journalism is boring. That's the easiest way to understand these debates.

 

(I got a laugh out of the moderator introducing the debate. He said the candidates were finally going to face substantive questions on economic policy and how to deal with the debt, then his next sentence said "candidates will get 30 seconds to respond." :lol2: 30 seconds to give a substantive response on the debt!)

 

The cable networks aren't doing these debates because of some noble commitment to journalism. They are doing them because they have baked in viewership. And because of that they also serve as a two hour infomercial for their channel.

 

Last night was a prime example. A bunch of people (particularly Republicans or conservatives) were going to tune into CNBC who might not otherwise watch it. I thought everything they were doing was meant to reel these people in to come back to their channel in the future. From the Ronald Reagan Memorial pre-show, to the focus on taxes, to the cameos by Jim Cramer and the Yelling Tea Party Guy, this was all to advertise their channel to conservative-leaning folks.

 

But, the incompetent and amateurish moderating crew blew up in the network's face. I can't imagine anyone at CNBC is pleased today.