re: Ted Cruz announces candidacy.

quote:

---

It's a gross oversimplification certainly, but you do understand that consuming more than you produce is a recipe for disaster, right?

---

When people say things like this, it also reveals how little they know about the national debt.

The issue of the debt is keeping it at a manageable level to not have the government books swamped with interest payments. In that case inflation could become a problem. It's not like we're going to default ever.

The best way to manage it is economic growth and we have an engine in technology to do just that.

quote:

---

It's not like we're going to default ever.

---

We certainly are spending like we're going to default.

quote:

---

Our debt versus federal government revenue is 408% (as of 2010). Not exactly an encouraging data point.

Our total US government debt versus GDP has been over 95% and climbing since 2011.

---

Thank you for articulating my point.

We are essentially at 100% Debt to GDP now. We actually got to 120% at the height of WWII but then it dropped like a rock. Interestingly enough that is the reason we have Federal Withholding now even though it is completely Unconstitutional. Essentially it was an emergency measure during the war because we were running out of money and since we were far more tied to the Gold Standard we couldn't just print it like we can now. Thus we created Federal Withholding to get the cash to the government as quickly as possible so we could continue to wage the war.

Here is a good graph:



Of course after the war the pols in DC saw just how awesome it was to get people to automatically send in their money by using their employers as the vehicle and then even fool them with the idea of a "refund" of their own money. Withholding just gives them so much power and control, prior to it even though their was an income tax it really only affected a small percentage of Americans.

quote:

---

i do agree we are moving left in a political sense. i mean i'm in my 30s and if you had asked me 10 years ago if i'd ever be in favor of gay marriage or pot legalization, i'd laugh at you. whereas now, i still find both of them morally wrong, but have grown to a stance of not desiring for my morals to be pushed on others when they are no-harm-to-others sin. I don't want to speak for others, but TBird and (i think 808) would fall in line with this line of thinking as well. that is probably the libertarian PoV coming out in us. I think that i can be OK with gay marriage and some drug legalization without condoning the acts themselves. We're obviously becoming a more secular culture as a whole, but to dismiss the Christians is foolish.

---

You pretty much described me, too, including demographic. I don't smoke, and don't care to smoke, but I want it legalized, as prohibition has been a dismal failure.

As for gay "marriage," I'm all for state-sponsored homosexual unions. But I want churches to be able to refuse to perform the ceremony if they don't believe that it falls in line with their religious view.

quote:

---

If you are a Millennial and are voting left because you kind of like the social stances you are an idiot. The nonstop entitlements are going to crush you financially in your lifetime and you will likely get nothing in the end. It's especially dumb on the Presidential level. Outside of the SC, Presidents have no real influence over those issues (abortion, pot, gay marriage). Even if the SC was ultra conservative the worst thing that would happen is it becomes a state issue. Its the modern equivalent of someone trading their land for a shiny mirror and some beads.

---

Not sure if you were replying to me out of convenience or on purpose, but I agree whole-heartedly with all of this.

quote:

---

If you are a Millennial and are voting left because you kind of like the social stances you are an idiot. The nonstop entitlements are going to crush you financially in your lifetime and you will likely get nothing in the end. It's especially dumb on the Presidential level. Outside of the SC, Presidents have no real influence over those issues (abortion, pot, gay marriage). Even if the SC was ultra conservative the worst thing that would happen is it becomes a state issue. Its the modern equivalent of someone trading their land for a shiny mirror and some beads

---

The president absolutely has a very real influence on issues...just ask people about the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare. The President is one of the most powerful people in the world, if not THE most powerful. Any issue he takes a stance on will be huge.

The President has very little influence on SOCIAL issues. Obamacare is not a social issue. Unless there is a Federal law passed on gay marriage or abortion or legalizing pot (which is EXTREMELY unlikely to happen) the only influence is with the courts. The courts really can just send it back to the states. The bigger issue is that basing your vote off of things that likely have very little to no effect on you like gay marriage, abortion, or pot legalization (which can all be far more influenced at the state level than the federal anyway) when fiscal issues are greatly influenced by Presidents and at the Federal level is the point. Whether you call someone an "idiot" or simply naive is really just a matter of perspective, the key is understanding the reality of law and how the government works.

It amazes me for instance how many people think Roe made abortion legal. Abortion was already legal in many states, it just made it legal in all states by legislating from the bench and overriding the power of the states. My wife has gotten NOW literature sent to her that talks about how the GOP is going to ban birth control as if that were even remotely realistic. They are all a distraction to the real fiscal issues that really affect people.

Obamacare is a huge fiscal issue that is essentially a redistribution of wealth and control scheme. It's all about pushing people to go on government healthcare longterm and to tax the every living crap out of them in the process while providing a lower quality product at a much higher price. A few folks at the bottom of the scale get "free" healthcare but realistically most of them had other options to begin with. The focus of Obamacare was never about them, it was always about destroying the private health care system and getting individuals and employers to throw up their hands and give in to crappy and ridiculously overpriced and inefficient government run healthcare.

Did you hear that 50% of the people who received subsidies under Obamacare will now have to pay them back?