freeman3 wrote:Kind of calls into question his raison d'etre for being in politics. It's difficult to call for financial austerity when a politician is financially irresponsible themselves. But I'm sure most Republican voters will rationalize it.

Seriously, where is the "financial irresponsibility?"

Go ahead. Explain it.

While you're at it, is it okay to simply marry into money a la Secretary of State Heinz-Kerry?

Of course, any mistakes in finances can be cured if you have connections to a billionaire...
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/us ... rrer=&_r=0

Personally, I don't judge Rubio on his financial decisions but then again I am not railing for financial austerity with regard to other people.http://www.salon.com/2015/06/09/marco_r ... yone_else/

What's the word for that...ah yes, hypocrite. That, most people will make judgments on.

Re Hillary not being liked in the town (according to RJ) : it's not easy being a woman in power. My personal experience with female judges is that they have a harder task than male judges. They tend to speak in a lower pitched voice than is normal for a woman, keep their emotions firmly in check, and be somewhat tough. It is just easier for a male judge to control their courtroom--they can be affable and still be firm when necessary. If they get angry they will be judged less harshly than a female judge. If a female judge doesn't maintain a certain distance/formality they may find they will they have more difficulty maintaining order/gaining compliance when necessary. The characteristics necessary to be a female judge (or any woman in power) are not the kind that we generally like in women.

freeman3 wrote:Of course, any mistakes in finances can be cured if you have connections to a billionaire...
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/us ... rrer=&_r=0

Personally, I don't judge Rubio on his financial decisions but then again I am not railing for financial austerity with regard to other people.http://www.salon.com/2015/06/09/marco_r ... yone_else/

What's the word for that...ah yes, hypocrite. That, most people will make judgments on.

That's just fallacious argumentation.

Fallacy 1: you presume he is living large. There is no evidence of that.

Fallacy 2: Rubio is not calling out anyone for their personal finances. He's merely pointing out we can't continue to borrow money forever. So, personal finances are NOT equal to national finances.

Of course, your real concern is the hypocrite you've decided to vote for. She has never abided by the rules. That she wants to take money from some (who will vote for her at a far smaller percentage than the general populace) and give it to those who will vote for her makes her . . . well, hmm, generous with the money of others.

freeman3 wrote:Re Hillary not being liked in the town (according to RJ) : it's not easy being a woman in power.

She's not in power in town. It costs her nothing to be nice. However, she doesn't have it in her.

What would be the effect of a balanced budget amendment? Many poor families would have less money to get by on. So that means,yes, he is demanding personal financial austerity of others. Unless you don't think he has considered what the effect of a balanced budget would be, or that he was not serious, which would be an indictment of either his intelligence or sincerity.

Kind of a Hobson's choice there...

freeman3 wrote:What would be the effect of a balanced budget amendment? Many poor families would have less money to get by on.

Not necessarily. There are a number of ways to balance the budget. Do you think there is no spending other than welfare spending that can be cut?

Would you disagree with the premise that more should be done to get people to fend for themselves IF they can?

So that means,yes, he is demanding personal financial austerity of others. Unless you don't think he has considered what the effect of a balanced budget would be, or that he was not serious, which would be an indictment of either his intelligence or sincerity.

Kind of a Hobson's choice there...

Sure, if we accept your premise that his goal is to cut welfare.

Furthermore, we have to accept that he is a spendthrift. An $80k boat hardly establishes that.

Finally, have another look at the houses--Hillary's and Marco's. Who looks more real on the basis of their house? Who can relate to being poor?

Oh, and who speaks Spanish?

The NYT is in panic mode. "Rubio received 4 tickets in 17 years!"

Please.

Is there any evidence he used his political influence to get out of paying them? Did he bribe someone?

4 tickets in 17 years?

Hillary is scared. It doesn't really matter what you think. You're going to vote for her short of a video with her committing a bank robbery.

Let's see...he wants increased military budgets and tax cuts for the wealthy...what else would he support cutting to comply with a balanced budget?

I am starting to miss Mitt Romney...

Balancing the budget is one thing, as a general rule it's a sensible thing to do and should be a goal of government. Mandating a balanced budget by law is quite another thing. It's a monumentally stupid thing to do which totally ignores the fact that sometimes running deficits is necessary. Imagine if you'd had a balanced budget amendment in say, 1936.

Sassenach wrote:Balancing the budget is one thing, as a general rule it's a sensible thing to do and should be a goal of government. Mandating a balanced budget by law is quite another thing. It's a monumentally stupid thing to do which totally ignores the fact that sometimes running deficits is necessary. Imagine if you'd had a balanced budget amendment in say, 1936.

Oh come now. I've not seen a single GOP BBA proposal that did not contain an escape clause for war or for "national emergency."

So, please, until you see Rubio declare, "I believe we could have faced WW2 with a balanced budget" feel free to dispense with the boogeymen.

freeman3 wrote:Let's see...he wants increased military budgets and tax cuts for the wealthy...what else would he support cutting to comply with a balanced budget?

I am starting to miss Mitt Romney...

Sure.

But, and I know, this is just crazy talk, but what about waiting until his ideas are on the table before deciding what they are?

Hier wurden wir vielleicht Deutsch sprechen!

freeman3 wrote:Hier wurden wir vielleicht Deutsch sprechen!

Nein. Mein Deutch bis sehr schlect. Auf English, bitte! Mein junge mann sprecht bis Deutch und English.

Good for your son--German is hard!

I picked 1936 as the most obvious example, but it's not the only one. It isn't only in times of global war that running deficits can make sense. They're a useful corrective for the vagaries of the economic cycle. When there's a recession and unemployment is rising then tax receipts fall through the floor at the same time as government expenditure automatically has to rise to pay unemployment benefits. If you're forbidden by law from running any deficits in these times then you're forced into either raising taxes in a recession or cutting spending savagely to make up the shortfall, either of which options is liable to exacerbate the recession and make matters worse.

I realise that successive governments have been too lax in their fiscal discipline and that deficit spending is not currently used responsibly, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have a valuable function which it would be unwise to throw away for the sake of a grandiose political gesture. If politicians want to see a balanced budget they shouldn't abdicate their own responsibility to the courts, they should just man up and make the necessary political decisions.