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

That's a non-sequitur. I'm talking about when she's not in power and just in town.. Women in power is an important issues and you are free to talk about it, but it has nothing to do with how much townspeople like her personally.

Listen, I would vote for Hillary over several of the Republican candidates. I think she's smart and knowledgeable. I also am very fond of her husband, warts and all. I agree with you that she is less likely to do something crazy than some other candidates. I just don't understand why she doesn't have more opposition.

Changing subjects, there's an old adage regarding nominees. Democrats fall in love, and Republicans fall in line. So far, it seems to be the reverse this year.

Doctor Fate wrote:He cashed out one of several small retirement funds he had and did some work around the house, so what?

It means he's a moron when it comes to money, or he doesn't respect it. Either way it's not a good Republican trait!

RJ,

I guess I don't know the basis for the townspeople not liking her. Have they been conditioned (at least in part) to not like her because of negative coverage of her public persona ? What interactions do they have with her? A person cannot easily escape their public persona. It's easy to like Bill because he is friendly and out-going; Hillary seems quite introverted. Do they not like her because she is introverted and doesn't chitchat or because she treats people poorly?

Without specific incidents it's hard (for me at least) to judge if the townspeople not liking her says anything significant about her character.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:He cashed out one of several small retirement funds he had and did some work around the house, so what?

It means he's a moron when it comes to money, or he doesn't respect it. Either way it's not a good Republican trait!

it's certainly weird ... perhaps he didn't understand the rules, or perhaps he got bad financial advice, or perhaps he just doesn't understand finance ... if he's seems like a moron, then this adds to it, but if he carries himself well and seems intelligent, I don't think it matters.

I recall when the press and everyone lampooned Quayle for not being able to spell potato. Frankly, until spell check and computers I was a terrible speller and didn't know how to spell potato. It was a problem for Quayle because he came across as a simpleton. But it doesn't seem like Rubio comes across that way. If this is the biggest skeleton in his closet, he's got nothing to worry about.

freeman3 wrote:RJ,

I guess I don't know the basis for the townspeople not liking her. Have they been conditioned (at least in part) to not like her because of negative coverage of her public persona ? What interactions do they have with her? A person cannot easily escape their public persona. It's easy to like Bill because he is friendly and out-going; Hillary seems quite introverted. Do they not like her because she is introverted and doesn't chitchat or because she treats people poorly?

Without specific incidents it's hard (for me at least) to judge if the townspeople not liking her says anything significant about her character.

It was just an idle comment by a guy (and a Democrat) who I was talking to at a barbecue. Something about her stopping her motorcade to buy shoes and the ensuing traffic vs. Bill at the time who used to jog around town and stop to eat fast food along the way ... or at least that's my vague recollection from a conversation about 7 years ago. (We also discussed who to vote for: Obama vs. McCain as I recall.)

I don't think she is a bad person. it is a function of their personalities. Bill is a natural politician, and Hillary is a learned politician. It's not a big deal.

With regard to Rubio, I think cashing out the retirement account is simply evidence of short-term thinking--he was getting ready for a presidential bid and he wanted more cash on hand NOW. As for the long-term he has the confidence that he will keep making more money so the bad long-term effect did not bother him. Whether that kind of thinking has any political consequences I guess will depend on how much financial savvy is part of what he indicates he brings to being president.

I guess you could argue that Rubio has had a similar path to President Obama. However, unlike Obama, Rubio does not have an Ivy League pedigree, did not have a major speech that propelled his career (I don't think the water bottle speech counts...), and at least on TV does not have the charisma of an Obama. I am mystified about Rubio's rise. Well, he can get you Florida at least..

But, please, nominate him.

Freeman in response to my urging that he demand a better Democratic candidate:

I am not in a position to demand anything.

Freeman on this thread:

But, please, nominate him.

I'm not in a position to nominate anyone. Rubio is not my guy anyway. I like Christie. He may be vindictive, but at least he knows something about personal financial planning.

At least Christie belongs at the grown-ups table. Seems like a pragmatic guy who can get things done. I am torn between rooting for a Republican candidate that Hillary could more easily beat or a candidate like Christie who might be a tougher draw but at least if he won it wouldn't be a total disaster.

Sassenach wrote: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.

Doctor Fate wrote:I've not seen a single GOP BBA proposal that did not contain an escape clause for war or for "national emergency."

Still waiting to see if Rubio proposed one without such a clause. If not, the thrust of your argument is moot. After all, if we simply retain deficit spending as a "useful tool," we will never stop. Ever.

freeman3 wrote:With regard to Rubio, I think cashing out the retirement account is simply evidence of short-term thinking--he was getting ready for a presidential bid and he wanted more cash on hand NOW.

Is this true? After all, he got $800K for his book, then paid off $100K in student loans (see video below) before buying his boat. Did he really need the money? In fact, I believe I heard him say they used one of his 401k's to do some work in the kitchen.

I think you've got him confused with someone else. He never had enough money to make a difference in a Presidential campaign. You must be thinking about Hillary--well, except she'll use $2.5B of other people's money, won't she?

As for the long-term he has the confidence that he will keep making more money so the bad long-term effect did not bother him. Whether that kind of thinking has any political consequences I guess will depend on how much financial savvy is part of what he indicates he brings to being president.

This is all bullspeculation.

I guess you could argue that Rubio has had a similar path to President Obama. However, unlike Obama, Rubio does not have an Ivy League pedigree, did not have a major speech that propelled his career (I don't think the water bottle speech counts...), and at least on TV does not have the charisma of an Obama. I am mystified about Rubio's rise. Well, he can get you Florida at least..

Sadly, all Obama can do is give a speech.

But, please, nominate him.

Yes, because Hillary will seem so presidential next to him . . . not. The reason they are looking to cripple him is that Hillary wants Jeb. She wants a large swath of voters to be indifferent. In a base-heavy vote, she will win.

Btw, Jon Stewart nails it. http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/ctffc2/petty-in-print

freeman3 wrote:At least Christie belongs at the grown-ups table. Seems like a pragmatic guy who can get things done. I am torn between rooting for a Republican candidate that Hillary could more easily beat or a candidate like Christie who might be a tougher draw but at least if he won it wouldn't be a total disaster.

Mercy. The Democrats have . . . the architect of glorious rebuilding of Baltimore . . . the professor from Back to the Future . . . and a man from Rhode Island boldly staking out a position to convert the US to the metric system.

Don't even talk about a "grown-up" table. The GOP field has more accomplishments in its collective footnotes than the Democratic field.

It's only moot if your definition of a national emergency includes a recession, which is a bit of a reach and which could easily be subverted by the courts. If it does include a recession then what doesn't it include ?

Our own Chancellor is currently flirting with an even crazier concept: passing a law to mandate budget surpluses. This kind of thing annoys the hell out of me. It's not like I'm opposed to the idea of fiscal responsibility, quite the reverse in fact, but what's with this current fad for trying to pass objectives into law ? Osborne has also talked about passing a law which forbids governments from raising income tax, VAT or national insurance contributions. It's all just silly gesture politics so far as I'm concerned. If you want low taxes and balanced budgets then get elected and bring those things about through your actions. Trying to frame these things in law is essentially just a way of trying to grab a cheap headline, but it has the potential to be absolutely disastrous in certain circumstances.

Time was that politicians were not so universally despised and didn't feel the need to enshrine their promises into law in a vain attempt to persuade the voters to believe them....

freeman3 wrote:At least Christie belongs at the grown-ups table. Seems like a pragmatic guy who can get things done. I am torn between rooting for a Republican candidate that Hillary could more easily beat or a candidate like Christie who might be a tougher draw but at least if he won it wouldn't be a total disaster.

Chris Christie would be a disaster of epic proportions. He's mean, vindictive, and a bully in both life and government. If given a choice between Christie and ANYONE else (other than Putin and Andrew Cuomo) I'd pick anyone else. The quality of the person matters, and Chris Christie is bad.

Sassenach wrote:It's only moot if your definition of a national emergency includes a recession, which is a bit of a reach and which could easily be subverted by the courts. If it does include a recession then what doesn't it include ?

Show me the text of the proposed amendment.

Our own Chancellor is currently flirting with an even crazier concept: passing a law to mandate budget surpluses. This kind of thing annoys the hell out of me. It's not like I'm opposed to the idea of fiscal responsibility, quite the reverse in fact, but what's with this current fad for trying to pass objectives into law ?

I understand the "fad." If politicians are permitted to buy votes by doling out government goodies, spending will never go down, deficits will never end, and, at some point, the whole thing blows up. You don't like political promises enshrined into law; I don't like vote-buying.

Every State has to balance a budget. Somehow, our Federal government is permanently exempted from even trying.*

*Please, no "Bill Clinton did it" nonsense. Clinton had to do it because of GOP pressure--and the booming economy of the dot-com era.

The fad isn't only for balanced budget legislation, that's just one aspect of it. Our previous Labour government started it all over here with the Climate Change Act, which enshrines carbon reduction targets into law no matter the consequences. That's equally silly in my opinion. Gordon Brown wanted to make a big statement about how green he was so he passed a law because that made a bigger statement than setting out a coherent political program and sticking to it over many years. He knew that the opposition could be painted into a corner on the issue if they tried to oppose it, even if their opposition was on the perfectly rational grounds that it's anti-democratic for one government to try and bind the hands of its successors. Balanced budget legislation is just another incarnation of this same cheap tactic.