Cruz delegate takes Cruz to task

[tlynn78]

Nobody should support a candidate so much that they have to go through mental gyrations, or put friendships/relationships at risk, in order to defend said candidate.

Every candidate...and I mean EVERY candidate...will have inconsistencies in his/her positions.

Every candidate...and I mean EVERY candidate...will do/say sneaky/slimy/misleading things to make him/herself look better than he/she really is, or make the opponent look worse. This is part and parcel of being a political creature. We should acknowledge that these things happen, and decide with how much of it we can live.

But we should NEVER stoop to making ourselves look foolish trying to defend EVERY single thing our candidate of choice does.

Hey! I haven't. Yet.

[BackInTex]

No one wants to address the elephant in the room- the real factors that are constraining the global economy going forward- factors neither Austrian nor Keynsian economic policies can affect.

And neither side will really address those.

The pending alien invasion (not the Mexican kind, its bad already, but the extraterrestrial kind)?

[Bob78164]

But all of this is beside the point. Starting with the Supreme Court, and moving on to a large number of other matters, either Secretary Clinton or Senator Sanders would take the country in a direction I want it to go. And they will do so in matters, such as same-sex marriage, that directly affect the lives of friends and family, giving the lie to people who claim that the election doesn't matter because the candidates are all the same and nothing government does matters anyway.

Any of the Republican candidates would move the country in precisely the opposite direction. --Bob

Maybe on the matter of Supreme Court, but not really in other matters.

It will be a matter of going to Hell by degrees...the differences in economic/domestic/foreign policy philosophies don't matter all that much.

No one wants to address the elephant in the room- the real factors that are constraining the global economy going forward- factors neither Austrian nor Keynsian economic policies can affect.

And neither side will really address those.

I think the differences in economic policy during this Administration were huge. If Republicans had their way during the first two years of the Great Recession, we'd be caught in a decades-long deflationary trap, like Japan has been since the 1990s. Large amounts of deficit spending were exactly what we needed to avoid that.

Health care is another issue. Now I know that my son can stay on my insurance, or my wife's, until he is 26. Given the length of time he's likely to be in grad school, that will make a large difference in our lives. But that change was part of the Affordable Care Act, which Republicans have been promising (and attempting) to repeal ever since it was passed. --Bob

[Jeemie]

But all of this is beside the point. Starting with the Supreme Court, and moving on to a large number of other matters, either Secretary Clinton or Senator Sanders would take the country in a direction I want it to go. And they will do so in matters, such as same-sex marriage, that directly affect the lives of friends and family, giving the lie to people who claim that the election doesn't matter because the candidates are all the same and nothing government does matters anyway.

Any of the Republican candidates would move the country in precisely the opposite direction. --Bob

Maybe on the matter of Supreme Court, but not really in other matters.

It will be a matter of going to Hell by degrees...the differences in economic/domestic/foreign policy philosophies don't matter all that much.

No one wants to address the elephant in the room- the real factors that are constraining the global economy going forward- factors neither Austrian nor Keynsian economic policies can affect.

And neither side will really address those.

I think the differences in economic policy during this Administration were huge. If Republicans had their way during the first two years of the Great Recession, we'd be caught in a decades-long deflationary trap, like Japan has been since the 1990s. Large amounts of deficit spending were exactly what we needed to avoid that.

Health care is another issue. Now I know that my son can stay on my insurance, or my wife's, until he is 26. Given the length of time he's likely to be in grad school, that will make a large difference in our lives. But that change was part of the Affordable Care Act, which Republicans have been promising (and attempting) to repeal ever since it was passed. --Bob

The extra deficit spending and debt hasn't done diddly to get us out of the Great Recession. The growth has all been in asset prices...it's not real growth.

There's no real difference in philosophies as far as effect goes because there are simply too many constraints on real economic growth right now.

We are probably still stuck in that decades-long deflationary trap.

[Bob78164]

The extra deficit spending and debt hasn't done diddly to get us out of the Great Recession. The growth has all been in asset prices...it's not real growth.

There's no real difference in philosophies as far as effect goes because there are simply too many constraints on real economic growth right now.

We are probably still stuck in that decades-long deflationary trap.

I don't think that's a fair assessment of the economy. There are a hell of a lot more jobs now than there were eight years ago, even accounting for population growth.

It's true that wages haven't grown as fast as they should. But that's an issue that will start to correct itself as the unemployment rate continues to fall. I also think that tax policies directed toward capital gains and the estate tax, accompanied by the additional spending that the extra revenue would support, would help. There's an awful lot of infrastructure that needs fixing. --Bob

[Jeemie]

It's true that wages haven't grown as fast as they should. But that's an issue that will start to correct itself as the unemployment rate continues to fall. I also think that tax policies directed toward capital gains and the estate tax, accompanied by the additional spending that the extra revenue would support, would help. There's an awful lot of infrastructure that needs fixing. --Bob

Do you realize how much money has been pumped into the economy...globally...over the past 8 years? Through deficit spending and ZIRP and quantitative easing?

And yet 1/3 of the jobs created are temp jobs, most created are lower-wage jobs than the ones that were lost...but we have to wait for the unemployment rate to fall even further before we can start to see wage recovery?

You seriously believe that?

You are dreaming, my friend.

[Bob78164]

Do you realize how much money has been pumped into the economy...globally...over the past 8 years? Through deficit spending and ZIRP and quantitative easing?

Yes. Not enough, but (at least in America) all that could be managed in light of Republicans' wrong-headed focus on the deficit during a demand-driven recession. And many economies in Europe engaged in utterly disastrous austerity policies that probably made matters worse without having a hope of accomplishing their stated goals. --Bob

[Jeemie]

Yes. Not enough, but (at least in America) all that could be managed in light of Republicans' wrong-headed focus on the deficit during a demand-driven recession. And many economies in Europe engaged in utterly disastrous austerity policies that probably made matters worse without having a hope of accomplishing their stated goals. --Bob

Whatever the GOP's obstructionism, the return on the trillions poured into the economy via all the fiscal methods at the Fed's disposal have been pitiful...and still the economy cannot stand on its own without these props (that a small rate increase in December and the mere mention of more hikes sends the markets into a tizzy shows how weak overall the economy still is).

The reasons this is so go beyond any Keynsian or supply-side policy.

The reasons are there are real constraints to future economic growth.

*Our demographics stink- the developed nations have older populations. The size of the millenials may turn that tide, but they can't compete against the other factors

*Real energy constraints- in the 1950s/60s, which is when the modern economy "was built" so to speak, the energy return on energy expended was about 30:1- that means for every one unit of energy expended solely on the means of producing energy, 30 were made available to actually "do things" like drive real economic growth. Today, that is down, by most estimates, to 3:1. Far less energy available to actually do stuff, a decrease that will continue unless by a miracle some cheap new energy source is found, and is a real constraint on future growth. That this is true can be seen by a massive spike in prices every time the economy starts to heat up again- a spike that is not matched by an equivalent increase in energy production.

*The diminishing productivity of debt- the marginal productivity of debt has been on the decline since the 1950s. Contrary to what today's Keynesians believe (and Keynes himself would have slapped them for how little they understood him) debt suffers from marginal returns just like any other unit- more and more debt produces less and less growth...until where we are today, where the marginal productivity of debt is down to almost 0.



These are all real constraints to real growth- barring a miracle, we will continue to see a repeat of the cycles we have seen since the Great Recession, with diminishing amplitude and probably greater frequency- debt fuels the start of growth, which once it reaches a certain level gets slapped down by the real constraints I mentioned, and then we sputter through a deflationary cycle again.

And with each cycle the wage-earners see less of the benefits and more of the pain.

And government services? They can only exist and grow if the economy grows enough to produce a surplus. Soon they will be unsustainable as well.

The global economy is a dissapative system, just like we are. As long as it receives regular flows of energy (like we need regular supplies of food), it can live and grow.

Those inputs start to dry up...like we start to shrink, starve, and die...so will the economy.

THESE are the hidden truths that the candidates won't tell you and won't address...their goal is to tell you business as usual is still sustainable, but by whatever pet philosophy they happen to espouse.

Vote for one...vote for the other...it will not matter.