Reasons We Hate Hillary Clinton

[Disturbed]

@Disturbed. I’m too lazy to reply to everything you said, but no one thinks the deficit just “doesn’t matter.” The current, simplified thinking is that as long as it’s possible to borrow money at an interest rate less than GDP growth, it should be done, because the taxes that that saves are (in theory) re-invested into the country. You could just as well say the taxation necessary to stop borrowing would cause a decline in the standard of life. As it is, the budget of the States is almost practically unlimited for other reasons, so it’s a moot point anyway.

They should cut spending so they won't have to borrow or raise taxes. People were actually happier, had more income, more wealth, and were more productive when monetary policy was tight and taxes and public spending were low. Most people didn't want the Constitution, in the 1790s things were even darker than they were in the 1780s, then when Jefferson became President people were more prosperous and except for the embargo act and the war of 1812, it was pretty much that way until 1861, especially in states that didn't have expansive monetary policy. I don't really care about what matters to most people, but there are few times throughout history when public spending was high, and people were prosperous and medicaid isn't even accepted by many of the best doctors and I personally feel guilty using it and would've been better off had my parents not signed me up for it. The Reagan years were probably the biggest exception to people being prosperous with high public spending, but his inflationary policies resulted in the savings and loan crisis by the time Bush took office.

And the Founding Fathers were not good models for morality or particularly good governance. You shouldn’t idolize them.

They weren't, except for Jefferson. But the thinker who is dead who I agree with most is Murray Rothbard. He was funny, logically consistent, informative, had researched and described the causes for why things were the way they were well and his ethics system made the most sense and he was morally immaculate himself. And people would have restraint from enslaving, looting, raping, stealing from, and murdering people without centralized government, it's the nature of enough humans to not do to others what they wouldn't want done to them and there would still be logical consequences without centralized government. Centralized government systems (legislation that creates a head of state, monarchies, dictatorships) are usually established and supported only by a small group of people, if they think they know the "common good", which there is none, then they obviously can't act in the best interests of anyone, because the "common good" will just become mediocrity in the long term, at best. Individuality is not respected by most people and then most politicians throughout history have suppressed and even many of the people who wanted to be individualistic who once supported that government become dissatisfied with who they voted for because that politician really didn't care about the newly dissatisfied persons' interests while that politician was thinking about a whole group, most individuals whom he doesn't even know. So many people say "he did it for the country", well, no he did it for himself. ILE-Ti are generally the least hypocritical and most likely to hold themselves up to their own standards and most understanding and respectful of individual boundaries and safety and fair in justice (because they care about individual to individual reciprocity more than control or power and can come up with policies that are neither too brutal nor too lenient), and not demanding of unreasonable collectivist compromises (regardless of ideology) when they're political leaders (though not necessarily as political thinkers), yet Jefferson was the only ILE-Ti who was ever President... that should tell people something about centralization of political power and politicians. ILE-Ti usually don't want to be political leaders badly enough but when they do become heads of state it's usually not because they had it as their own personal goal and if they feel like they hadn't lived up to their principles, then they resign, give up protection for themselves, or don't run again. Jefferson, Mohandas Ghandi, and Indira Ghandi and Elliot Spitzer didn't really have a long term goal of being heads of state or for power and had been firm opponents of abuses of power while not abusing power before they became heads of state.