Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your comment is about the deficit because debt to GDP is a measure of YEARLY national income to financial obligations, not cumulative. My comment is about cumulative and cumulative debt has not decreased in almost 100 years.
No, it isn't about the deficit, and GDP is not a measure of national income either. Debt to GDP ratio is a measure of the cumulative, total national debt, relative to the size of the economy (which also accounts for inflation).
The formula is national debt divided by gross domestic product, the annual budget deficit has nothing to do with it. If it was about the annual budget deficit it would be called the deficit to GDP ratio and the numerator would be the deficit and not the debt.
On this graph you can see both nominal national debt and debt to GDP ratio plotted together:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
if your debt to GDP falls year to year, you are still adding to the cumulative cost.
You are adding to the nominal value of the debt. You may or may not be adding to the real value of the debt.
If you earned $20,000 a year in 1980, and then $56,775.73 in 2014, are you earning more in 2014? Your nominal wages are higher in 1980 but your real wages are the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
if you want to argue like in your first post that GDP to debt is a measure that we as people should be using instead of cumulative,t hats fine, but that isnt what my comment was about and it is certainly not the same thing as cumulative debt.
There is no argument. The nominal value of the debt has no practical usage whatsoever unless your intention is to mislead.
What would you say if someone told you the median household income has increased 600% from 1973 to 2013? You would tell them they're full of crap, because they would be. In real values the median household income only went up about 10% over that period.
In 1952 the national debt was $272.8 billion and the GDP was $389.7, so the debt to GDP ratio was 70%.
In 1980 the national debt was $907.7 billion and the GDP was $2,862.5 billion, so the debt to GDP ratio was 31.7%.
Which would you rather have, the $272.8 billion national debt in 1952 or the $907.7 billion national debt in 1980?
Which is a bigger burden, the US' national debt of $17 trillion or Japan's national debt of $11 trillion?
I would definitely say that social workers and community health physicians are drastically overworked, and underpaid, so they will make mistakes. Sometimes extremely frustrating ones. That's a great story to show why we should lower caseloads and provide more money to those programs. However, if you get the libertarian dream you wish you wouldn't have the help you need from social services at all that you have stated you need from vocational rehab. For people with disabilities there would be no help at all, as the programs will go away, so your own welfare programs will go away by your own hand.
There's a special kind of hell for people who convince those on welfare to vote for it to be eliminated entirely because those they feel are unworthy get it. However, when those voters that need help the most realize how much they just screwed themselves over I guess they will finally learn what people keep trying to tell them over and over. Sometimes painful lessons are the ones that stick the best.
Basically, you are arguing from a paternalistic viewpoint- I need to shut up and do what is best for me, according to the liberals like yourself, who supposedly know what is best for everyone.
I think what is best for disabled people is less government regulations, same as everyone else. Less government regulations will lead to a stronger economy and more revenues for programs to help the disabled. As it is now, the programs are too inefficient and other liberal policies hurt the economy, which indirectly hurts the disabled.
I think I'm finally come to the realization I am not a liberal anymore. I see where liberalism is headed, and its all about somebody else controlling your life, telling you what to do- the reaction to electronic cigarettes in my mind is proof of that. I'm a vaper and I just see the reaction to e-cigs on the part of supposedly enlightened people in places like New York or Los Angeles as hysteria. I also had a huge setback in my life when I lost my driver's license at age 36, on purely subjective grounds (my vision is 20/30 in one eye, 20/40 in the other) and had to wade through a government beaurocracy only to end in my defeat and loss of my license, never to get it back. Then I started realizing liberalism is like that in general. It's about funding beaurocracies to control other peoples lives, even though in many cases individuals know what is best for their own life better than some person sitting in a cubicle in an office drawing a government salary. In the name of the greater good, they will take away your rights and destroy your life. Your suffering is just collateral damage they don't care about.
It ends here, I won't support this madness anymore. Time to stop the government beaurocracy being welfare programs for liberal arts grads. I realized my uncle is right, a Republican is just a Democrat that got mugged.
The only problem: I can't really identify as a Republican. I'm irreligious and I'd like churches and "Christian values" kept out of my life. Until the Republican party makes room for those of us that don't base our values on a moldy old book full of superstitions, I guess I'll be apolitical.
Your uncle was right about that. As for republicans and christian values, be careful who you listen to. Democrats have us sounding like a bunch of ranting, trying to bring you over crazies. Democrats will do anything to demonize their opponents even if it isn't true.
I'm center lean right. After Obama mugged me he has me so turned off that even though I have friends that are gay (funny as hell too), and as many times as Obama has been wrong about America and Foreign affairs I just can't support anything Obama does. By the way, I also believe woman should have a choice, abortion, not crazy about it but I get it. I just don't like that they believe it can be so late term. Just don't believe everything the democrats tell you.
Originally Posted by DT113876 View Post
I think I'm finally come to the realization I am not a liberal anymore. I see where liberalism is headed, and its all about somebody else controlling your life, telling you what to do- the reaction to electronic cigarettes in my mind is proof of that.
We went on a cruise with friends and was talking to a woman (from Cali). The husband vapes and when he walked up while he was vaping she got all snotty and complained. Then she actually said, "I can't be associated with anyone who smokes cigarettes or those things.
As for e-cigs my personal opinion is that if it is not going to cause acute damage or immediate dependence...let people do it
Oh thank you King Emerald..... I'm so glad that you have saw fit to allow me, a lowly peasant, to use an e-cig. I don't know what ever I would have done without your permission. Your statement above perfectly personifies what the OP said he hates about modern Liberalism, you proved his point! The sad part is, you didn't even realise it.
#2 if they don't want to be exposed to it then they should stay away from private businesses that allow people to use them, not force every business to conform to their demands
# 3 That isn't why NY and LA passed those laws. City Council { NOT the people } passed those laws in an effort to socially engineer residents and visitors. They did it in order to influence the way people think and act. They also did it in order to intentionaly stigmatize and demonize both e-cig and traditional cigarette users. Don't believe me? Read the links for yourself. Officials that voted to include e-cigs in the smoking ban are on record and quoted as saying that "they don't know if they want the sight of "smoking" in train stations and on subway cars to become normalized once again" Also, they said that "they didn't want e-cigs to undo decades worth of effort to place a stigma on smoking and smokers themselves".... All this mind you, without ANY shred of confirmed evidence about potential negative impacts to the non-user and passerby.
In other words, they kniow what is best for you, NOT YOU!!! And they are going to do whatever it takes to make you see it their way...
Hope you like being brainwashed.
Quote:
You can inhale all you want, but if others don't want to be forced to it is their right not to be force to inhale your drug of choice.
Well for starters, no one is being "forced" to inhale anything if they are voluntarily patronizing a private business. If you go in to a private business that allows people to use e-cigs and you choose to stay, than you have accepted any associated risks and you don't get to say you were FORCED to inhale it.
For two, I love how people who are against the public use of e-cigs, or even traditional cigs for that matter, magicaly grant themselves the "right" to control the environment wherever they go. You do not have this right, and you cannot assert a right you do not have. You do not have the right to control what is in the air wherever you go, save, for your own property. Using your logic, I have the right to tell my neighbor he can't mow his lawn on evenings I take a walk because it bothers my allergies. I would also have the right to tell my co-worker they can't wear perfume. I would also have the right to tell people they cannot burn candles in my presence.
Quit asserting rights you do not have.
Quote:
To me that is libertarian...
You have a grossly inaccurate understanding of what libertarianism is then...
Quote:
that people's choices are not infringing on the rights of the people around them.
Again, you do not have the right to control what is in the air wherever you go, whenever you go there, 24/7. If you did, I would agree with you. But this is not a right you, or anyone else posseses. To put it in perspective, let me give you an example. If you and I were near each other, and I was using an e-cig, or a traditional cig for that matter, and you were breathing it in? That would not be a violation of your rights at all, unless we were on YOUR property or anywhere you have a legal right to be.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 03-22-2014 at 10:55 PM..
( Just to be clear, you never had the right to puff vapor in anyone's face. Your rights end where Other people's start and you never had the right to do anything in someone else's establishment.)
I kniow I must be mistaken but based on this, you and I can agree that business owners should have the say as to whether or not people can use e-cigs in their business and not the government, right?
Your rights to not be exposed to the vapor end at their front door, and their right to allow it or not allow it begin... correct?
key phrase in all that is "if the owner agreed",hence you never had that right. If someone else's decision influences the outcome of whether you can do something or not, then you did not have that right.
No one is arguing they have the "right" to smoke or vape wherever they want. We believe property owners should make that choice.
On the flipside, many people who are against public smoking and vaping are arguing that they have the right to smoke and vape free air wherever they go,
We went on a cruise with friends and was talking to a woman (from Cali). The husband vapes and when he walked up while he was vaping she got all snotty and complained. Then she actually said, "I can't be associated with anyone who smokes cigarettes or those things.
Yea, that's a snotty liberal for you.
I would have either thrown her off the side of the ship, or handed her divorce papers when we docked.
I no longer smoke cigarettes, nor do I vape, but I do smoke a pipe.
I wouldn't give that pipe up for any woman, because it is something I enjoy, nor could I be with someone who had such a superiority complex. I never have understood why someone would marry or be with a smoker and then expect them to quit, expecially when they knew they smoked before they married. That goes for any behaviour, not just smoking.
If you think that "liberalism" is about "somebody else controlling your life", then you never were a liberal.
yea sure... free love. Maybe in the old days but not recent brand of liberals. They are also about telling us how much money is enough before think they have the right to take it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your statement above perfectly personifies what the OP said he hates about modern Liberalism, you proved his point! The sad part is, you didn't even realise it.
You never were a liberal
