Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate

[beltim]

I think I'm going to support/vote for Gary Johnson, even though he doesn't stand a chance, maybe if he gets 2-3%, it'll bring more recognition to the libertarian cause, I really like his top issue,

"Government Spending
By the time Barack Obama leaves office, the national debt will be $20 TRILLION. That is not just obscene, it is unsustainable -- and arguably the single greatest threat to our national security.
Responsibility for the years of deficit spending that have created our debt crisis rests squarely with BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats. The debt doubled under President George W. Bush -- and doubled again under President Obama. During that time, both parties enjoyed control of Congress, and the deficit spending just kept piling up.
It doesn’t have to be that way, despite what the politicians say. But the idea that we can somehow balance the federal budget without cutting military spending and reforming entitlements is fantasy. What is required is leadership and political courage. As Governor of a state with an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature, Gary Johnson stood up to excess spending, vetoed 750 bills and literally thousands of budget line items...and balanced the state’s budget.
Governor Johnson has pledged that his first major act as President will be to submit to Congress a truly balanced budget. No gimmicks, no imaginary cuts in the distant future. Real reductions to bring spending into line with revenues, without tax increases. No line in the budget will be immune from scrutiny and reduction. And he pledges to veto any legislation that will result in deficit spending, forcing Congress to override his veto in order to spend money we don’t have.
No excuses. No games. A REAL balanced budget."

I get that it's rhetoric and everyone does it, but the bolded parts always come across as:

BIG SCARY NUMBER WITHOUT CONTEXT!

And I take the rest of what is said with a similarly big scary grain of salt.

So, what $500 billion or so do you want to cut to balance the budget?

[Jeremy E.]

I think I'm going to support/vote for Gary Johnson, even though he doesn't stand a chance, maybe if he gets 2-3%, it'll bring more recognition to the libertarian cause, I really like his top issue,

"Government Spending
By the time Barack Obama leaves office, the national debt will be $20 TRILLION. That is not just obscene, it is unsustainable -- and arguably the single greatest threat to our national security.
Responsibility for the years of deficit spending that have created our debt crisis rests squarely with BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats. The debt doubled under President George W. Bush -- and doubled again under President Obama. During that time, both parties enjoyed control of Congress, and the deficit spending just kept piling up.
It doesn’t have to be that way, despite what the politicians say. But the idea that we can somehow balance the federal budget without cutting military spending and reforming entitlements is fantasy. What is required is leadership and political courage. As Governor of a state with an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature, Gary Johnson stood up to excess spending, vetoed 750 bills and literally thousands of budget line items...and balanced the state’s budget.
Governor Johnson has pledged that his first major act as President will be to submit to Congress a truly balanced budget. No gimmicks, no imaginary cuts in the distant future. Real reductions to bring spending into line with revenues, without tax increases. No line in the budget will be immune from scrutiny and reduction. And he pledges to veto any legislation that will result in deficit spending, forcing Congress to override his veto in order to spend money we don’t have.
No excuses. No games. A REAL balanced budget."

While the debt did balloon under Bush and Obama a lot of that was the combined costs of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars mixed with decreased revenues and increased welfare due from the great recession. If you take a look at the size of the deficit from the last few years under Obama, it has increased at a decelerating rate and percentage wise is much smaller than the previous years. If we can get the next president to keep us out of any new major wars and forgo any unpaid tax cuts or spending increases, the debt is not unmanageable.

Well, here is his stance on Foreign Policy and National Defense,

"The objective of both our foreign policy and our military should be straightforward: To protect us from harm and to allow the exercise of our freedoms.
Looking back over the past couple of decades, it is difficult to see how the wars we have waged, the interventions we have conducted, the lives sacrificed and the trillions spent on the other side of the globe have made us safer. The chaotic, reactive military and foreign policies of the past two Presidents have, if anything, created an environment that has allowed real threats to our safety to flourish.
Radical Islam and sharia ideology were not created by our actions, but they have prospered in the wake of the instability to which our actions contributed. And while our leaders have thrust our military and our resources into regime changes, failed nation-building and interventions that have strained valuable strategic relationships, the murderers of ISIS, Al Qaeda and other violent extremes have found new homes, established the caliphate of their warped dreams and secured the resources to become very real threats to our lives and our liberty.
As President, Gary Johnson will move quickly and decisively to refocus U.S. efforts and resources to attack the real threats we face in a strategic, thoughtful way. The U.S. must get serious about cutting off the millions of dollars that are flowing into the extremists’ coffers every day. Relationships with strategic allies must be repaired and reinforced. And the simplistic options of “more boots on the ground” and dropping more bombs must be replaced with strategies that will isolate and ultimately neuter those who would, if able, destroy the very liberties on which this nation is founded."

[Jeremy E.]

I think I'm going to support/vote for Gary Johnson, even though he doesn't stand a chance, maybe if he gets 2-3%, it'll bring more recognition to the libertarian cause, I really like his top issue,

"Government Spending
By the time Barack Obama leaves office, the national debt will be $20 TRILLION. That is not just obscene, it is unsustainable -- and arguably the single greatest threat to our national security.
Responsibility for the years of deficit spending that have created our debt crisis rests squarely with BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats. The debt doubled under President George W. Bush -- and doubled again under President Obama. During that time, both parties enjoyed control of Congress, and the deficit spending just kept piling up.
It doesn’t have to be that way, despite what the politicians say. But the idea that we can somehow balance the federal budget without cutting military spending and reforming entitlements is fantasy. What is required is leadership and political courage. As Governor of a state with an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature, Gary Johnson stood up to excess spending, vetoed 750 bills and literally thousands of budget line items...and balanced the state’s budget.
Governor Johnson has pledged that his first major act as President will be to submit to Congress a truly balanced budget. No gimmicks, no imaginary cuts in the distant future. Real reductions to bring spending into line with revenues, without tax increases. No line in the budget will be immune from scrutiny and reduction. And he pledges to veto any legislation that will result in deficit spending, forcing Congress to override his veto in order to spend money we don’t have.
No excuses. No games. A REAL balanced budget."

I get that it's rhetoric and everyone does it, but the bolded parts always come across as:

BIG SCARY NUMBER WITHOUT CONTEXT!

And I take the rest of what is said with a similarly big scary grain of salt.

So, what $500 billion or so do you want to cut to balance the budget?

From the sounds of it, he would want to cut most of it from military and reforming entitlements

[beltim]

I think I'm going to support/vote for Gary Johnson, even though he doesn't stand a chance, maybe if he gets 2-3%, it'll bring more recognition to the libertarian cause, I really like his top issue,

"Government Spending
By the time Barack Obama leaves office, the national debt will be $20 TRILLION. That is not just obscene, it is unsustainable -- and arguably the single greatest threat to our national security.
Responsibility for the years of deficit spending that have created our debt crisis rests squarely with BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats. The debt doubled under President George W. Bush -- and doubled again under President Obama. During that time, both parties enjoyed control of Congress, and the deficit spending just kept piling up.
It doesn’t have to be that way, despite what the politicians say. But the idea that we can somehow balance the federal budget without cutting military spending and reforming entitlements is fantasy. What is required is leadership and political courage. As Governor of a state with an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature, Gary Johnson stood up to excess spending, vetoed 750 bills and literally thousands of budget line items...and balanced the state’s budget.
Governor Johnson has pledged that his first major act as President will be to submit to Congress a truly balanced budget. No gimmicks, no imaginary cuts in the distant future. Real reductions to bring spending into line with revenues, without tax increases. No line in the budget will be immune from scrutiny and reduction. And he pledges to veto any legislation that will result in deficit spending, forcing Congress to override his veto in order to spend money we don’t have.
No excuses. No games. A REAL balanced budget."

I get that it's rhetoric and everyone does it, but the bolded parts always come across as:

BIG SCARY NUMBER WITHOUT CONTEXT!

And I take the rest of what is said with a similarly big scary grain of salt.

So, what $500 billion or so do you want to cut to balance the budget?

From the sounds of it, he would want to cut most of it from military and reforming entitlements

Okay, but how?  Spending on military in Iraq and Afghanistan combined are running under $100 billion annually.  So what other military programs will get cut?

What entitlements are going to get cut?

Without an actual plan, all of this is just sound bites.

[dramaman]

I think I'm going to support/vote for Gary Johnson, even though he doesn't stand a chance, maybe if he gets 2-3%, it'll bring more recognition to the libertarian cause, I really like his top issue,

"Government Spending
By the time Barack Obama leaves office, the national debt will be $20 TRILLION. That is not just obscene, it is unsustainable -- and arguably the single greatest threat to our national security.
Responsibility for the years of deficit spending that have created our debt crisis rests squarely with BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats. The debt doubled under President George W. Bush -- and doubled again under President Obama. During that time, both parties enjoyed control of Congress, and the deficit spending just kept piling up.
It doesn’t have to be that way, despite what the politicians say. But the idea that we can somehow balance the federal budget without cutting military spending and reforming entitlements is fantasy. What is required is leadership and political courage. As Governor of a state with an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature, Gary Johnson stood up to excess spending, vetoed 750 bills and literally thousands of budget line items...and balanced the state’s budget.
Governor Johnson has pledged that his first major act as President will be to submit to Congress a truly balanced budget. No gimmicks, no imaginary cuts in the distant future. Real reductions to bring spending into line with revenues, without tax increases. No line in the budget will be immune from scrutiny and reduction. And he pledges to veto any legislation that will result in deficit spending, forcing Congress to override his veto in order to spend money we don’t have.
No excuses. No games. A REAL balanced budget."

While the debt did balloon under Bush and Obama a lot of that was the combined costs of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars mixed with decreased revenues and increased welfare due from the great recession. If you take a look at the size of the deficit from the last few years under Obama, it has increased at a decelerating rate and percentage wise is much smaller than the previous years. If we can get the next president to keep us out of any new major wars and forgo any unpaid tax cuts or spending increases, the debt is not unmanageable.

Well, here is his stance on Foreign Policy and National Defense,

"The objective of both our foreign policy and our military should be straightforward: To protect us from harm and to allow the exercise of our freedoms.
Looking back over the past couple of decades, it is difficult to see how the wars we have waged, the interventions we have conducted, the lives sacrificed and the trillions spent on the other side of the globe have made us safer. The chaotic, reactive military and foreign policies of the past two Presidents have, if anything, created an environment that has allowed real threats to our safety to flourish.
Radical Islam and sharia ideology were not created by our actions, but they have prospered in the wake of the instability to which our actions contributed. And while our leaders have thrust our military and our resources into regime changes, failed nation-building and interventions that have strained valuable strategic relationships, the murderers of ISIS, Al Qaeda and other violent extremes have found new homes, established the caliphate of their warped dreams and secured the resources to become very real threats to our lives and our liberty.
As President, Gary Johnson will move quickly and decisively to refocus U.S. efforts and resources to attack the real threats we face in a strategic, thoughtful way. The U.S. must get serious about cutting off the millions of dollars that are flowing into the extremists’ coffers every day. Relationships with strategic allies must be repaired and reinforced. And the simplistic options of “more boots on the ground” and dropping more bombs must be replaced with strategies that will isolate and ultimately neuter those who would, if able, destroy the very liberties on which this nation is founded."

Sounds great, but overall I trust Gary Johnson's overall grasp of foreign policy about as much as that of Ben Carson. Regardless, NO WAY EVER would I vote for a libertarian.

Libertarians, for those who think Republicans aren't nutty enough.

[Jeremy E.]

I think I'm going to support/vote for Gary Johnson, even though he doesn't stand a chance, maybe if he gets 2-3%, it'll bring more recognition to the libertarian cause, I really like his top issue,

"Government Spending
By the time Barack Obama leaves office, the national debt will be $20 TRILLION. That is not just obscene, it is unsustainable -- and arguably the single greatest threat to our national security.
Responsibility for the years of deficit spending that have created our debt crisis rests squarely with BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats. The debt doubled under President George W. Bush -- and doubled again under President Obama. During that time, both parties enjoyed control of Congress, and the deficit spending just kept piling up.
It doesn’t have to be that way, despite what the politicians say. But the idea that we can somehow balance the federal budget without cutting military spending and reforming entitlements is fantasy. What is required is leadership and political courage. As Governor of a state with an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature, Gary Johnson stood up to excess spending, vetoed 750 bills and literally thousands of budget line items...and balanced the state’s budget.
Governor Johnson has pledged that his first major act as President will be to submit to Congress a truly balanced budget. No gimmicks, no imaginary cuts in the distant future. Real reductions to bring spending into line with revenues, without tax increases. No line in the budget will be immune from scrutiny and reduction. And he pledges to veto any legislation that will result in deficit spending, forcing Congress to override his veto in order to spend money we don’t have.
No excuses. No games. A REAL balanced budget."

I get that it's rhetoric and everyone does it, but the bolded parts always come across as:

BIG SCARY NUMBER WITHOUT CONTEXT!

And I take the rest of what is said with a similarly big scary grain of salt.

So, what $500 billion or so do you want to cut to balance the budget?

From the sounds of it, he would want to cut most of it from military and reforming entitlements

Okay, but how?  Spending on military in Iraq and Afghanistan combined are running under $100 billion annually.  So what other military programs will get cut?

What entitlements are going to get cut?

Without an actual plan, all of this is just sound bites.

Sure they are just sound bites, and I like the way governor veto sounds. I remember seeing a statistic that said our military was larger, stronger, and costed more, than the next 3 strongest militaries. I assume he would reduce the size and cost of the military. I also assume he would reform entitlements to give less benefits, and figure a way to spend the leftover money in place of taking on more debt. It doesn't really matter as he has 0 chance of being President, he just needs to bring as much attention as he can to the libertarian agenda.

[Jeremy E.]

I think I'm going to support/vote for Gary Johnson, even though he doesn't stand a chance, maybe if he gets 2-3%, it'll bring more recognition to the libertarian cause, I really like his top issue,

"Government Spending
By the time Barack Obama leaves office, the national debt will be $20 TRILLION. That is not just obscene, it is unsustainable -- and arguably the single greatest threat to our national security.
Responsibility for the years of deficit spending that have created our debt crisis rests squarely with BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats. The debt doubled under President George W. Bush -- and doubled again under President Obama. During that time, both parties enjoyed control of Congress, and the deficit spending just kept piling up.
It doesn’t have to be that way, despite what the politicians say. But the idea that we can somehow balance the federal budget without cutting military spending and reforming entitlements is fantasy. What is required is leadership and political courage. As Governor of a state with an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature, Gary Johnson stood up to excess spending, vetoed 750 bills and literally thousands of budget line items...and balanced the state’s budget.
Governor Johnson has pledged that his first major act as President will be to submit to Congress a truly balanced budget. No gimmicks, no imaginary cuts in the distant future. Real reductions to bring spending into line with revenues, without tax increases. No line in the budget will be immune from scrutiny and reduction. And he pledges to veto any legislation that will result in deficit spending, forcing Congress to override his veto in order to spend money we don’t have.
No excuses. No games. A REAL balanced budget."

While the debt did balloon under Bush and Obama a lot of that was the combined costs of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars mixed with decreased revenues and increased welfare due from the great recession. If you take a look at the size of the deficit from the last few years under Obama, it has increased at a decelerating rate and percentage wise is much smaller than the previous years. If we can get the next president to keep us out of any new major wars and forgo any unpaid tax cuts or spending increases, the debt is not unmanageable.

Well, here is his stance on Foreign Policy and National Defense,

"The objective of both our foreign policy and our military should be straightforward: To protect us from harm and to allow the exercise of our freedoms.
Looking back over the past couple of decades, it is difficult to see how the wars we have waged, the interventions we have conducted, the lives sacrificed and the trillions spent on the other side of the globe have made us safer. The chaotic, reactive military and foreign policies of the past two Presidents have, if anything, created an environment that has allowed real threats to our safety to flourish.
Radical Islam and sharia ideology were not created by our actions, but they have prospered in the wake of the instability to which our actions contributed. And while our leaders have thrust our military and our resources into regime changes, failed nation-building and interventions that have strained valuable strategic relationships, the murderers of ISIS, Al Qaeda and other violent extremes have found new homes, established the caliphate of their warped dreams and secured the resources to become very real threats to our lives and our liberty.
As President, Gary Johnson will move quickly and decisively to refocus U.S. efforts and resources to attack the real threats we face in a strategic, thoughtful way. The U.S. must get serious about cutting off the millions of dollars that are flowing into the extremists’ coffers every day. Relationships with strategic allies must be repaired and reinforced. And the simplistic options of “more boots on the ground” and dropping more bombs must be replaced with strategies that will isolate and ultimately neuter those who would, if able, destroy the very liberties on which this nation is founded."

Sounds great, but overall I trust Gary Johnson's overall grasp of foreign policy about as much as that of Ben Carson. Regardless, NO WAY EVER would I vote for a libertarian.

Libertarians, for those who think Republicans aren't nutty enough.

"All political parties except mine are nutty and stupid and make poor decisions, and so are those that support them, my political party is clearly the only choice"

[beltim]

I think I'm going to support/vote for Gary Johnson, even though he doesn't stand a chance, maybe if he gets 2-3%, it'll bring more recognition to the libertarian cause, I really like his top issue,

"Government Spending
By the time Barack Obama leaves office, the national debt will be $20 TRILLION. That is not just obscene, it is unsustainable -- and arguably the single greatest threat to our national security.
Responsibility for the years of deficit spending that have created our debt crisis rests squarely with BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats. The debt doubled under President George W. Bush -- and doubled again under President Obama. During that time, both parties enjoyed control of Congress, and the deficit spending just kept piling up.
It doesn’t have to be that way, despite what the politicians say. But the idea that we can somehow balance the federal budget without cutting military spending and reforming entitlements is fantasy. What is required is leadership and political courage. As Governor of a state with an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature, Gary Johnson stood up to excess spending, vetoed 750 bills and literally thousands of budget line items...and balanced the state’s budget.
Governor Johnson has pledged that his first major act as President will be to submit to Congress a truly balanced budget. No gimmicks, no imaginary cuts in the distant future. Real reductions to bring spending into line with revenues, without tax increases. No line in the budget will be immune from scrutiny and reduction. And he pledges to veto any legislation that will result in deficit spending, forcing Congress to override his veto in order to spend money we don’t have.
No excuses. No games. A REAL balanced budget."

I get that it's rhetoric and everyone does it, but the bolded parts always come across as:

BIG SCARY NUMBER WITHOUT CONTEXT!

And I take the rest of what is said with a similarly big scary grain of salt.

So, what $500 billion or so do you want to cut to balance the budget?

From the sounds of it, he would want to cut most of it from military and reforming entitlements

Okay, but how?  Spending on military in Iraq and Afghanistan combined are running under $100 billion annually.  So what other military programs will get cut?

What entitlements are going to get cut?

Without an actual plan, all of this is just sound bites.

Sure they are just sound bites, and I like the way governor veto sounds. I remember seeing a statistic that said our military was larger, stronger, and costed more, than the next 3 strongest militaries. I assume he would reduce the size and cost of the military. I also assume he would reform entitlements to give less benefits, and figure a way to spend the leftover money in place of taking on more debt. It doesn't really matter as he has 0 chance of being President, he just needs to bring as much attention as he can to the libertarian agenda.

One of the reasons candidates like this get negligible numbers of votes is that they propose plans that simply won't work.  Another reason is that people don't agree on the issues.

Most American do not want cuts to Social Security, or Medicare if said cuts would reduce their level of service. 

[Jeremy E.]

I think I'm going to support/vote for Gary Johnson, even though he doesn't stand a chance, maybe if he gets 2-3%, it'll bring more recognition to the libertarian cause, I really like his top issue,

"Government Spending
By the time Barack Obama leaves office, the national debt will be $20 TRILLION. That is not just obscene, it is unsustainable -- and arguably the single greatest threat to our national security.
Responsibility for the years of deficit spending that have created our debt crisis rests squarely with BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats. The debt doubled under President George W. Bush -- and doubled again under President Obama. During that time, both parties enjoyed control of Congress, and the deficit spending just kept piling up.
It doesn’t have to be that way, despite what the politicians say. But the idea that we can somehow balance the federal budget without cutting military spending and reforming entitlements is fantasy. What is required is leadership and political courage. As Governor of a state with an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature, Gary Johnson stood up to excess spending, vetoed 750 bills and literally thousands of budget line items...and balanced the state’s budget.
Governor Johnson has pledged that his first major act as President will be to submit to Congress a truly balanced budget. No gimmicks, no imaginary cuts in the distant future. Real reductions to bring spending into line with revenues, without tax increases. No line in the budget will be immune from scrutiny and reduction. And he pledges to veto any legislation that will result in deficit spending, forcing Congress to override his veto in order to spend money we don’t have.
No excuses. No games. A REAL balanced budget."

I get that it's rhetoric and everyone does it, but the bolded parts always come across as:

BIG SCARY NUMBER WITHOUT CONTEXT!

And I take the rest of what is said with a similarly big scary grain of salt.

So, what $500 billion or so do you want to cut to balance the budget?

From the sounds of it, he would want to cut most of it from military and reforming entitlements

Okay, but how?  Spending on military in Iraq and Afghanistan combined are running under $100 billion annually.  So what other military programs will get cut?

What entitlements are going to get cut?

Without an actual plan, all of this is just sound bites.

Sure they are just sound bites, and I like the way governor veto sounds. I remember seeing a statistic that said our military was larger, stronger, and costed more, than the next 3 strongest militaries. I assume he would reduce the size and cost of the military. I also assume he would reform entitlements to give less benefits, and figure a way to spend the leftover money in place of taking on more debt. It doesn't really matter as he has 0 chance of being President, he just needs to bring as much attention as he can to the libertarian agenda.

One of the reasons candidates like this get negligible numbers of votes is that they propose plans that simply won't work.  Another reason is that people don't agree on the issues.

Most American do not want cuts to Social Security, or Medicare if said cuts would reduce their level of service.

I believe his ideas can work, and he hasn't listed any plans. I agree that most americans are stupid and want lower taxes and free stuff, they are okay with debt and don't understand that their hair is on fire. But I have hope that more and more Americans will start understanding this MMM post, and try and stop the exponentially increasing debt growth that is currently happening.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/04/18/news-flash-your-debt-is-an-emergency/

[Jack]

I believe his ideas can work, and he hasn't listed any plans. I agree that most americans are stupid and want lower taxes and free stuff, they are okay with debt and don't understand that their hair is on fire. But I have hope that more and more Americans will start understanding this MMM post, and try and stop the exponentially increasing debt growth that is currently happening.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/04/18/news-flash-your-debt-is-an-emergency/

I believe that you don't understand the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics. Governments simply do not work the same way as households. Your argument is nonsensical.

[Glenstache]

<snip>

I believe his ideas can work, and he hasn't listed any plans. I agree that most americans are stupid and want lower taxes and free stuff, they are okay with debt and don't understand that their hair is on fire. But I have hope that more and more Americans will start understanding this MMM post, and try and stop the exponentially increasing debt growth that is currently happening.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/04/18/news-flash-your-debt-is-an-emergency/

... except that US government  debt does not behave the same as household debt.

i.e.: http://econproph.com/2011/07/14/private-debt-vs-government-debt/
(and many other similar analyses just a google away... but unlikely to be foudn anywhere in the Austrian school of econ)

That isn't to say that I support he strawman of unbridled expenditure, but neither do I accept the strawman that debt is necessarily a bad thing. It is more nuanced than that. A more appropriate set of questions would be:

• What is the optimal debt level for us to have relative to other economic indicators such as GDP, total government spending, or [black box metric an economist would specify]?
• What types of things should we borrow money (as a govt issuing bonds) to accomplish?
  

[sol]

I believe his ideas can work, and he hasn't listed any plans. I agree that most americans are stupid and want lower taxes and free stuff, they are okay with debt and don't understand that their hair is on fire. But I have hope that more and more Americans will start understanding this MMM post, and try and stop the exponentially increasing debt growth that is currently happening.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/04/18/news-flash-your-debt-is-an-emergency/

I believe that you don't understand the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics. Governments simply do not work the same way as households. Your argument is nonsensical.

It won't matter, Jack.  This is one of those arguments we have here every week, and every week someone new shows up and starts it again because they haven't read any of the hundreds of posts already devoted to debunking their third grade understanding of the issue.

Come to think of it, that's like the whole MMM forum business model.  Keep pulling in new blood full of bad ideas, let old blood spend their time and effort trying to educate them, sit back and reap the profits from all those clicks.   As long as he can keep sending us misinformed new members, he'll continue to collect $5k/month in ad revenue.

[Jeremy E.]

I believe his ideas can work, and he hasn't listed any plans. I agree that most americans are stupid and want lower taxes and free stuff, they are okay with debt and don't understand that their hair is on fire. But I have hope that more and more Americans will start understanding this MMM post, and try and stop the exponentially increasing debt growth that is currently happening.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/04/18/news-flash-your-debt-is-an-emergency/

I believe that you don't understand the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics. Governments simply do not work the same way as households. Your argument is nonsensical.

I understand national debt is good and think Alexander Hamiltons plans for a national bank and taking on national debt are one of the main reasons we advanced as fast as we did. I've read his reasoning that he argued for the national debt and agree with them. That being said, ours is growing exponentially and will soon be unsustainable, we need to treat it like an emergency and get our deficit much closer to 0.

[Jeremy E.]

<snip>

I believe his ideas can work, and he hasn't listed any plans. I agree that most americans are stupid and want lower taxes and free stuff, they are okay with debt and don't understand that their hair is on fire. But I have hope that more and more Americans will start understanding this MMM post, and try and stop the exponentially increasing debt growth that is currently happening.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/04/18/news-flash-your-debt-is-an-emergency/

... except that US government  debt does not behave the same as household debt.

i.e.: http://econproph.com/2011/07/14/private-debt-vs-government-debt/
(and many other similar analyses just a google away... but unlikely to be foudn anywhere in the Austrian school of econ)

That isn't to say that I support he strawman of unbridled expenditure, but neither do I accept the strawman that debt is necessarily a bad thing. It is more nuanced than that. A more appropriate set of questions would be:

• What is the optimal debt level for us to have relative to other economic indicators such as GDP, total government spending, or [black box metric an economist would specify]?
• What types of things should we borrow money (as a govt issuing bonds) to accomplish?
  

I agree with your questions to ask 100%, but believe we have too much debt.

[Jack]

I believe his ideas can work, and he hasn't listed any plans. I agree that most americans are stupid and want lower taxes and free stuff, they are okay with debt and don't understand that their hair is on fire. But I have hope that more and more Americans will start understanding this MMM post, and try and stop the exponentially increasing debt growth that is currently happening.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/04/18/news-flash-your-debt-is-an-emergency/

I believe that you don't understand the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics. Governments simply do not work the same way as households. Your argument is nonsensical.

I understand national debt is good and think Alexander Hamiltons plans for a national bank and taking on national debt are one of the main reasons we advanced as fast as we did. I've read his reasoning that he argued for the national debt and agree with them. That being said, ours is growing exponentially and will soon be unsustainable, we need to treat it like an emergency and get our deficit much closer to 0.

Using the fact that the debt is "growing exponentially" as a scare tactic might work in some forums, but not here. Of course it's exponential! Lots of things are exponential! In fact, because inflation is also exponential, if the debt grew anything less than exponentially then the deficit would necessarily asymptotically approach zero and the deficit spending that you just admitted is (at least sometimes) useful would be impossible.

Lowering the deficit, or even balancing the budget or running a surplus, is fine if the economic situation calls for it. But trying to make the debt "not exponential" implies excluding deficit spending from consideration regardless of the circumstances, which is not something I can agree with.

[Jeremy E.]

I believe his ideas can work, and he hasn't listed any plans. I agree that most americans are stupid and want lower taxes and free stuff, they are okay with debt and don't understand that their hair is on fire. But I have hope that more and more Americans will start understanding this MMM post, and try and stop the exponentially increasing debt growth that is currently happening.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/04/18/news-flash-your-debt-is-an-emergency/

I believe that you don't understand the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics. Governments simply do not work the same way as households. Your argument is nonsensical.

I understand national debt is good and think Alexander Hamiltons plans for a national bank and taking on national debt are one of the main reasons we advanced as fast as we did. I've read his reasoning that he argued for the national debt and agree with them. That being said, ours is growing exponentially and will soon be unsustainable, we need to treat it like an emergency and get our deficit much closer to 0.

Using the fact that the debt is "growing exponentially" as a scare tactic might work in some forums, but not here. Of course it's exponential! Lots of things are exponential! In fact, because inflation is also exponential, if the debt grew anything less than exponentially then the deficit would necessarily asymptotically approach zero and the deficit spending that you just admitted is (at least sometimes) useful would be impossible.

Lowering the deficit, or even balancing the budget or running a surplus, is fine if the economic situation calls for it. But trying to make the debt "not exponential" implies excluding deficit spending from consideration regardless of the circumstances, which is not something I can agree with.

Okay, I think our debt to GDP ratio is at least twice as high as it should be, many believe that a debt to GDP ratio over 60% threatens sustainability.

[dramaman]

Here are annual debt amounts from treasurydirect.gov. I added the percentage change column. Notice how the percentage change started to grow starting in 2002, topped off in 2009 and then has begun to come down since such that last year it was only 1.83%, less than it was in 2002. At the same time, our economy is doing alright. This is why I'm not worried about the debt, BIG NUMBERS notwithstanding.

Date             US Debt                            Change from Previous Year
09/30/15     $18,150,604,277,750.60   1.83%
09/30/14     $17,824,071,380,733.80   6.49%
09/30/13     $16,738,183,526,697.30   4.18%
09/30/12     $16,066,241,407,385.90   8.63%
09/30/11     $14,790,340,328,557.20   9.06%
09/30/10     $13,561,623,030,891.80   13.87%
09/30/09     $11,909,829,003,511.80   18.80%
09/30/08     $10,024,724,896,912.50   11.29%
09/30/07       $9,007,653,372,262.48   5.89%
09/30/06       $8,506,973,899,215.23   7.24%
09/30/05       $7,932,709,661,723.50   7.50%
09/30/04       $7,379,052,696,330.32   8.78%
09/30/03       $6,783,231,062,743.62   8.91%
09/30/02       $6,228,235,965,597.16   7.25%
09/30/01       $5,807,463,412,200.06   2.35%
09/30/00       $5,674,178,209,886.86   

[Jeremy E.]

Here are annual debt amounts from treasurydirect.gov. I added the percentage change column. Notice how the percentage change started to grow starting in 2002, topped off in 2009 and then has begun to come down since such that last year it was only 1.83%, less than it was in 2002. At the same time, our economy is doing alright. This is why I'm not worried about the debt, BIG NUMBERS notwithstanding.

Date             US Debt                            Change from Previous Year
09/30/15     $18,150,604,277,750.60   1.83%
09/30/14     $17,824,071,380,733.80   6.49%
09/30/13     $16,738,183,526,697.30   4.18%
09/30/12     $16,066,241,407,385.90   8.63%
09/30/11     $14,790,340,328,557.20   9.06%
09/30/10     $13,561,623,030,891.80   13.87%
09/30/09     $11,909,829,003,511.80   18.80%
09/30/08     $10,024,724,896,912.50   11.29%
09/30/07       $9,007,653,372,262.48   5.89%
09/30/06       $8,506,973,899,215.23   7.24%
09/30/05       $7,932,709,661,723.50   7.50%
09/30/04       $7,379,052,696,330.32   8.78%
09/30/03       $6,783,231,062,743.62   8.91%
09/30/02       $6,228,235,965,597.16   7.25%
09/30/01       $5,807,463,412,200.06   2.35%
09/30/00       $5,674,178,209,886.86

09/30/15  $18,150,000,000,000.00
02/17/16  $19,020,000,000,000.00
870 billion in 140 days, if it continues that way we will end the fiscal year with $20,418,000,000,000.00, and the percent change will be 7.35%,

in the last fiscal year we had an 11% increase in individual income tax receipts because our economy did well, which lead to a smaller deficit that year, but we can't expect our tax revenue to keep growing that fast. We will have to raise taxes or cut spending so we can get our debt down to a sustainable level, lets use 55% debt to gdp ratio as a sustainable level of debt as 60% seems to be the most common percentage that experts say begins to be potentially unstable, currently we are at 104.3%. If we can consistently keep our deficit less than the amount of our debt "removed" by inflation, we can start heading in the right direction.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

What level of national debt would be dangerous for the United States, if the current level isn't?

[dramaman]

Here are annual debt amounts from treasurydirect.gov. I added the percentage change column. Notice how the percentage change started to grow starting in 2002, topped off in 2009 and then has begun to come down since such that last year it was only 1.83%, less than it was in 2002. At the same time, our economy is doing alright. This is why I'm not worried about the debt, BIG NUMBERS notwithstanding.

Date             US Debt                            Change from Previous Year
09/30/15     $18,150,604,277,750.60   1.83%
09/30/14     $17,824,071,380,733.80   6.49%
09/30/13     $16,738,183,526,697.30   4.18%
09/30/12     $16,066,241,407,385.90   8.63%
09/30/11     $14,790,340,328,557.20   9.06%
09/30/10     $13,561,623,030,891.80   13.87%
09/30/09     $11,909,829,003,511.80   18.80%
09/30/08     $10,024,724,896,912.50   11.29%
09/30/07       $9,007,653,372,262.48   5.89%
09/30/06       $8,506,973,899,215.23   7.24%
09/30/05       $7,932,709,661,723.50   7.50%
09/30/04       $7,379,052,696,330.32   8.78%
09/30/03       $6,783,231,062,743.62   8.91%
09/30/02       $6,228,235,965,597.16   7.25%
09/30/01       $5,807,463,412,200.06   2.35%
09/30/00       $5,674,178,209,886.86

09/30/15  $18,150,000,000,000.00
02/17/16  $19,020,000,000,000.00
870 billion in 140 days, if it continues that way we will end the fiscal year with $20,418,000,000,000.00, and the percent change will be 7.35%,

Sooo, by your logic future growth should be projected based upon the growth of one single frame of reference. Last week my church had an attendance of 10. This week it had an attendance of 12. My god, if it continues to grow at a rate of 20% per week, by next year we'll  have an attendance of over 130,000.

Given you have provided only one single data point with no equivalent previous October-January growth figures, making any kind of prediction is speculation at best.  I'll stick with looking at general trends. They tell me that the explosive growth of the debt that we saw in the mid-to late 00's were an exception, NOT a rule.

[dramaman]

What level of national debt would be dangerous for the United States, if the current level isn't?

I don't know and I doubt you would necessarily get the same answer from any two economists and almost any answer you did get would start with 'It depends'.

If we do start to get near the danger line we will know it from a ways off. It's not like we will just suddenly fall off a cliff. Instead the cost to borrow will start to increase. Additional debt will become more expensive such that borrowing will no longer be an attractive option.

Currently, however, interest rates are low. Borrowing is extremely cheap. Some would argue that this is the perfect time to borrow for infrastructure and other investment type activities that would benefit the country in the long term.

My point is that the debt sky is NOT falling and any politician who points to the enormous growth of the debt over the last 15 years as some king of harbinger of doom is either ignorant of general macroeconomics and the actual REASON the debt increased or they are simply spreading FUD to get votes from people who are ignorant of these things.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

If we're nowhere near the danger line on the national debt, I take it you don't support any tax increases?

[andy85]

Currently, however, interest rates are artificially low. Borrowing is artificially extremely cheap. Some would argue that this is the perfect time to borrow for for a bubble to develop in infrastructure construction and other investment type activities that would benefit harm the country in the long term.

Fixed it for you.

In what rational world is $20 trillion in debt just no big deal?

[dramaman]

Currently, however, interest rates are artificially low. Borrowing is artificially extremely cheap. Some would argue that this is the perfect time to borrow for for a bubble to develop in infrastructure construction and other investment type activities that would benefit harm the country in the long term.

Fixed it for you.

In what rational world is $20 trillion in debt just no big deal?

Apparently in this world.

If the a $20 trillion debt was as toxic as you apparently believe it to be, nobody in their right mind would be willing to loan any additional dollars to the U.S. no matter what the Federal Reserve might want to set their own rates at. Instead the U.S. is considered one of the SAFEST places for people to park their money and people are begging to buy Treasury Notes.

At the end of the day, $20 trillion is just an arbitrary number. What real world evidence do you have that there is currently any risk whatsoever with the debt level where it is at?

[dramaman]

If we're nowhere near the danger line on the national debt, I take it you don't support any tax increases?

I support reasonable fiscal policy. I would actually like to see some tax increases as a firewall, but that doesn't mean I think the house in on fire.

[Jack]

Currently, however, interest rates are artificially low. Borrowing is artificially extremely cheap. Some would argue that this is the perfect time to borrow for for a bubble to develop in infrastructure construction and other investment type activities that would benefit harm the country in the long term.

Fixed it for you.

In what rational world is $20 trillion in debt just no big deal?

"In what rational world is $100 in debt just no big deal?" -- a guy from 1800.

Everything is relative. The fact that the debt is a big number is okay because the GDP is an even bigger number. Trying to scare people with big numbers taken out of context is both disingenuous and insulting. What do you think we are, idiots?

[Jeremy E.]

Currently, however, interest rates are artificially low. Borrowing is artificially extremely cheap. Some would argue that this is the perfect time to borrow for for a bubble to develop in infrastructure construction and other investment type activities that would benefit harm the country in the long term.

Fixed it for you.

In what rational world is $20 trillion in debt just no big deal?

"In what rational world is $100 in debt just no big deal?" -- a guy from 1800.

Everything is relative. The fact that the debt is a big number is okay because the GDP is an even bigger number. Trying to scare people with big numbers taken out of context is both disingenuous and insulting. What do you think we are, idiots?

False, the GDP is smaller than the debt

[Glenstache]

Currently, however, interest rates are artificially low. Borrowing is artificially extremely cheap. Some would argue that this is the perfect time to borrow for for a bubble to develop in infrastructure construction and other investment type activities that would benefit harm the country in the long term.

Fixed it for you.

In what rational world is $20 trillion in debt just no big deal?

I'll answer a slightly different question. The debt become more dangerous when we have politicians willing to not raise the debt ceiling to honor money we have already committed to spending. Defaulting on that debt would cause all major ratings agencies and large investors to devalue Treasury notes and our cost to borrow would go up significantly. The point being that there are two elements: the size of the debt relative to our economy and how responsible we are about fulfilling our obligations. Back to the original point of the thread, a fundamental willingness to misunderstand the debt ceiling and play with dynamite is one of the main reasons I have a deep dislike of Ted Cruz. From his own mouth: https://www.tedcruz.org/news/ted-cruz-has-been-leading-the-fight-on-the-debt-ceiling/

The debt ceiling is not the prudent place to fight that fight.

[Jeremy E.]

Here are annual debt amounts from treasurydirect.gov. I added the percentage change column. Notice how the percentage change started to grow starting in 2002, topped off in 2009 and then has begun to come down since such that last year it was only 1.83%, less than it was in 2002. At the same time, our economy is doing alright. This is why I'm not worried about the debt, BIG NUMBERS notwithstanding.

Date             US Debt                            Change from Previous Year
09/30/15     $18,150,604,277,750.60   1.83%
09/30/14     $17,824,071,380,733.80   6.49%
09/30/13     $16,738,183,526,697.30   4.18%
09/30/12     $16,066,241,407,385.90   8.63%
09/30/11     $14,790,340,328,557.20   9.06%
09/30/10     $13,561,623,030,891.80   13.87%
09/30/09     $11,909,829,003,511.80   18.80%
09/30/08     $10,024,724,896,912.50   11.29%
09/30/07       $9,007,653,372,262.48   5.89%
09/30/06       $8,506,973,899,215.23   7.24%
09/30/05       $7,932,709,661,723.50   7.50%
09/30/04       $7,379,052,696,330.32   8.78%
09/30/03       $6,783,231,062,743.62   8.91%
09/30/02       $6,228,235,965,597.16   7.25%
09/30/01       $5,807,463,412,200.06   2.35%
09/30/00       $5,674,178,209,886.86

09/30/15  $18,150,000,000,000.00
02/17/16  $19,020,000,000,000.00
870 billion in 140 days, if it continues that way we will end the fiscal year with $20,418,000,000,000.00, and the percent change will be 7.35%,

Sooo, by your logic future growth should be projected based upon the growth of one single frame of reference. Last week my church had an attendance of 10. This week it had an attendance of 12. My god, if it continues to grow at a rate of 20% per week, by next year we'll  have an attendance of over 130,000.

Given you have provided only one single data point with no equivalent previous October-January growth figures, making any kind of prediction is speculation at best.  I'll stick with looking at general trends. They tell me that the explosive growth of the debt that we saw in the mid-to late 00's were an exception, NOT a rule.

Really guy? If we gain no more debt the rest of the fiscal year we will still be growing the debt faster than inflation, and growing the debt to gdp ratio to a level that is even more unsustainable.

[Jack]

Currently, however, interest rates are artificially low. Borrowing is artificially extremely cheap. Some would argue that this is the perfect time to borrow for for a bubble to develop in infrastructure construction and other investment type activities that would benefit harm the country in the long term.

Fixed it for you.

In what rational world is $20 trillion in debt just no big deal?

"In what rational world is $100 in debt just no big deal?" -- a guy from 1800.

Everything is relative. The fact that the debt is a big number is okay because the GDP is an even bigger a similarly large number. Trying to scare people with big numbers taken out of context is both disingenuous and insulting. What do you think we are, idiots?

False, the GDP is smaller than the debt

Fine; I fixed it. Happy now?

[Jeremy E.]

Currently, however, interest rates are artificially low. Borrowing is artificially extremely cheap. Some would argue that this is the perfect time to borrow for for a bubble to develop in infrastructure construction and other investment type activities that would benefit harm the country in the long term.

Fixed it for you.

In what rational world is $20 trillion in debt just no big deal?

"In what rational world is $100 in debt just no big deal?" -- a guy from 1800.

Everything is relative. The fact that the debt is a big number is okay because the GDP is an even bigger a similarly large number. Trying to scare people with big numbers taken out of context is both disingenuous and insulting. What do you think we are, idiots?

False, the GDP is smaller than the debt

Fine; I fixed it. Happy now?

not really, I don't think it is "okay" that our debt is higher than our GDP

[dramaman]

Here are annual debt amounts from treasurydirect.gov. I added the percentage change column. Notice how the percentage change started to grow starting in 2002, topped off in 2009 and then has begun to come down since such that last year it was only 1.83%, less than it was in 2002. At the same time, our economy is doing alright. This is why I'm not worried about the debt, BIG NUMBERS notwithstanding.

Date    US Debt                            Change from Previous Year
09/30/15     $18,150,604,277,750.60   1.83%
09/30/14     $17,824,071,380,733.80   6.49%
09/30/13     $16,738,183,526,697.30   4.18%
09/30/12     $16,066,241,407,385.90   8.63%
09/30/11     $14,790,340,328,557.20   9.06%
09/30/10     $13,561,623,030,891.80   13.87%
09/30/09     $11,909,829,003,511.80   18.80%
09/30/08     $10,024,724,896,912.50   11.29%
09/30/07       $9,007,653,372,262.48   5.89%
09/30/06       $8,506,973,899,215.23   7.24%
09/30/05       $7,932,709,661,723.50   7.50%
09/30/04       $7,379,052,696,330.32   8.78%
09/30/03       $6,783,231,062,743.62   8.91%
09/30/02       $6,228,235,965,597.16   7.25%
09/30/01       $5,807,463,412,200.06   2.35%
09/30/00       $5,674,178,209,886.86

09/30/15  $18,150,000,000,000.00
02/17/16  $19,020,000,000,000.00
870 billion in 140 days, if it continues that way we will end the fiscal year with $20,418,000,000,000.00, and the percent change will be 7.35%,

Sooo, by your logic future growth should be projected based upon the growth of one single frame of reference. Last week my church had an attendance of 10. This week it had an attendance of 12. My god, if it continues to grow at a rate of 20% per week, by next year we'll  have an attendance of over 130,000.

Given you have provided only one single data point with no equivalent previous October-January growth figures, making any kind of prediction is speculation at best.  I'll stick with looking at general trends. They tell me that the explosive growth of the debt that we saw in the mid-to late 00's were an exception, NOT a rule.

Really guy? If we gain no more debt the rest of the fiscal year we will still be growing the debt faster than inflation, and growing the debt to gdp ratio to a level that is even more unsustainable.

I'm not sure why you are comparing the growth of debt with the inflation rate. For a chuckle, I thought it might be interesting to look at % debt change compared to inflation from 1950 to 1999. I see nothing indicating any kind of harbinger when the debt increases faster than inflation. In fact, in the last 30 years when we've had mostly low inflation, that has almost always been the case.

Date           Debt                    Ann % Chg  Avg Infl  Debt Change > Inflation?
9/30/1999   5,656,270,901,615.43   2.4%   2.2%      TRUE
9/30/1998   5,526,193,008,897.62   2.1%   1.6%      TRUE
9/30/1997   5,413,146,011,397.34   3.6%   2.3%      TRUE
9/30/1996   5,224,810,939,135.73   5.0%   3.0%      TRUE
9/29/1995   4,973,982,900,709.39   6.0%   2.8%      TRUE
9/30/1994   4,692,749,910,013.32   6.4%   2.6%      TRUE
9/30/1993   4,411,488,883,139.38   8.5%   3.0%      TRUE
9/30/1992   4,064,620,655,521.66   10.9%   3.0%      TRUE
9/30/1991   3,665,303,351,697.03   13.4%   4.2%      TRUE
9/28/1990   3,233,313,451,777.25   13.2%   5.4%      TRUE
9/29/1989   2,857,430,960,187.32   9.8%   4.8%      TRUE
9/30/1988   2,602,337,712,041.16   10.7%   4.1%      TRUE
9/30/1987   2,350,276,890,953.00   10.6%   3.6%      TRUE
9/30/1986   2,125,302,616,658.42   16.6%   1.9%      TRUE
9/30/1985   1,823,103,000,000.00   16.0%   3.6%      TRUE
9/30/1984   1,572,266,000,000.00   14.2%   4.3%      TRUE
9/30/1983   1,377,210,000,000.00   20.6%   3.2%      TRUE
9/30/1982   1,142,034,000,000.00   14.4%   6.2%      TRUE
9/30/1981   997,855,000,000.00   9.9%   10.3%      FALSE
9/30/1980   907,701,000,000.00   9.8%   13.5%      FALSE
9/30/1979   826,519,000,000.00   7.1%   11.3%      FALSE
9/30/1978   771,544,000,000.00   10.4%   7.6%      TRUE
9/30/1977   698,840,000,000.00   12.6%   6.5%      TRUE
6/30/1976   620,433,000,000.00   16.4%   5.8%      TRUE
6/30/1975   533,189,000,000.00   12.2%   9.1%      TRUE
6/30/1974   475,059,815,731.55   3.7%   11.0%      FALSE
6/30/1973   458,141,605,312.09   7.2%   6.2%      TRUE
6/30/1972   427,260,460,940.50   7.3%   3.2%      TRUE
6/30/1971   398,129,744,455.54   7.3%   4.4%      TRUE
6/30/1970   370,918,706,949.93   4.9%   5.7%      FALSE
6/30/1969   353,720,253,841.41   1.8%   5.5%      FALSE
6/30/1968   347,578,406,425.88   6.5%   4.2%      TRUE
6/30/1967   326,220,937,794.54   2.0%   3.1%      FALSE
6/30/1966   319,907,087,795.48   0.8%   2.9%      FALSE
6/30/1965   317,273,898,983.64   1.8%   1.6%      TRUE
6/30/1964   311,712,899,257.30   1.9%   1.3%      TRUE
6/30/1963   305,859,632,996.41   2.6%   1.3%      TRUE
6/30/1962   298,200,822,720.87   3.2%   1.0%      TRUE
6/30/1961   288,970,938,610.05   0.9%   1.0%      FALSE
6/30/1960   286,330,760,848.37   0.6%   1.7%      FALSE
6/30/1959   284,705,907,078.22   3.0%   0.7%      TRUE
6/30/1958   276,343,217,745.81   2.1%   2.8%      FALSE
6/30/1957   270,527,171,896.43   -0.8%   3.3%      FALSE
6/30/1956   272,750,813,649.32   -0.6%   1.5%      FALSE
6/30/1955   274,374,222,802.62   1.1%   -0.4%      TRUE
6/30/1954   271,259,599,108.46   2.0%   0.7%      TRUE
6/30/1953   266,071,061,638.57   2.7%   0.8%      TRUE
6/30/1952   259,105,178,785.43   1.5%   1.9%      FALSE
6/29/1951   255,221,976,814.93   -0.8%   7.9%      FALSE
6/30/1950   257,357,352,351.04        1.3%   

[Jeremy E.]

Here are annual debt amounts from treasurydirect.gov. I added the percentage change column. Notice how the percentage change started to grow starting in 2002, topped off in 2009 and then has begun to come down since such that last year it was only 1.83%, less than it was in 2002. At the same time, our economy is doing alright. This is why I'm not worried about the debt, BIG NUMBERS notwithstanding.

Date    US Debt                            Change from Previous Year
09/30/15     $18,150,604,277,750.60   1.83%
09/30/14     $17,824,071,380,733.80   6.49%
09/30/13     $16,738,183,526,697.30   4.18%
09/30/12     $16,066,241,407,385.90   8.63%
09/30/11     $14,790,340,328,557.20   9.06%
09/30/10     $13,561,623,030,891.80   13.87%
09/30/09     $11,909,829,003,511.80   18.80%
09/30/08     $10,024,724,896,912.50   11.29%
09/30/07       $9,007,653,372,262.48   5.89%
09/30/06       $8,506,973,899,215.23   7.24%
09/30/05       $7,932,709,661,723.50   7.50%
09/30/04       $7,379,052,696,330.32   8.78%
09/30/03       $6,783,231,062,743.62   8.91%
09/30/02       $6,228,235,965,597.16   7.25%
09/30/01       $5,807,463,412,200.06   2.35%
09/30/00       $5,674,178,209,886.86

09/30/15  $18,150,000,000,000.00
02/17/16  $19,020,000,000,000.00
870 billion in 140 days, if it continues that way we will end the fiscal year with $20,418,000,000,000.00, and the percent change will be 7.35%,

Sooo, by your logic future growth should be projected based upon the growth of one single frame of reference. Last week my church had an attendance of 10. This week it had an attendance of 12. My god, if it continues to grow at a rate of 20% per week, by next year we'll  have an attendance of over 130,000.

Given you have provided only one single data point with no equivalent previous October-January growth figures, making any kind of prediction is speculation at best.  I'll stick with looking at general trends. They tell me that the explosive growth of the debt that we saw in the mid-to late 00's were an exception, NOT a rule.

Really guy? If we gain no more debt the rest of the fiscal year we will still be growing the debt faster than inflation, and growing the debt to gdp ratio to a level that is even more unsustainable.

I'm not sure why you are comparing the growth of debt with the inflation rate. For a chuckle, I thought it might be interesting to look at % debt change compared to inflation from 1950 to 1999. I see nothing indicating any kind of harbinger when the debt increases faster than inflation. In fact, in the last 30 years when we've had mostly low inflation, that has almost always been the case.

Date           Debt                    Ann % Chg  Avg Infl  Debt Change > Inflation?
9/30/1999   5,656,270,901,615.43   2.4%   2.2%      TRUE
9/30/1998   5,526,193,008,897.62   2.1%   1.6%      TRUE
9/30/1997   5,413,146,011,397.34   3.6%   2.3%      TRUE
9/30/1996   5,224,810,939,135.73   5.0%   3.0%      TRUE
9/29/1995   4,973,982,900,709.39   6.0%   2.8%      TRUE
9/30/1994   4,692,749,910,013.32   6.4%   2.6%      TRUE
9/30/1993   4,411,488,883,139.38   8.5%   3.0%      TRUE
9/30/1992   4,064,620,655,521.66   10.9%   3.0%      TRUE
9/30/1991   3,665,303,351,697.03   13.4%   4.2%      TRUE
9/28/1990   3,233,313,451,777.25   13.2%   5.4%      TRUE
9/29/1989   2,857,430,960,187.32   9.8%   4.8%      TRUE
9/30/1988   2,602,337,712,041.16   10.7%   4.1%      TRUE
9/30/1987   2,350,276,890,953.00   10.6%   3.6%      TRUE
9/30/1986   2,125,302,616,658.42   16.6%   1.9%      TRUE
9/30/1985   1,823,103,000,000.00   16.0%   3.6%      TRUE
9/30/1984   1,572,266,000,000.00   14.2%   4.3%      TRUE
9/30/1983   1,377,210,000,000.00   20.6%   3.2%      TRUE
9/30/1982   1,142,034,000,000.00   14.4%   6.2%      TRUE
9/30/1981   997,855,000,000.00   9.9%   10.3%      FALSE
9/30/1980   907,701,000,000.00   9.8%   13.5%      FALSE
9/30/1979   826,519,000,000.00   7.1%   11.3%      FALSE
9/30/1978   771,544,000,000.00   10.4%   7.6%      TRUE
9/30/1977   698,840,000,000.00   12.6%   6.5%      TRUE
6/30/1976   620,433,000,000.00   16.4%   5.8%      TRUE
6/30/1975   533,189,000,000.00   12.2%   9.1%      TRUE
6/30/1974   475,059,815,731.55   3.7%   11.0%      FALSE
6/30/1973   458,141,605,312.09   7.2%   6.2%      TRUE
6/30/1972   427,260,460,940.50   7.3%   3.2%      TRUE
6/30/1971   398,129,744,455.54   7.3%   4.4%      TRUE
6/30/1970   370,918,706,949.93   4.9%   5.7%      FALSE
6/30/1969   353,720,253,841.41   1.8%   5.5%      FALSE
6/30/1968   347,578,406,425.88   6.5%   4.2%      TRUE
6/30/1967   326,220,937,794.54   2.0%   3.1%      FALSE
6/30/1966   319,907,087,795.48   0.8%   2.9%      FALSE
6/30/1965   317,273,898,983.64   1.8%   1.6%      TRUE
6/30/1964   311,712,899,257.30   1.9%   1.3%      TRUE
6/30/1963   305,859,632,996.41   2.6%   1.3%      TRUE
6/30/1962   298,200,822,720.87   3.2%   1.0%      TRUE
6/30/1961   288,970,938,610.05   0.9%   1.0%      FALSE
6/30/1960   286,330,760,848.37   0.6%   1.7%      FALSE
6/30/1959   284,705,907,078.22   3.0%   0.7%      TRUE
6/30/1958   276,343,217,745.81   2.1%   2.8%      FALSE
6/30/1957   270,527,171,896.43   -0.8%   3.3%      FALSE
6/30/1956   272,750,813,649.32   -0.6%   1.5%      FALSE
6/30/1955   274,374,222,802.62   1.1%   -0.4%      TRUE
6/30/1954   271,259,599,108.46   2.0%   0.7%      TRUE
6/30/1953   266,071,061,638.57   2.7%   0.8%      TRUE
6/30/1952   259,105,178,785.43   1.5%   1.9%      FALSE
6/29/1951   255,221,976,814.93   -0.8%   7.9%      FALSE
6/30/1950   257,357,352,351.04        1.3%

One reason that national debt is good, is because inflation eats away at it

[Jeremy E.]

Did you guys know that Hillary has 2 super pacs, 1 that supports her, and 1 that opposes her that has raised 1.25 million in their efforts to oppose her. I never knew this was a thing. As far as I can tell, no other candidate has a super pac that opposes them that has raised more than $10,000. That is crazy and I don't think it should exist.

[Kris]

Did you guys know that Hillary has 2 super pacs, 1 that supports her, and 1 that opposes her that has raised 1.25 million in their efforts to oppose her. I never knew this was a thing. As far as I can tell, no other candidate has a super pac that opposes them that has raised more than $10,000. That is crazy and I don't think it should exist.

I agree. I don't think that super-PACs should exist at all though.  I would really like it if somehow we could get drastic campaign finance reform and tighter regulation of the campaign process so that the restrictions would level the playing field. 

Elections are always held on Sundays in France. The campaigns end at midnight the Friday before the election. On election Sunday, by law, no polls can be published, no electoral publication and broadcasts can be made.  Companies, unions, and special interests are prohibited from funding favored French politicians. Attack ads are illegal, and buying airspace for political ads is, too. The formal campaign period lasts only two weeks. During that time, all the major contenders are allowed the same amount of air time, and the same amount of space for campaign posters (and even those have limits on their size and what you can put in them.)

Maybe this is a little too regulated, but my God, at this point I would kill to have that system.

[Jeremy E.]

Did you guys know that Hillary has 2 super pacs, 1 that supports her, and 1 that opposes her that has raised 1.25 million in their efforts to oppose her. I never knew this was a thing. As far as I can tell, no other candidate has a super pac that opposes them that has raised more than $10,000. That is crazy and I don't think it should exist.

I agree. I don't think that super-PACs should exist at all though.  I would really like it if somehow we could get drastic campaign finance reform and tighter regulation of the campaign process so that the restrictions would level the playing field. 

Elections are always held on Sundays in France. The campaigns end at midnight the Friday before the election. On election Sunday, by law, no polls can be published, no electoral publication and broadcasts can be made.  Companies, unions, and special interests are prohibited from funding favored French politicians. Attack ads are illegal, and buying airspace for political ads is, too. The formal campaign period lasts only two weeks. During that time, all the major contenders are allowed the same amount of air time, and the same amount of space for campaign posters (and even those have limits on their size and what you can put in them.)

Maybe this is a little too regulated, but my God, at this point I would kill to have that system.

I agree, I think that is way too regulated, and maybe 3 months or so would be better than 2 weeks, but still a better system than we have.

[Jack]

Did you guys know that Hillary has 2 super pacs, 1 that supports her, and 1 that opposes her that has raised 1.25 million in their efforts to oppose her. I never knew this was a thing. As far as I can tell, no other candidate has a super pac that opposes them that has raised more than $10,000. That is crazy and I don't think it should exist.

I agree. I don't think that super-PACs should exist at all though.  I would really like it if somehow we could get drastic campaign finance reform and tighter regulation of the campaign process so that the restrictions would level the playing field. 

Elections are always held on Sundays in France. The campaigns end at midnight the Friday before the election. On election Sunday, by law, no polls can be published, no electoral publication and broadcasts can be made.  Companies, unions, and special interests are prohibited from funding favored French politicians. Attack ads are illegal, and buying airspace for political ads is, too. The formal campaign period lasts only two weeks. During that time, all the major contenders are allowed the same amount of air time, and the same amount of space for campaign posters (and even those have limits on their size and what you can put in them.)

Maybe this is a little too regulated, but my God, at this point I would kill to have that system.

I agree, I think that is way too regulated, and maybe 3 months or so would be better than 2 weeks, but still a better system than we have.

I object to the "no attack ads" part. A politician's bad qualities are at least as important to my decision as his good qualities are. Otherwise, I mostly like it.

[Malaysia41]

I'll answer a slightly different question. The debt become more dangerous when we have politicians willing to not raise the debt ceiling to honor money we have already committed to spending. Defaulting on that debt would cause all major ratings agencies and large investors to devalue Treasury notes and our cost to borrow would go up significantly. The point being that there are two elements: the size of the debt relative to our economy and how responsible we are about fulfilling our obligations. Back to the original point of the thread, a fundamental willingness to misunderstand the debt ceiling and play with dynamite is one of the main reasons I have a deep dislike of Ted Cruz. From his own mouth: https://www.tedcruz.org/news/ted-cruz-has-been-leading-the-fight-on-the-debt-ceiling/

The debt ceiling is not the prudent place to fight that fight.

OMG that guy is nuts. Check out his Defend our Nation page.

#2: "Exert World Leadership".  Is that code for "be a bully"?

His first bullet point:

The United States of America is the exceptional nation, the nation other countries aspire to be like. We should stand as a shining beacon of what free people enjoying a free market and system of government can achieve. But while our intentions towards the rest of the world are peaceful, that does not mean we have no enemies, and the fact of the matter is our enemies are on the march.

Wow, if this isn't some 1950s era rhetoric. It's that kind of thinking that led us to meddle in the politics of so many nations. It's that kind of thinking that has contributed to the way the middle east is today. His rhetoric tells me that, as President, he'll see evil boogie men everywhere, not people doing things in response to perceived mistreatment - which - for the most part, is what leads people to fight.

Seriously, he thinks that because we're awesome, we have the right to monkey in the affairs of other nations. This guy scares me.

Okay - it's get-ready-for-the-day time, so now's not the time to get into the rest of that page. But ugh, just that one bullet point. Run away!!! Run away!!!

[Malaysia41]

More off of tedcruz.com:

... we need to judge each challenge through the simple test of what is best for America.  Because what is best for America is best for the world.

FFS. There's a name for this logical fallacy, isn't there? What be it?

[MDM]

More off of tedcruz.com:

... we need to judge each challenge through the simple test of what is best for America.  Because what is best for America is best for the world.

FFS. There's a name for this logical fallacy, isn't there? What be it?

"Local optimum" possibly fits.  But that's more mathematical than logical....

[dramaman]

Did you guys know that Hillary has 2 super pacs, 1 that supports her, and 1 that opposes her that has raised 1.25 million in their efforts to oppose her. I never knew this was a thing. As far as I can tell, no other candidate has a super pac that opposes them that has raised more than $10,000. That is crazy and I don't think it should exist.

I believe there is now a super pac that opposes trump. According to the article below it has spent 3.3 million on attack ads as well as anti-trump voting guides.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/15/super-pac-trying-stop-donald-trump-goes-attack-south-carolina/80403058/

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

Did you guys know that Hillary has 2 super pacs, 1 that supports her, and 1 that opposes her that has raised 1.25 million in their efforts to oppose her. I never knew this was a thing. As far as I can tell, no other candidate has a super pac that opposes them that has raised more than $10,000. That is crazy and I don't think it should exist.

I agree. I don't think that super-PACs should exist at all though.  I would really like it if somehow we could get drastic campaign finance reform and tighter regulation of the campaign process so that the restrictions would level the playing field. 

Elections are always held on Sundays in France. The campaigns end at midnight the Friday before the election. On election Sunday, by law, no polls can be published, no electoral publication and broadcasts can be made.  Companies, unions, and special interests are prohibited from funding favored French politicians. Attack ads are illegal, and buying airspace for political ads is, too. The formal campaign period lasts only two weeks. During that time, all the major contenders are allowed the same amount of air time, and the same amount of space for campaign posters (and even those have limits on their size and what you can put in them.)

Maybe this is a little too regulated, but my God, at this point I would kill to have that system.

France also bans burqas, as I recall, because these are the things the government can do in a country without freedom of speech. If you think laws like these would be applied equitably and fairly you haven't been paying attention.

Money can't shift a candidate from unelectable to electable. Carly Fiorina never had a chance of winning that election in California. Donald Trump didn't win New Hampshire because he spent money, he won it because, upsettingly, he is genuinely more popular than the other Republican candidates in New Hampshire.

France's National Front regularly contests elections in a serious manner. If you want to find a country with "better" campaigns than the United States, I don't think France is your go-to example.

(If you think Donald Trump is scary, check out the National Front. Holy crap!)

Always remember what Citizens United was really about: banning a movie that criticized Hillary Clinton. Always remember that laws are not enforced fairly.

[dramaman]

Did you guys know that Hillary has 2 super pacs, 1 that supports her, and 1 that opposes her that has raised 1.25 million in their efforts to oppose her. I never knew this was a thing. As far as I can tell, no other candidate has a super pac that opposes them that has raised more than $10,000. That is crazy and I don't think it should exist.

I agree. I don't think that super-PACs should exist at all though.  I would really like it if somehow we could get drastic campaign finance reform and tighter regulation of the campaign process so that the restrictions would level the playing field. 

Elections are always held on Sundays in France. The campaigns end at midnight the Friday before the election. On election Sunday, by law, no polls can be published, no electoral publication and broadcasts can be made.  Companies, unions, and special interests are prohibited from funding favored French politicians. Attack ads are illegal, and buying airspace for political ads is, too. The formal campaign period lasts only two weeks. During that time, all the major contenders are allowed the same amount of air time, and the same amount of space for campaign posters (and even those have limits on their size and what you can put in them.)

Maybe this is a little too regulated, but my God, at this point I would kill to have that system.

France also bans burqas, as I recall, because these are the things the government can do in a country without freedom of speech. If you think laws like these would be applied equitably and fairly you haven't been paying attention.

Money can't shift a candidate from unelectable to electable. Carly Fiorina never had a chance of winning that election in California. Donald Trump didn't win New Hampshire because he spent money, he won it because, upsettingly, he is genuinely more popular than the other Republican candidates in New Hampshire.

Money can have an ENORMOUS influence on smaller races. The Koch brothers network have poured tons of dollars into Republican primaries here in Kansas, effectively purging the state legislature of moderate Republicans in favor of conservatives.

[Gin1984]

Did you guys know that Hillary has 2 super pacs, 1 that supports her, and 1 that opposes her that has raised 1.25 million in their efforts to oppose her. I never knew this was a thing. As far as I can tell, no other candidate has a super pac that opposes them that has raised more than $10,000. That is crazy and I don't think it should exist.

I agree. I don't think that super-PACs should exist at all though.  I would really like it if somehow we could get drastic campaign finance reform and tighter regulation of the campaign process so that the restrictions would level the playing field. 

Elections are always held on Sundays in France. The campaigns end at midnight the Friday before the election. On election Sunday, by law, no polls can be published, no electoral publication and broadcasts can be made.  Companies, unions, and special interests are prohibited from funding favored French politicians. Attack ads are illegal, and buying airspace for political ads is, too. The formal campaign period lasts only two weeks. During that time, all the major contenders are allowed the same amount of air time, and the same amount of space for campaign posters (and even those have limits on their size and what you can put in them.)

Maybe this is a little too regulated, but my God, at this point I would kill to have that system.

France also bans burqas, as I recall, because these are the things the government can do in a country without freedom of speech. If you think laws like these would be applied equitably and fairly you haven't been paying attention.

Money can't shift a candidate from unelectable to electable. Carly Fiorina never had a chance of winning that election in California. Donald Trump didn't win New Hampshire because he spent money, he won it because, upsettingly, he is genuinely more popular than the other Republican candidates in New Hampshire.

France's National Front regularly contests elections in a serious manner. If you want to find a country with "better" campaigns than the United States, I don't think France is your go-to example.

(If you think Donald Trump is scary, check out the National Front. Holy crap!)

Always remember what Citizens United was really about: banning a movie that criticized Hillary Clinton. Always remember that laws are not enforced fairly.

That is not true.  The amount of money spend is directly correlated with elected.  That is one of the major issues with Citizen United.  And no, citizen united was about presenting that movie during a time where no pro- or anti- candidate promotions were allowed by COMPANIES.  Now we have this BS.

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

That is not true.  The amount of money spend is directly correlated with elected.  That is one of the major issues with Citizen United.  And no, citizen united was about presenting that movie during a time where no pro- or anti- candidate promotions were allowed by COMPANIES.  Now we have this BS.

What do you think the press is? Not companies, somehow?

[Gin1984]

That is not true.  The amount of money spend is directly correlated with elected.  That is one of the major issues with Citizen United.  And no, citizen united was about presenting that movie during a time where no pro- or anti- candidate promotions were allowed by COMPANIES.  Now we have this BS.

What do you think the press is? Not companies, somehow?

They should not be promoting a candidate, they should be reporting the news.  If they are promoting, they should get the same penalties.

[Jack]

More off of tedcruz.com:

... we need to judge each challenge through the simple test of what is best for America.  Because what is best for America is best for the world.

FFS. There's a name for this logical fallacy, isn't there? What be it?

"Local optimum" possibly fits.  But that's more mathematical than logical....

Fallacy of composition.

[Kris]

Did you guys know that Hillary has 2 super pacs, 1 that supports her, and 1 that opposes her that has raised 1.25 million in their efforts to oppose her. I never knew this was a thing. As far as I can tell, no other candidate has a super pac that opposes them that has raised more than $10,000. That is crazy and I don't think it should exist.

I agree. I don't think that super-PACs should exist at all though.  I would really like it if somehow we could get drastic campaign finance reform and tighter regulation of the campaign process so that the restrictions would level the playing field. 

Elections are always held on Sundays in France. The campaigns end at midnight the Friday before the election. On election Sunday, by law, no polls can be published, no electoral publication and broadcasts can be made.  Companies, unions, and special interests are prohibited from funding favored French politicians. Attack ads are illegal, and buying airspace for political ads is, too. The formal campaign period lasts only two weeks. During that time, all the major contenders are allowed the same amount of air time, and the same amount of space for campaign posters (and even those have limits on their size and what you can put in them.)

Maybe this is a little too regulated, but my God, at this point I would kill to have that system.

France also bans burqas, as I recall, because these are the things the government can do in a country without freedom of speech. If you think laws like these would be applied equitably and fairly you haven't been paying attention.

Money can't shift a candidate from unelectable to electable. Carly Fiorina never had a chance of winning that election in California. Donald Trump didn't win New Hampshire because he spent money, he won it because, upsettingly, he is genuinely more popular than the other Republican candidates in New Hampshire.

France's National Front regularly contests elections in a serious manner. If you want to find a country with "better" campaigns than the United States, I don't think France is your go-to example.

(If you think Donald Trump is scary, check out the National Front. Holy crap!)

Always remember what Citizens United was really about: banning a movie that criticized Hillary Clinton. Always remember that laws are not enforced fairly.

Please tell me what the bolded sentences have to do with France's election laws.

[dramaman]

Did you guys know that Hillary has 2 super pacs, 1 that supports her, and 1 that opposes her that has raised 1.25 million in their efforts to oppose her. I never knew this was a thing. As far as I can tell, no other candidate has a super pac that opposes them that has raised more than $10,000. That is crazy and I don't think it should exist.

I agree. I don't think that super-PACs should exist at all though.  I would really like it if somehow we could get drastic campaign finance reform and tighter regulation of the campaign process so that the restrictions would level the playing field. 

Elections are always held on Sundays in France. The campaigns end at midnight the Friday before the election. On election Sunday, by law, no polls can be published, no electoral publication and broadcasts can be made.  Companies, unions, and special interests are prohibited from funding favored French politicians. Attack ads are illegal, and buying airspace for political ads is, too. The formal campaign period lasts only two weeks. During that time, all the major contenders are allowed the same amount of air time, and the same amount of space for campaign posters (and even those have limits on their size and what you can put in them.)

Maybe this is a little too regulated, but my God, at this point I would kill to have that system.

France also bans burqas, as I recall, because these are the things the government can do in a country without freedom of speech. If you think laws like these would be applied equitably and fairly you haven't been paying attention.

Money can't shift a candidate from unelectable to electable. Carly Fiorina never had a chance of winning that election in California. Donald Trump didn't win New Hampshire because he spent money, he won it because, upsettingly, he is genuinely more popular than the other Republican candidates in New Hampshire.

France's National Front regularly contests elections in a serious manner. If you want to find a country with "better" campaigns than the United States, I don't think France is your go-to example.

(If you think Donald Trump is scary, check out the National Front. Holy crap!)

Always remember what Citizens United was really about: banning a movie that criticized Hillary Clinton. Always remember that laws are not enforced fairly.

Please tell me what the bolded sentences have to do with France's election laws.

All or Nothing Fallacy. Apparently you can't restrict political campaigns without also endangering religious and personal freedoms.

[Kris]

Did you guys know that Hillary has 2 super pacs, 1 that supports her, and 1 that opposes her that has raised 1.25 million in their efforts to oppose her. I never knew this was a thing. As far as I can tell, no other candidate has a super pac that opposes them that has raised more than $10,000. That is crazy and I don't think it should exist.

I agree. I don't think that super-PACs should exist at all though.  I would really like it if somehow we could get drastic campaign finance reform and tighter regulation of the campaign process so that the restrictions would level the playing field. 

Elections are always held on Sundays in France. The campaigns end at midnight the Friday before the election. On election Sunday, by law, no polls can be published, no electoral publication and broadcasts can be made.  Companies, unions, and special interests are prohibited from funding favored French politicians. Attack ads are illegal, and buying airspace for political ads is, too. The formal campaign period lasts only two weeks. During that time, all the major contenders are allowed the same amount of air time, and the same amount of space for campaign posters (and even those have limits on their size and what you can put in them.)

Maybe this is a little too regulated, but my God, at this point I would kill to have that system.

France also bans burqas, as I recall, because these are the things the government can do in a country without freedom of speech. If you think laws like these would be applied equitably and fairly you haven't been paying attention.

Money can't shift a candidate from unelectable to electable. Carly Fiorina never had a chance of winning that election in California. Donald Trump didn't win New Hampshire because he spent money, he won it because, upsettingly, he is genuinely more popular than the other Republican candidates in New Hampshire.

France's National Front regularly contests elections in a serious manner. If you want to find a country with "better" campaigns than the United States, I don't think France is your go-to example.

(If you think Donald Trump is scary, check out the National Front. Holy crap!)

Always remember what Citizens United was really about: banning a movie that criticized Hillary Clinton. Always remember that laws are not enforced fairly.

Please tell me what the bolded sentences have to do with France's election laws.

All or Nothing Fallacy. Apparently you can't restrict political campaigns without also endangering religious and personal freedoms.

Yup.  That's what I was thinking, as well.

It also seems to suffer from something that I like to call the 'Murica Fallacy.