Thanks for posting that video. Now I defiantly know I don't want to vote for him. Some of what he says makes sense (living within our means) but I think overall he would leave our country in a worse way then it is now.

I'm guessing he wants to end the war in Afghanistan, but what does he want to do as far as defense spending goes?

oops i double posted
see post below

bring our troops home and defend our boarders


and you wouldn't have voted for him in the first place
you have made clear your beliefs are nothing like his
you are pro unconstitutional taxes and pro government subsidy stuff

here is the answer to your question
in fact your exact question is answered here

Defend our boarders against who? French Canadians? Mexicans? Alabama recently passed a strict immigration law, and now farmers don't have a workforce. They tried to get Americans to do the job, but that didn't work out. Most walked off the job on the first day.
As far as drug smuggling goes, we need to get to the root of the problem. Get into S. America and destroy the cartels etc.

there are no dire threats right now at our boarders from other countries.

the problem is we are out and about policing the world and making enemies.

just go ahead and chat with some foreign people online and see what they think of america and our foreign policies

You know why? Because opening the mailbox and getting a check from the government for doing nothing is easier. Stop that and more people will work. You cannot justify one problem with another problem. That is dumb.

I do not believe all people are like that. I believe there are people on welfare who are deadbeats, and there are people who are on welfare but hate it, hate not having a job or being able to provide for there families. The problem comes when trying to separate these two groups.

It's not like we go around fucking over good people, we mostly aid people who are the victims of natural disasters, on occasion we take out a rouge regime or dictator. Remember the Taliban or Saddam? They kinda had it coming

Well then they can go work on a farm in Alabama, I hear they are short on workers.

That would be great, seriously. But, there are more people in need of a job then there are farming jobs.

There are however lots of jobs in the ND/SD aria (Bakken Formation). People are flocking there from all over the country. I saw an interview where a business owner needs 500 truck drivers (no typo).

What if there was an incentive for businesses to register with the unemployment office if they were looking for unskilled labor, and the unemployment office was able to select unemployed people based on distance and tell the unemployed people:

"we have found a job for you, call this employer for immediate full-time work. Your unemployment benefits are immediately void until you have been employed for another 9 months, or until your new employer dismisses you for reasons not related to your job performance"

This sounds like a winning idea if we're too pussy to eliminate unemployment completely - what mistakes am I making?

Sounds like an excellent to me. The incentive would be having (hopefully) motivated employees. I can see Scott taking a shit on it though, he's not going to like having to pass new laws or anything.

The recession is the correction after the excesses stimulated by the money-printing machine. If the gov't would let the correction happen, the economy can get back on the road to recovery.

Instead the economic intervention is prolonging the recession by preventing the market corrections that are necessary.

The 1920 recession was short-lived precisely because gov't stayed out of the way.

The gov't should undo regulations if they want businesses to start hiring.
Another reason for biz not hiring is "regime uncertainty". Companies don't know how much health care is gonna cost, or the stupid "jobs bill". They can't make accurate calculations to decide if they should hire or not. So they take the safe approach and wait and see.

http://www.dollarvigilante.com/blog/...ice-state.html

http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/...#ixzz1cVjUVYHq

Third world police state?
LOL

yeah i wouldn't say third world police state but there are some good points in that article

I'd be all for passing a law that says the fed gov't in no longer allowed to be in the unemployment business.

The problem with that program is that eventually it would become exploited just like every other gov't program. Businesses would start asking for more benefits, and start only hiring people through that venue to recieve more benefits from the gov't.

It is a step in the right direction, but we need to work on removing the system of disincentivation that is the gov't. I'm seriously perplexed that it's so driven into people's mind that the only solution is the gov't taxing the rich and spreading it around. But at the same time, when businesses pick up shop and move to china they cry that the jobs are no longer here. But all they did was spread the jobs around to the truely needy.

We are living proof that the Great Society doesn't work, yet we'll continue to operate like it does, and when questioned the only reason it's not better is because we [the gov't] didn't do enough.

Okay I have a second to write about college tuition rates.

Keep this in mind: Currently for gov't run schools, the average cost is $46,000 and around $100k for private schools. The projection for 2030 is costs of $157,000 and $327,000, respectively.

In the last 40 years, total yearly spending on higher education increased from $7 billion to $170 billion a year.

In 2000, state and federal aid was around $100billion. 60% of which were gov't gaurenteed loans.


The currently solution for the problem is to futher upset the balance of the free market supply/demand and alter individual's choice by giving and loaning more.

You argue that the prices are going up because the demand -- so let's deal with that.

Say an album on itunes costs $10 to download normally. But let's say a third-party subsidy though that was too much to pay, and wanted to giv emore people better access to music, and subsidized $5 of the purchase, making an album $5 to the consumer. Demand will increase, music producers will be estatic and urge more musicians to make more albums, and sales will increase.

But then, itunes, remembering people used to pay $10 for a download, begin to raise the prices back up a little, becuase they know the consumer was still willing to pay that extra $5 for the same album. So they make downloads $11 with a $5 subsidy, then $12, then $13, then $14, then $15. So now the cost to the consumer is still the $10 they were used to, but there's an extra $5 profit from the subsidy.

But, what happens is, the consumer, got used to the lower prices, so they campaign to the third-party. They tell them that their standards of living have fallen. And of course the music producers campaign with them, because sales have started to decline a little. So everyone, consumer and producer want the thrid-party to subsidize a little more.

and the cycle beings.

So, now replace downloads, with tuition. producers with colleges. thrid-party music subsidy with gov't.

It's no different.

What happens is gov't programs mask the true costs of college for students. Grants, loans and direct subsidies lower the apparent price of education and this leads to the higher demand. The colleges ALWAYS then feel justified in increasing the cost of tuition to meet the demand and the cycle is born. Raise tuition; give out more aid; raise tuition again. wash, rinse, repeat.



Okay, I gotta do real work, I still haven't touched on how it effects choice and the issue it creates there.