Former NM Gov. Gary Johnson's CPAC Speech

[Kevin_Kennedy]

[youtube]hwmuMyjWg2U[/youtube]

Johnson is widely expected to be a candidate for President in 2012, and I'd recommend we all take a good look at him. He has a proven record of shrinking government and saving money, and he's not afraid of the veto.

 

[Oscar Wao]

Now THIS is what I call PRESIDENTIAL MATERIAL!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

He'd certainly make things more interesting if he was President. He might destroy the country, or he might end up being a hypocrite - but either way, he'll make life more interesting.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

He'd certainly make things more interesting if he was President. He might destroy the country, or he might end up being a hypocrite - but either way, he'll make life more interesting.

Or he could make things better, you forgot that option.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

He'd certainly make things more interesting if he was President. He might destroy the country, or he might end up being a hypocrite - but either way, he'll make life more interesting.

Or he could make things better, you forgot that option.

I think that would be included in "being a hypocrite", because for him to actually follow through with what he says would deal significant damage to the American economy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

He'd certainly make things more interesting if he was President. He might destroy the country, or he might end up being a hypocrite - but either way, he'll make life more interesting.

Or he could make things better, you forgot that option.

I think that would be included in "being a hypocrite", because for him to actually follow through with what he says would deal significant damage to the American economy.

Doing what you say makes you a hypocrite? As to doing damage to the economy, I would say look around. We need market reform, not more government.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Or he could make things better, you forgot that option.

I think that would be included in "being a hypocrite", because for him to actually follow through with what he says would deal significant damage to the American economy.

Doing what you say makes you a hypocrite? As to doing damage to the economy, I would say look around. We need market reform, not more government.

If he followed through with what he stands for, and cuts every government program, that would suddenly create millions of newly unemployed Americans. There's two sides to everything.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I think that would be included in "being a hypocrite", because for him to actually follow through with what he says would deal significant damage to the American economy.

Doing what you say makes you a hypocrite? As to doing damage to the economy, I would say look around. We need market reform, not more government.

If he followed through with what he stands for, and cuts every government program, that would suddenly create millions of newly unemployed Americans. There's two sides to everything.

Yeah and since government jobs are a drain on the economy that's a good thing. We need those people in the private sector, not government.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Doing what you say makes you a hypocrite? As to doing damage to the economy, I would say look around. We need market reform, not more government.

If he followed through with what he stands for, and cuts every government program, that would suddenly create millions of newly unemployed Americans. There's two sides to everything.

Yeah and since government jobs are a drain on the economy that's a good thing. We need those people in the private sector, not government.

So where will those millions of jobs in the private sector come from, when the economy is reeling from the millions of salaries that are no longer being spent?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If he followed through with what he stands for, and cuts every government program, that would suddenly create millions of newly unemployed Americans. There's two sides to everything.

Yeah and since government jobs are a drain on the economy that's a good thing. We need those people in the private sector, not government.

So where will those millions of jobs in the private sector come from, when the economy is reeling from the millions of salaries that are no longer being spent?

The market needs to be allowed to readjust. If not for the government delaying the recovery with all their nonsense we'd likely be out of the recession already. Regardless, government jobs are a drain on the economy.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Bingo Kevin , never knew a Kennedy could be right in this day and age.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Bingo Kevin , never knew a Kennedy could be right in this day and age.

Well there was also this Kennedy.

Joe Kennedy for Senate

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yeah and since government jobs are a drain on the economy that's a good thing. We need those people in the private sector, not government.

So where will those millions of jobs in the private sector come from, when the economy is reeling from the millions of salaries that are no longer being spent?

The market needs to be allowed to readjust. If not for the government delaying the recovery with all their nonsense we'd likely be out of the recession already. Regardless, government jobs are a drain on the economy.

So, you're saying that the way to get out of this recession, with it's double-digit unemployment, is to remove a few million more jobs and a few billion more dollars from our economy?

This is why idealism doesn't stand up in the real world. You can't remove "government waste" without dealing what would almost certainly be completely destructive blow to the economy - at this point, a large portion of our economy is based on government jobs. Saying "the market needs to be allowed to readjust" means that millions of people will lose their jobs directly, and millions more will lose their jobs due to the lack of money from their paychecks. Unless by "readjust" you mean millions dying of starvation.

Same thing goes for the "military industrial complex".

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So where will those millions of jobs in the private sector come from, when the economy is reeling from the millions of salaries that are no longer being spent?

The market needs to be allowed to readjust. If not for the government delaying the recovery with all their nonsense we'd likely be out of the recession already. Regardless, government jobs are a drain on the economy.

So, you're saying that the way to get out of this recession, with it's double-digit unemployment, is to remove a few million more jobs and a few billion more dollars from our economy?

This is why idealism doesn't stand up in the real world. You can't remove "government waste" without dealing what would almost certainly be completely destructive blow to the economy - at this point, a large portion of our economy is based on government jobs. Saying "the market needs to be allowed to readjust" means that millions of people will lose their jobs directly, and millions more will lose their jobs due to the lack of money from their paychecks. Unless by "readjust" you mean millions dying of starvation.

Same thing goes for the "military industrial complex".

So what's the answer? More stimulus to prolong the agony even further and set us up for another bust down the road?

What I'm saying is quit draining the economy with government jobs, cut taxes, and let the market reallocate resources as it needs to do. It's going to be rough, but it has to happen. The laws of economics don't change just because we really really hope they will.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The market needs to be allowed to readjust. If not for the government delaying the recovery with all their nonsense we'd likely be out of the recession already. Regardless, government jobs are a drain on the economy.

So, you're saying that the way to get out of this recession, with it's double-digit unemployment, is to remove a few million more jobs and a few billion more dollars from our economy?

This is why idealism doesn't stand up in the real world. You can't remove "government waste" without dealing what would almost certainly be completely destructive blow to the economy - at this point, a large portion of our economy is based on government jobs. Saying "the market needs to be allowed to readjust" means that millions of people will lose their jobs directly, and millions more will lose their jobs due to the lack of money from their paychecks. Unless by "readjust" you mean millions dying of starvation.

Same thing goes for the "military industrial complex".

So what's the answer? More stimulus to prolong the agony even further and set us up for another bust down the road?

What I'm saying is quit draining the economy with government jobs, cut taxes, and let the market reallocate resources as it needs to do. It's going to be rough, but it has to happen. The laws of economics don't change just because we really really hope they will.

I don't know the answer, I never claimed to. And there are no absolute "laws" of economics. It's just a matter of which economists you agree with. Economics is like predicting the weather - a butterfly flapping its wings in Africa can effect a tornado in Kansas, and the number of variables in the equation make it completely impossible to speak about, except in ideologies. The economy works the same way - the "science" of economics is as fluid as the "science" of meteorology, and the more you know about it, the less you realize you actually know.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So, you're saying that the way to get out of this recession, with it's double-digit unemployment, is to remove a few million more jobs and a few billion more dollars from our economy?

This is why idealism doesn't stand up in the real world. You can't remove "government waste" without dealing what would almost certainly be completely destructive blow to the economy - at this point, a large portion of our economy is based on government jobs. Saying "the market needs to be allowed to readjust" means that millions of people will lose their jobs directly, and millions more will lose their jobs due to the lack of money from their paychecks. Unless by "readjust" you mean millions dying of starvation.

Same thing goes for the "military industrial complex".

So what's the answer? More stimulus to prolong the agony even further and set us up for another bust down the road?

What I'm saying is quit draining the economy with government jobs, cut taxes, and let the market reallocate resources as it needs to do. It's going to be rough, but it has to happen. The laws of economics don't change just because we really really hope they will.

I don't know the answer, I never claimed to. And there are no absolute "laws" of economics. It's just a matter of which economists you agree with. Economics is like predicting the weather - a butterfly flapping its wings in Africa can effect a tornado in Kansas, and the number of variables in the equation make it completely impossible to speak about, except in ideologies. The economy works the same way - the "science" of economics is as fluid as the "science" of meteorology, and the more you know about it, the less you realize you actually know.

Of course there are laws of economics. It's just that Keynesians and other statists try to subvert those laws. Eventually, however, the piper must be paid. We're seeing that now, and if these policies continue we'll be seeing it for a long time.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So what's the answer? More stimulus to prolong the agony even further and set us up for another bust down the road?

What I'm saying is quit draining the economy with government jobs, cut taxes, and let the market reallocate resources as it needs to do. It's going to be rough, but it has to happen. The laws of economics don't change just because we really really hope they will.

I don't know the answer, I never claimed to. And there are no absolute "laws" of economics. It's just a matter of which economists you agree with. Economics is like predicting the weather - a butterfly flapping its wings in Africa can effect a tornado in Kansas, and the number of variables in the equation make it completely impossible to speak about, except in ideologies. The economy works the same way - the "science" of economics is as fluid as the "science" of meteorology, and the more you know about it, the less you realize you actually know.

Of course there are laws of economics. It's just that Keynesians and other statists try to subvert those laws. Eventually, however, the piper must be paid. We're seeing that now, and if these policies continue we'll be seeing it for a long time.

I could name a few Nobel prize for economics winners who would disagree with you.

"Laws", by definition are universally agreed on. Economics includes nothing like that.

 

[VaYank5150]

Or he could make things better, you forgot that option.

I think that would be included in "being a hypocrite", because for him to actually follow through with what he says would deal significant damage to the American economy.

Doing what you say makes you a hypocrite? As to doing damage to the economy, I would say look around. We need market reform, not more government.

I'll play....just WHO do you think should lead this market reform, if not government? You aren't suggesting letting these greedy bastards reform themselves are you? No one is that stupid, right?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't know the answer, I never claimed to. And there are no absolute "laws" of economics. It's just a matter of which economists you agree with. Economics is like predicting the weather - a butterfly flapping its wings in Africa can effect a tornado in Kansas, and the number of variables in the equation make it completely impossible to speak about, except in ideologies. The economy works the same way - the "science" of economics is as fluid as the "science" of meteorology, and the more you know about it, the less you realize you actually know.

Of course there are laws of economics. It's just that Keynesians and other statists try to subvert those laws. Eventually, however, the piper must be paid. We're seeing that now, and if these policies continue we'll be seeing it for a long time.

I could name a few Nobel prize for economics winners who would disagree with you.

"Laws", by definition are universally agreed on. Economics includes nothing like that.

I could name a few that agree.

No, laws are simple facts whether they're agreed upon or not.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I think that would be included in "being a hypocrite", because for him to actually follow through with what he says would deal significant damage to the American economy.

Doing what you say makes you a hypocrite? As to doing damage to the economy, I would say look around. We need market reform, not more government.

I'll play....just WHO do you think should lead this market reform, if not government? You aren't suggesting letting these greedy bastards reform themselves are you? No one is that stupid, right?

The market will do it on its own, nobody has to "lead" it. In fact, trying to "lead" the market is what got us into this mess in the first place.