Former NM Gov. Gary Johnson's CPAC Speech

[theDoctorisIn]

The sooner they get off the government rolls and into the private market the better. But it would be a case by case basis I assume.

I'd love to see a proposal that would explain how to do that without damaging the economy drastically in the short run.

The government not spending our money is a good thing.

Except to the people that rely on a government paycheck to pay the bills - All 8 million of them. And the people who rely on the 35 billion dollars that those 8 million make.

Removing money from the economy will not make it stronger.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'd love to see a proposal that would explain how to do that without damaging the economy drastically in the short run.

The government not spending our money is a good thing.

Except to the people that rely on a government paycheck to pay the bills - All 8 million of them. And the people who rely on the 35 billion dollars that those 8 million make.

Removing money from the economy will not make it stronger.

It doesn't remove money from the economy for the government to stop spending and cut taxes.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The government not spending our money is a good thing.

Except to the people that rely on a government paycheck to pay the bills - All 8 million of them. And the people who rely on the 35 billion dollars that those 8 million make.

Removing money from the economy will not make it stronger.

It doesn't remove money from the economy for the government to stop spending and cut taxes.

Yes, it does. As I'm sure you know, the government spends much more money than it gets in taxes each year. That debt is money that will be REMOVED from our economy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Except to the people that rely on a government paycheck to pay the bills - All 8 million of them. And the people who rely on the 35 billion dollars that those 8 million make.

Removing money from the economy will not make it stronger.

It doesn't remove money from the economy for the government to stop spending and cut taxes.

Yes, it does. As I'm sure you know, the government spends much more money than it gets in taxes each year. That debt is money that will be REMOVED from our economy.

Less debt is a bad thing? No. We need less debt and more saving in this country.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It doesn't remove money from the economy for the government to stop spending and cut taxes.

Yes, it does. As I'm sure you know, the government spends much more money than it gets in taxes each year. That debt is money that will be REMOVED from our economy.

Less debt is a bad thing? No. We need less debt and more saving in this country.

I didn't say that less debt is a bad thing.

As I already say, I don't have any answers. But your answers cause too many problems in the short run for them to be viable.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, it does. As I'm sure you know, the government spends much more money than it gets in taxes each year. That debt is money that will be REMOVED from our economy.

Less debt is a bad thing? No. We need less debt and more saving in this country.

I didn't say that less debt is a bad thing.

As I already say, I don't have any answers. But your answers cause too many problems in the short run for them to be viable.

You say you don't have any answers, but you keep bringing up the paradox of thrift as if it were the gospel. It's not. Government spending is detrimental to the economy, especially if they don't actually have the money for it. Letting people keep more of their own money would be a real stimulus for the economy.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Less debt is a bad thing? No. We need less debt and more saving in this country.

I didn't say that less debt is a bad thing.

As I already say, I don't have any answers. But your answers cause too many problems in the short run for them to be viable.

You say you don't have any answers, but you keep bringing up the paradox of thrift as if it were the gospel. It's not. Government spending is detrimental to the economy, especially if they don't actually have the money for it. Letting people keep more of their own money would be a real stimulus for the economy.

And you keep repeating the same talking points, without explaining a way to solve the problem of another 8 million unemployed at the drop of a hat.

You're over-simplifying perhaps the most complicated situation in the history of the human race.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I didn't say that less debt is a bad thing.

As I already say, I don't have any answers. But your answers cause too many problems in the short run for them to be viable.

You say you don't have any answers, but you keep bringing up the paradox of thrift as if it were the gospel. It's not. Government spending is detrimental to the economy, especially if they don't actually have the money for it. Letting people keep more of their own money would be a real stimulus for the economy.

And you keep repeating the same talking points, without explaining a way to solve the problem of another 8 million unemployed at the drop of a hat.

You're over-simplifying perhaps the most complicated situation in the history of the human race.

Everyone benefits the earlier the recession ends. What I'm proposing would cause that to happen.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You say you don't have any answers, but you keep bringing up the paradox of thrift as if it were the gospel. It's not. Government spending is detrimental to the economy, especially if they don't actually have the money for it. Letting people keep more of their own money would be a real stimulus for the economy.

And you keep repeating the same talking points, without explaining a way to solve the problem of another 8 million unemployed at the drop of a hat.

You're over-simplifying perhaps the most complicated situation in the history of the human race.

Everyone benefits the earlier the recession ends. What I'm proposing would cause that to happen.

That is your opinion of what would happen. I'm not convinced - and neither are quite a large number of economists.

You still haven't given me an answer - what about those people who lose their jobs?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And you keep repeating the same talking points, without explaining a way to solve the problem of another 8 million unemployed at the drop of a hat.

You're over-simplifying perhaps the most complicated situation in the history of the human race.

Everyone benefits the earlier the recession ends. What I'm proposing would cause that to happen.

That is your opinion of what would happen. I'm not convinced - and neither are quite a large number of economists.

You still haven't given me an answer - what about those people who lose their jobs?

Neither are quite a large number of economists, who weren't convinced there would be a crash in the first place. Quite frankly, I'm not convinced that they know what they're talking about.

I believe I've mentioned that they would be in for hard times, but I also mentioned the sooner the recession ends the better for everyone. Everyone includes them. Regardless of how much it hurts them to lose their government job, it would benefit the economy as a whole if they did. They could then seek work in a more productive private sector job. It doesn't help the economy for the government to continually rob the American people to pay bureaucrats.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

While I agree with you that the OPINIONS of the Hateists are not economic laws, I disagree that there are no economic laws.

My favorite economic law, which unfortunately no government obeys, is David Ricardo's "The Law of Comparative Advantage." Properly expressed it is unassailable.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Except to the people that rely on a government paycheck to pay the bills - All 8 million of them. And the people who rely on the 35 billion dollars that those 8 million make.

Removing money from the economy will not make it stronger.

It doesn't remove money from the economy for the government to stop spending and cut taxes.

Yes, it does. As I'm sure you know, the government spends much more money than it gets in taxes each year. That debt is money that will be REMOVED from our economy.

Not borrowing money to pay bureaucrats is good thing the children .How can you be against the children?