Arizona's New Immigration Law

[CRedskinsRule]

I am not trying to sell you on anything. You have consistently demonstrated that you have a lot of ideology, and very little knowledge of the economic principles you talk about. I have no expectation that you would begin to understand how the United States economy was shaped from the beginning till now, and certainly wouldn't expect you to think outside of your framework mentality.

[joethiesmanfan]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I am not trying to sell you on anything. You have consistently demonstrated that you have a lot of ideology, and very little knowledge of the economic principles you talk about. I have no expectation that you would begin to understand how the United States economy was shaped from the beginning till now, and certainly wouldn't expect you to think outside of your framework mentality.

You spout theories as if they are proven facts. People in this thread consistently say we are not a free market economy, why change to something new (free market theory)? You act like what you are talking about has been going on for some time when in fact it has never been done before. Ask Sammy.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by joethiesmanfan

You spout theories as if they are proven facts. People in this thread consistently say we are not a free market economy, why change to something new (free market theory)? You act like what you are talking about has been going on for some time when in fact it has never been done before. Ask Sammy.

I honestly don't understand what you are saying. Many States already have some form of a balanced budget requirement. When I lived in Colo. every election there would be votes on allowing out of balance amendments and some would pass, some would fail, but it brought a level of accountability to the government. I didn't talk about free market theory - but a freeer market economy isn't something brand new either.

[joethiesmanfan]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I honestly don't understand what you are saying. Many States already have some form of a balanced budget requirement. When I lived in Colo. every election there would be votes on allowing out of balance amendments and some would pass, some would fail, but it brought a level of accountability to the government. I didn't talk about free market theory - but a freeer market economy isn't something brand new either.

OKAY! let's balance the budget, then Obama can't do any of his agenda. Would that make you happy? Or is that the real reason you worrying about spending money?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by joethiesmanfan

OKAY! let's balance the budget, then Obama can't do any of his agenda. Would that make you happy? Or is that the real reason you worrying about spending money?

Well, I was saying it when the Republicans were in office too, so I don't think it is an agenda driven concern for me.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by joethiesmanfan

OKAY! let's balance the budget, then Obama can't do any of his agenda. Would that make you happy? Or is that the real reason you worrying about spending money?

It would make me very happy

That being said, a balanced budget is a major positive (and a should be a requirement) no matter who occupies the WH.

[joethiesmanfan]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I honestly don't understand what you are saying. Many States already have some form of a balanced budget requirement. When I lived in Colo. every election there would be votes on allowing out of balance amendments and some would pass, some would fail, but it brought a level of accountability to the government. I didn't talk about free market theory - but a freeer market economy isn't something brand new either.

OKAY! let's balance the budget, then Obama can't do any of his agenda. Would that make you happy? Or is that the real reason you worrying about spending money? Wasn't concerned about 300 billion dollar no bid Halliburton contracts were you? But if the Amercian people get anything your're outraged right? Be for real, Bush messed up, but that's not gonna stop anything.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by joethiesmanfan

OKAY! let's balance the budget, then Obama can't do any of his agenda. Would that make you happy? Or is that the real reason you worrying about spending money? Wasn't concerned about 300 billion dollar no bid Halliburton contracts were you? But if the Amercian people get anything your're outraged right? Be for real, Bush messed up, but that's not gonna stop anything.

Back to you sticking in the framework of your mind. Don't falsely accuse me of beliefs you think I hold. The Republican machine has it's own money sluts and all of them on BOTH sides need to be pulled away from the drunken sailor that is the Federal budget right now. But as long as curmudgeons like you stick in the framework that all that is of one nature is wrong, the sailor will continue to work us all over in order to pay for his sluts.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by joethiesmanfan

You spout theories as if they are proven facts. People in this thread consistently say we are not a free market economy, why change to something new (free market theory)? You act like what you are talking about has been going on for some time when in fact it has never been done before. Ask Sammy.

Huh, what'd I say again?

[joethiesmanfan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Huh, what'd I say again?

Amercia has never been a free market economy. Implying if we tried a free market economy it would be something new. In my words a risky experiment.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by joethiesmanfan

Amercia has never been a free market economy. Implying if we tried a free market economy it would be something new. In my words a risky experiment.

There will always be a need for limited gov't regulation of companies/corps./businesses or they can and will act in strictly their own economic interests (to the detriment of the people), so our economy is not a pure free-market economy.

That being said, much of what our gov't calls "regulation" is really social engineering and should be removed. When it is, the free-market flourishes and powers the economy. To be clear, I'm a free-market supporter, with limited gov't regulation to protect the consumer/employees/environment.

[saden1]

+1 for closing this thread.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

AZ strikes back at LA (lights out, especially with summer coming, not good)

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...arizonapdf.pdf

[joethiesmanfan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

AZ strikes back at LA (lights out, especially with summer coming, not good)

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...arizonapdf.pdf

AZ is crazy for real. They say all this stuff and want all this attention. That would be like boycotting themselves. I am sure LA does not get power for free from AZ. LA has alot of people. Sounds like a nice wad of cash AZ would be throwing away. Boycotting themsleves. Now if they were providing something for free to LA and then take it away or had an alternative to them then this would work.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by joethiesmanfan

AZ is crazy for real. They say all this stuff and want all this attention. That would be like boycotting themselves. I am sure LA does not get power for free from AZ. LA has alot of people. Sounds like a nice wad of cash AZ would be throwing away. Boycotting themsleves. Now if they were providing something for free to LA and then take it away or had an alternative to them then this would work.

Actually, the power would be purchased by someone else. There's always demand for power. AZ would probably come out ahead in the deal as they most likely (don't know for sure) negotiated a long term rate with LA at a discounted price. LA would be the big loser as they would have to go out on the open market again and pay higher rates for the same power....and it would likely be coming from a more distant source (higher transmission costs). I'm sure all the folks the LA politicians were trying to appease aren't going to be too happy with higher power bills each month.