I recently got banned from a different online forum for posting a thread about "political discussion". I looked in the posting history of the mod who banned me and easily found the following post in a thread about job creation:
Sure, it's simple. Just "Create more jobs". Unfortunately, that's like saying "we're broke, print more money".
Let's just say that we tell every employer to "expand your workforce by 5%". Any business with <20 people on staff, wouldn't have to since 5% wouldn't add up to a full employee. But if a company has 1,000 employees, they would be "required by law" to hire 50 new people. Would solve everything right?
Except, that would be an increase of 5% in what that company pays out in salaries and benefits, with no change in their income. So, companies that are currently operating on a very thin margin? Go out of business, cut costs (payroll? benefits?) or raise their prices. But then EVERYONE is doing that, and so if all of their suppliers and vendors are raising their costs (in order to both stay in business and keep those additional new hires that were only hired because they were made to hire them) more costs and hits are required. Everyone, employed and unemployed are then paying more for everything, even the stuff or services their employer sells.
Government doesn't and shouldn't have money to invest. It isn't just another player in the free market. It doesn't generate its own income, it offers no service and sells no product. It takes its income from its citizens and they agree to pay, but there is no pressure from its consumers to improve the quality, lower the price or is there competition to motivate a government to become a more effective provider.
The economy works best when people are willingly and eagerly exchanging their money for what others are offering (labor, goods, services). When people are uncertain, they tend to hold onto that money and do without. Telling people "just make jobs" is little different than telling an unemployed person "just get a job".
And then this one in a thread asking about whether stand your ground laws should be kept on the books:
I consider the laws that are referred to as "stand your ground" laws are simply the citizens of a state, via their legislature, further clarifying their desires/intent when it comes to the issue of self-defense when the act occurs outside of your domicile.
Whether or not the law applies to any incident and whether the actions in the incident are protected by the law, that is for a court/jury to decide.
The fact that people are being denied the ability to use the law as an affirmative defense or are being found guilty of crimes despite the existence of such laws, tells me that judges/juries have not been weakened or had their hands tied as a result of these laws.
Is it just me, or is this guy a total hypocrite? Lol.
