Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Worst Economist Ever Analyzes Obama's Economy" video.

There is a point there, government spending doesn't help. We use to have low government spending until the 1920s. Look at the history of this country. We have seen recessions, but everyone one of them lasted around 5 years or less except for 2. All the times, except for the 2 long ones, had limited federal government involvement to "fix" the economy. In 1929 we saw massive spending, taxes and regulations. It lead to a double dip recession because first recovery was artificial. Just pumping money into the system doesn't help if there is no wealth creation. Now in 2007 we have seen the same thing. The recession stopped, but we didn't see a spike in growth to catch us back up. Jobs don't mean anything if we don't create wealth. There has been job growth but what about growth of wealth? Kyle had a shallow analysis of the economic situation as usual. It wouldn't Kyle to pick up an economics book at some point.
1
James Dagnan I have a solution. The solution is to go back to the way this country was designed, limited federal government and more state rights. The federal government is there to deal with foreign affairs, deal with any commerce between states, and enforce the constitution on the states and local governments. The states were to deal with domestic policies and enforce the constitution on the federal government. It was a checks and balance of powers. No one entity was to gain too much power and we were to have a government that represented us the strongest way possible.
1
James Dagnan There are methods to change laws and settle disputes. Take gay marriage. If a state government is going to get involved in marriage than they can't discriminate based on the 14th amendment unless it creates a constitutional amendment at the state level then you have the difference between a law and an amendment. But there is restriction on what the states can do based on the constitution. What you said at the end is the problem. You feel that states are ran by idiots, thus you should enforce a federal law to get them to confirm to your ideas. That is fascism. Why should you have any say in what goes on in another state that you probably never have been too? Because you are not an idiot? So should we make you the almighty ruler? Should we bow down to you? I imagine you would hate it if another citizen from another state felt you were an idiot and forced you to live by their standards.
1
James Dagnan You have freedom of religion, the government can't discriminate against religion but individual people can. If the government recognizes marriage by law than they have to recognize all religion. If they don't than fine. We can still have marriage. People can get married in their church, the government just won't recognize it and give out special benefits. You need to understand that religious freedom means the government can't effect your religion. There is also not one single good reason to even have a min. wage.
1
James Dagnan If the local government doesn't want to recognize marriage than they don't have too. They can still get married, the law won't recognize it along with all other marriages. It isn't about religion at that point, religion actually has nothing to do with it, it is about the 14th amendment. The min. wage is kind of needed? You are paid based on the market rate, not to make a living. It is up to you to make a living. If you are not making enough than either find a way to earn more or cut expenses. Rent can be cheap if you have roommates. There are ways to save on gas and electricity and food. Do you think I enjoy eating ramen noodles and mac and cheese? No, but I do it to save money. Like I also walk to work to save gas. And what is "decent" entertainment? Going to the movies? Or watching Netflix? Or reading a book which costs almost nothing? There are different levels of entertainment.
1