Romney vs Gingrich

[SmartyPants]

Let me be clear. 13% of the Norwegian population receives disability benefits, while it is extremely unlikely that 13% are actually disabled.  Bear wrestling would have to be the country's national sport for them to have that many disabled people.  Since a large amount of people are receiving disablity benefits without being disabled, it means that a large chunk of the population is abusing the welfare system to get money from the government that they didn't work for.  This is evidence that welfare states create generations of dependents who, instead of working, rely solely upon the state for income.

[ArtDrake]

You appear to have made a series of fallacious assumptions.

First, that the Norwegian government considers only what the American government considers disability as such.

Second, that disabled persons do not work. If this is the case, please be clearer.

Third, that the disability benefits would be in any way creating new dependents. Higher education is free in Norway at public universities, and the ability to draw a small income supplement, if one were to abuse the system, from the government would hardly justify not obtaining a degree or other mark of education or skill in craft.

[CraigStern]

I take it you're getting the 13% figure from this report? You should probably mention this part as well:

Compared with other countries Norway has very high labour force participation rates, especially among older people.

"[V]ery high labour force participation rates" means that a "very high" percentage of potential workers work for a living. That doesn't exactly sound like a country that has raised a generation of dependents.

[SmartyPants]

You appear to have made a series of fallacious assumptions.

If you actually believe 13% of Norwegians are disabled, then you are either extremely naive or you are too stubborn to use logic to figure that it is very, very unlikely that more then 1 out of 10 in Norway are disabled.  If you look at your facebook friends list or your year book, the number of disabled people won't be even close to 1 out of 10.

"[V]ery high labour force participation rates" means that a "very high" percentage of potential workers work for a living. That doesn't exactly sound like a country that has raised a generation of dependents.

Cuba also has a high employment rate.  The welfare states tend to overpay people for doing very little work.  By fraudulently claiming to be disabled, Norwegians to get paid more and retire earlier without having do any more work.  Frankly, the welfare system encourages people to ask for hand outs instead of working harder.  In a welfare state, one could earn more money through hard work and have the government take more then half of it away in taxes, or one could pretend to be disabled and have the government give one money without having to work harder.

[ArtDrake]

He also said, "especially among older people." By ignoring that, your point about early retirement stands.

[SmartyPants]

Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, and Bill Clinton were all Democratic presidents who couldn't keep it their pants.  I think we need a Herman Cain or a Newt Gingrich as president, so Republicans can also have a president with a sexual scandal. 

Now all sillyness aside:
Perry- I did like Perry because of the way he ran the state of Texas.  In Texas, he helped businesses by staying out of their way, yet his presidental platform is about making drastic changes.  Businesses want predictable economic conditions, so their actions become less risky.  Also, he is too preachy for someone who has constant contact with the press.

Gingrich- He seems plenty qualified, but I just don't like him.  He is the stereotype sleazy politician who sleeps around and takes money from lobbyist.

Romney- I like do like Romney's business expertise.  Unlike Obama, Romney knows that predictable economic conditions help business expand and grow.  Business won't hire new workers unless they know there won't be a new tax or new regulation that negatively affects their business module.

[Deagonx]

What about Rick Santorum?

[SmartyPants]

I don't much about Rick Santorum.  All I know about him is that he is an extreme social conservative who is against gay marriage, abortions, and contraceptives.  I also know that he pissed off homosexuals enough to make "Santorum" a dirty world.

[CraigStern]

Romney- I like do like Romney's business expertise.  Unlike Obama, Romney knows that predictable economic conditions help business expand and grow.  Business won't hire new workers unless they know there won't be a new tax or new regulation that negatively affects their business module.

Oof--Romney really thinks regulations are the major cause for the poor job market? If anything, that's a strike against his alleged knowledge of economics. Only about 1 in 4 economists believe that explanation. A strong majority of economists see lack of consumer demand as the driving force behind weak hiring, and a Treasury Department study supports them in that conclusion.

[Deagonx]

I don't much about Rick Santorum.  All I know about him is that he is an extreme social conservative who is against gay marriage, abortions, and contraceptives.  I also know that he pissed off homosexuals enough to make "Santorum" a dirty world.

If you are on a computer, type into google "Rick Santorum" and it shows the Results for Iowa Republican Caucus and Rick Santorum is second with 24.5 where as Mitt Romney (Number One) is 24.6.

I personally don't know if that is important or even relevant, but I thought you should know.

[SmartyPants]

I like to point out that politicians don't have to be right to win the people trust and vote.  Back in 2008, Obama promised that his stimulus plan would save the economy and people believed him at the time.  Now people see the stimulus bill as failing to rein in unemployment and increasing the deficit by a trillion dollars.  Obama's current economic plan is more stimus spending, because his administration believes that the first stimulus bill wasn't big enough and it wasn't spent in the correct places.  Based on how quickly the American Jobs Act failed, people no longer trust his economic plan.  Romney is going to win by pointing out that Obamacare makes hiring more expensive, the Dodd-Frank Act makes it harder for small business to get loans, and the increase in deficit spending hurts consumer confidence bases debt on to the next generation.

Everyone agrees that consumer demand is the main reason for weak hiring.  In a free market, there really isn't anything a president can do to increase consumer demand, yet the President can increase consumer confidence by improving the economic conditions in which people do business.  Obama's antibusiness rhetoric hurts consumer confidence, while Romney's probuiness rhetoric should help consumer confidence.

If you are on a computer, type into google "Rick Santorum" and it shows the Results for Iowa Republican Caucus and Rick Santorum is second with 24.5 where as Mitt Romney (Number One) is 24.6.

I wouldn't take the Iowa Caucus too serius, because Rick Santorum hasn't been under scrutiny by the media or his opponents yet.  Republican voters are about 40% moderate and 60% conservative.  The majority of moderate republicans want Romney, while most conservative republicans want anyone who isn't Romney.  The conservative vote supported Bachmann then Perry then Cain then Gingrich, and now Santorum.  They all support the candidate who is more conservative then Romney, but then look for a new canidate after they see that the conservative canidate is unqualified to be president.  After people realizes all of the unethical things that Santorum has done, they look for a new canidate and they will find that only Romney and Paul are left.

[CraigStern]

Everyone agrees that consumer demand is the main reason for weak hiring.  In a free market, there really isn't anything a president can do to increase consumer demand

I agree with your first point, but not your second. Anything the president does (not just Obama--I mean any president) that increases consumers' discretionary income is going to boost demand, particularly if it's done for lower-income people. Low-income workers and the unemployed tend to have less money coming in than they need to spend in order to survive and pay off debts: thus, any boost in their income is going to be spent pretty much immediately, and in the private sector.

[SmartyPants]

Anything the president does (not just Obama--I mean any president) that increases consumers' discretionary income is going to boost demand.

That means that Republicans would be better for the economy, because they believe in tax cuts, while Democrats want higher taxes, so they spend more on big government.

[ArtDrake]

Hmm.... that sounds logical...

but Democrats believe in tax cuts, too -- when we don't have a whole load of national debt, and not for the rich.

[SmartyPants]

When have Democrats every cared about national debt?  They may claim that reducing the national debt is important to them, but they never do anything about it.  The Democratic Congress passed a trillion dollar spending bill without paying for it, and then Obama proposed another massive dollar spending without any way to pay for it.