Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day

Hahaha...I'm pretty sure most Chicanos have more important things to worry about than attacking gays who decide to get married.

Look at California. There are plenty of Mexicans and plenty of gay people there, yet I haven't seen any lynchings.

Yeah that's partly what happened with blacks in California with prop 8. So how about we hold off on this plan until we get a supreme court decision that guarantees gays the right to marry. Sound good?

This is the first one of your debates I have agreed with Joe. You've stumbled upon a great idea. I have one addition though:

Since illegals apparently hate Mexico (they'd do anything to leave after all), we should get more Mexicans in the U.S. Now all we have to do is find a large number of Mexicans who want to live in the U.S. Any ideas where we could find that Señor?

Yeah...I guess I keep making the mistake of arguing against you seriously. You'd think I'd learn after 2 years.

You are looking at this at way too small a scale Joe.

More people means that you can produce more. Maybe in the short term a large influx of people could lead to some extra unemployment, but eventually the economy will return to it's long run equilibrium and natural unemployment.

The unemployment rate is a lagging indicator of the economy. In other words the economy will have to be doing well for about a year before jobs catch up.

The 13 trillion dollar debt (not deficit, the deficit is about 1 trillion) is a big issue, however it can't be addressed until we get the economy back on track. Who you should be blaming for the debt are those presidents that continued to run a deficit when our economy was expanding. Clinton did it right: he ran a surplus when we were doing well. There was an initial, relatively small downturn within the first year of his presidency, but after the economy recovered he should have begun running a surplus. What did he do? Continued running a deficit, exacerbating the situation and fucking us over now that we are both in a recession and have a tremendous debt.

I would be happy to debate you on any number of topics, go ahead and pick one. You are generalizing far too much. There are illogical liberals and logical ones, just as there are illogical conservatives and logical ones. Basing someone's intelligence on political views is...well, illogical I guess.

There is always about 5-6% of natural unemployment because of both frictional and structural unemployment, however the additional unemployment we are currently facing is because of business cycles. What Obama and other Democrats have tried to do is use expansionary fiscal policies to get us out of this recession quickly. This entails running a budget deficit: or in other words increased spending and lower taxes.

Although you might find welfare payments unfair, they do help to stimulate the economy by giving money to people who will likely spend all of it (when you're on welfare you don't have any room to save). The advantage to policies like progressive income tax and unemployment benefits is that it is an automatic way to work against business cycles. During times when the economy is doing poorly more people get unemployment benefits and less people are in the high tax brackets, meaning that the government is automatically expanding the economy. During times when the economy is expanding, less people need unemployment and more people are in the upper tax brackets, meaning that the government has automatically started running contractionary policies. In short: the government runs a deficit when the economy is doing poorly and a surplus when it is doing well....and that's what we are doing.

Your economics logic sucks. If more people meant less good jobs, then right now we'd be the poorest people on earth. More people means we produce more. How much the jobs pay is determined mostly by the amount produced.

More people, means more being produced means more real wealth, but about the same wealth per capita.

I could go on about other inconsistencies but I think at this point we know who's really illogical.

Classical micro-economics yes, however, before the 1930's no one really attempted to explain macro-economics basically at all. I'm not saying age has anything to do with its accuracy, I was just pointing out that these aren't new ideas.