He would suddenly no longer be fiscally conservative as soon as he had the presidency.

Mitt Romney is leading the polls, and Trump is only popular because the rest of the Republican lineup is a joke.

Gary Johnson seems to be changing that.

wait... this thread isn't about Donald Trump?

Saving money has nothing to do with their wealth. For a city their size, every comparable city spends about $50 million USD to operate. Sandy Springs spends $25 million USD for the same type of services. Interestingly enough, their city is run by an economist:

Their wealth was the reason they became incorporated. I wonder where they get that $50M for comparable cities statistic from anyway, it's just kind of used off-hand.

I stoped the video,when he said he was in favor to legalize pot. So that's why you like him,OP.

Privitzing everything is bad, really bad.  A simple economic understanding of private vs public goods is all that is needed to avoid market failure:

http://www.economist.com/research/economics/alphabetic.cfm?letter=P&CFID=169185808&CFTOKEN=13970679#publicgoods

Even though 'privitzing everything' is a bad idea for the future, in the short term a large profit is made from selling.  Fundamentally its the same mentality of other types of politician who run up debt, no conern for the future in favor of short term gratification.  For instance, the mayor of my town privitized the public water supply; it was sold for millions of dollars so it helped the books at the time, but now the city has lot a major source of revenue and water prices increased 50% in the first two years.

No, I like him because like unlike every other GOP candidate, he has a proven track record of reducing the size of government. The next president will be forced to either significantly reduce the size of government, or default on the debt. I would prefer a candidate that has a no-compromise stance on taking care of business.

As for the marijuana issue - I do not smoke it, and never will. I dislike it as much as I do other addictive, harmful substances. However, I know that making it illegal is doing more harm than good to America. Much like when we banned alcohol, making things illegal provides power to gangs, mobs, and cartels as an additional source of revenue to grow their empires. Taking it away from the black market would not only save us $200 billion USD a year in state and federal expenses (as well as revenues), but it would seriously jeopardize the cartels in Mexico which have butchered tens of thousands of people in a brutal control for the country.

You can find the data for city budgets for most comparable cities.

Here are a few examples from Washington:

http://www.scfem.com/proof/CityBudgets.asp

In Ohio, I found a few links for cities' budgets of similar size. For example, Dayton spends about $150 million USD/yr for a city that is about 140,000 people. Springfield, which has about 60,000 people and 133,000 in the metro area spends about $40 million a year. So it would seem their estimate of $50m is very reasonable, if not low.

If you want to compare apples to apples, you can easily find the budget for other cities within the Atlanta metro area of similar size and affluence. Marietta, Georgia is very close to it and has a population smaller than that of Sandy Springs (about 30,000 less), and spends approximately $69 million USD per year not including power and water. You can find Marietta's entire budget online at: http://www.mariettaga.gov/departments/finance/budget/docs/BudgetBook2011.pdf

The core question is how much of what most governments produce are "public goods" and how much is "social engineering" or "bureaucratic busywork"? From what I have seen most of what the government provides today is "social engineering" or "bureaucratic busywork", and even the "public goods" they do actually deliver tend to be full of "social engineering" and "bureaucratic busywork" ...

Privatization (often) eliminates these wasteful and pointless activities, but it is not (necessarily) the only way to do so. If there was the political will to do so, you could probably achieve similar results while keeping services publicly delivered; but this would require significant reform to the electoral system to prevent gains from being erased the second someone else came to power.