I love Tamny's Libertarian zingers - viewed through the lens of a
liberty lover, these guys both sound like economic clowns speaking in
tongues.
"Lets bring back manufacturing jobs". Honestly, how would that be done and who could do it? And what reason would there be to believe it would cause more good than harm? Idiots.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2012/10/23/in-an-election-about-th
e-economy-obamas-foreign-policy-debate-victory-was-pyrrhic/3/
"...when in fact, a return of those low wage jobs would signal a
weakening a America."
Embarrassingly for Romney, he came back with stock retort that "I know
what it takes to create jobs", brought up his 5 point economic plan,
then made the false assertion that small businesses are the engine of
our economy. In fact they're not. In truth, it's the growth of big
business that fosters the creation of small ones in clusters around the
big ones. Politics is never about the truth. Never.
Never one to let a silly comment go unanswered without an equally silly
reply, Obama responded that "small business creation when you were
governor of Massachusetts was 48th in the country", but as president
"I've reformed education because we're falling behind in math and
science." Judging by the economy, either Obama's reforms haven't been
that great for growth, or education isn't as relevant to our economic
chances as politicians would have us believe. I'll bet on the latter.
Obama then made the howler of an assertion that "If you and me don't pay
more taxes we as a nation won't be competitive." Sorry Mr. President,
but other than a strong and stable dollar, and perhaps open borders to
willing workers, the single most stimulative economic act of any
president would be to reduce the burden on the vital few in the U.S.
whose innovations and investment author much of our economic
advancement.
Actually Mr. Governor, our rising "trade deficit" with China is a
positive economic sign that we're allowing them to make low value goods
for us that we're able to pay for thanks to massive capital inflows into
the U.S. It's scary what kind of economic damage presidents could do
absent the gridlock blessedly foisted on them by the House and Senate.
Can they really be this illiterate about economics?
liberty lover, these guys both sound like economic clowns speaking in
tongues.
"Lets bring back manufacturing jobs". Honestly, how would that be done and who could do it? And what reason would there be to believe it would cause more good than harm? Idiots.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2012/10/23/in-an-election-about-th
e-economy-obamas-foreign-policy-debate-victory-was-pyrrhic/3/
"...when in fact, a return of those low wage jobs would signal a
weakening a America."
Embarrassingly for Romney, he came back with stock retort that "I know
what it takes to create jobs", brought up his 5 point economic plan,
then made the false assertion that small businesses are the engine of
our economy. In fact they're not. In truth, it's the growth of big
business that fosters the creation of small ones in clusters around the
big ones. Politics is never about the truth. Never.
Never one to let a silly comment go unanswered without an equally silly
reply, Obama responded that "small business creation when you were
governor of Massachusetts was 48th in the country", but as president
"I've reformed education because we're falling behind in math and
science." Judging by the economy, either Obama's reforms haven't been
that great for growth, or education isn't as relevant to our economic
chances as politicians would have us believe. I'll bet on the latter.
Obama then made the howler of an assertion that "If you and me don't pay
more taxes we as a nation won't be competitive." Sorry Mr. President,
but other than a strong and stable dollar, and perhaps open borders to
willing workers, the single most stimulative economic act of any
president would be to reduce the burden on the vital few in the U.S.
whose innovations and investment author much of our economic
advancement.
Actually Mr. Governor, our rising "trade deficit" with China is a
positive economic sign that we're allowing them to make low value goods
for us that we're able to pay for thanks to massive capital inflows into
the U.S. It's scary what kind of economic damage presidents could do
absent the gridlock blessedly foisted on them by the House and Senate.
Can they really be this illiterate about economics?
No comments:
Post a Comment