Friday, January 11, 2008


  • Disconnect
    Washington Times, Opinion
    Richard W. Rahn
    By Richard W. Rahn - Which presidential contenders would be best for the economy and which ones worse? Unfortunately, much of the campaign has revolved around a series of largely meaningless sound bites and words like “change.”
    Some candidates find they can get away with policy prescriptions totally disconnected from their stated goals and empty platitudes, because many in the press demand nothing more, even in the “debates.”
  • Last weekend, CNN interviewed an “independent” voter who said he was undecided between John McCain and Barack Obama. One being the most aggressive about winning in Iraq and wanting to curtail government spending, and the other wanting to leave Iraq quickly and engage in much more government spending — huh?

Huh? is my thinking also. Almost sounds like CNN was talking to two different people.

  • I suspect that there are millions of other voters who haven't a clue about various candidates' positions, let alone understand the actual implications of their declared policies...

That is truly sad, but at least they share the same values ;).

  • ...When government wastes money through mismanagement or on unproductive programs, the people are worse off. Even government studies show about 50 percent of government spending is ineffective.
    There is overwhelming evidence that high marginal tax rates on labor, saving and investment are destructive. Government regulations that do not meet reasonable cost-benefit tests are economically harmful. It has been well understood for several centuries that free trade benefits the majority of the people...
  • ...Fred Thompson has laid out the most detailed economic agenda, that would not only continue the Bush tax cuts but further reduce taxes and move toward a flat tax alternative and entitlement reform. He seems the most genuine free market candidate next to Ron Paul, and likely to be unafraid to use his veto pen... [more here]

No comments: