ROMNEY, IN WARSAW, DELIVERS ECONOMIC MESSAGE: PRAISES FREE MARKET, SLAMS BIG GOVERNMENT AND DEBT
Obama Failed Soda Head Chief Opi
2012/08/01 03:42:07
Romney began by praising Poland as a NATO ally, placing his visit to Warsaw in the context of his trip to Britain and Israel, two other staunch American allies. He celebrated the Polish struggle against communism, likening it to the civil rights struggle in the United States, and drew special attention to Pope John Paul the Second, the Pole who became not only a religious leader but a symbol of the struggle of conscience against tyranny.
The punch, as it were, came in the conclusion of the speech, where Romney drew lessons from Poland's recent past for America's present and future, focusing on the economic lessons of Poland's remarkable growth:
Read More: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/07/31/Romn...
It is a fallacy to believe that it will increase the wealth of a nation as the benefits of trade are only seen by a few and quickly removed from an economy to offshore accounts.
You could take away all wealth and even everyone out. Same house, same car, same amount of cash in the bank and in 5 years some people will be more successful and some people will be broke.
Bottom line is the individual needs to take some responsibility for their successes and failures.
The GOV will never be able to regulate things like motivation and making wise decisions.
Absolutely correct, and probably the same people, so they have nothing to fear by returning the money into the economy instead of removing it entirely and putting it into tax havens do they?
Cash flows in a circuit, unless it doesn't and then you get a cash flow problem....
I think lots of people would make similar decisions.
Taking money out of the American economy when it is doing poorly is not a bad thing and it is certainly not illegal like DEMS would have people believe.
I would be willing to bet all the people on Capitol Hill who are pointing the finger at Romney are pointing 3 back at themselves.
It depends from what standpoint you look at it. An economist would argue that it is a very bad thing for the US economy as it leads to a downward spiral of decline that leads to economic collapse and national bankruptcy. This is an event that most people would want to avoid because of the inevitable death and destruction that tends to go with financial ruin. In many cases when a country implodes civic disorder gives way to civil war and revolution.
Purposely aiding this process or allowing it to happen through inaction is deemed by many to be immoral or unpatriotic and it is easy to see why.
AND taking away Liberty from one group in the name of Liberty for another group can also be seen as unpatriotic.
This is why traditionally the army are not deployed in their own countries for civil disorder control as it brings loyalties into question.
I agree with your point about liberty too - I am a Cornishman and our people enjoyed freetrading right up to the 16th century when duty on imported goods was introduced and freetraders declared to be pirates, but as Benjamin Franklin said
"Nothing is certain but death and taxes."
As a military officer I am bound by oath to support the President of the USA, but I am also bound by oath to defend the Constitution.
The problem is what should I do when one is in conflict with the other?
The way a lot of people in the military look at it is, the President can only be President for 8 years.
The Constitution has been around for about 250 years and all Presidents both DEM and GOP have supported it throughout out our history, so it is doubtful the military will turn its back on the duty to defend the Constitution for a President.
In this case President vs Constitution.