The lamestream media told you:
Most Americans believe the presidential candidates need to take a highly aggressive stance on the economy, the number one issue for most voters, which must be true because virtually every news outlet in America has reported the same thing.
The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
Smart Americans understand that the economy is a function of the private sector and not the government, and that most government involvement with the economy adds baggage, is costly and drains energy from the world of business that finances everything.
Understanding this, the nation’s Founders provided for very tiny government involvement in the business of the people. Those principles have evaporated, or been declared illegal by the government itself, according to industry experts.
Government produces no wealth at all, it merely saps wealth from the private sector that produces it. Every dollar spent by government is a dollar taken by force through taxes from the capitalist economy that produces the products, services and profits the government leaches off.
Government programs and regulations cost the people money, and redistribute wealth from those who earn it to those who use it in a generally parasitic way. Some uses are easy to justify when they are for the common good, such as road building. Others are a total bureaucratic drain on the economy, such as huge legal and accounting industries designed to manage the incomprehensible burden of 17,000 pages of federal tax rules. American bookkeeping, which used to be a management tool for running a business, is increasingly a tax management and accounting tool for government, to keep armed tax agents away from a business’ door.
For a candidate to truly have an aggressive stance on the economy, the platform would have to include massive reduction in government interference, regulation, redistribution, social management and general spending. No such candidate could be reached at press time.
The major-party candidates all propose gigantic increases in government spending, (with accompanying tax and debt increases), as a way to “boost” the economy, vigorously encouraged by sycophants who expect to get the money for themselves. The idea is so outlandish and regressive, our language lacks words to describe the insanity. No lamestream reports address the problem, preferring instead to promote aggressive presidential “action” on the economy.
