Imagine a politician announcing: we are going to raise the Social Security age to 66. We are going to freeze and cut spending until we balance the budget within three years, and then with surpluses pay down the debt within 6 years. We are going to build 100 new nuclear power plants and open up the country and its shores to oil and gas production. We are going to cut back all federal entitlements and subsidies by 20% immediately. We are going to ensure enough water for agriculture.Oh wait, he did . . . your point was?
Gud redding iz herd.
Same as it's been from the first. He's long on generalities and short on specifics. That litany of things he knows will not happen all at once is of no use. Anyone can and does 'imagine' what a responsible politician would do. That does not spur new economic activity and generate more income for citizens and revenue for governments.
Where are his solutions to this:
So for a while longer, we need the miner, the oil pumper, the farmer, the fabricator, the carpenter, the road-builder, the railroad guy, the cement layer, the chemist, the computer engineer — and the system that allows them all to create wealth unimpeded by government and in an environment in which the citizen who benefits from their labor appreciates their industry.
"Unimpeded by government" can mean vastly different things to different people. The statement means nothing as used here.
And he puts no specifics on this:
We strangle Silicon Valley with all sorts of labor and business regulations until it fabricates and outsources abroad. In other words, we are creating no real new sources of concrete wealth as we nuance the shrinking capital we inherited.
What? Not enough H1Bs? Too many? Too many state required employee overheads? What regulations? What's he talking about?
General discussions of problems and little in the way of specific solutions and policy changes he'd like to see. Sounds like Ross Perot in 1992, but even shorter on real specifics.