Report Inappropriate Comments

I guess the administration should follow the example of the last 8 years of doing nothing and continue to stagnate...

Mr. Curran need look no farther than Little Rhody to see what 80 years of increasing wealth redistribution, high corporate taxes and viewing industry as "the enemy" will get you.

RI's population increasingly consists of two groups:

1. "The Poor" he speaks of who work under the table and receive benefits (in perpetuity because they don't work legally or pay

taxes) as soon as they arrive;

2. "The Rich" which as an arbitrary label which is adjusted to fit the Left's narrative (0bama was particularly galling when he,

worth millions, used it to ironically describe others who actually create wealth). RI's "Rich" make enough to live above and not care about the economy, and can move when the cost of living gets too high.

Since 2003, RI has been at or near the top of the list with the highest number of people leaving the State; most of those leaving are middle class workers who have done their research and realized that the the economy isn't lousy everywhere else, as the local media would have one believe.

Recent statistics show that about half the people who load a moving van in RI leave the State; if the population continues to decline, RI may only have one US Senator.

Eventually, no one will be left in RI except "The Rich" who stay above the mess, those who are unwilling, unable or too foolish to move, and "The (ungrateful) Poor" who they purport to help at the taxpayers' expense.

Time to get the boot off the economy's neck; I realize that the idea of US economic superiority is frightening to the Left, but the alternative has failed. Whether changes create long-term sustained growth, it's obvious that sitting on our hands or listening to 0bama's faculty lounge policy twits hasn't worked- remember his advisors going back to the campuses when their ideas failed or the Lightworker failed to listen?

A couple of points:

I guess Mr. Curran forgot that 9/11 occurred 3 months after the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) was passed; does he think that fighting a war doesn't increase the national debt, or was this just a convenient oversight?

1981 also saw a huge increase in military spending which had been ignored since the end of the Vietnam War- this increased the national debt.

The economy was vastly different in 1953- any comparison to today's global and virtual economy is laughable.