"I would just say that if Gov. Romney would like to give back all of the money he's earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees over his years at Bain, that I would be glad to listen to him. And I bet you $10 -- not $10,000 -- that he won't take the offer."
This put the Republican establishment up in arms. So-called conservatives like Charles Krauthammer began calling Gingrich a socialist.
Now that's just silly. Gingrich does not call for redistributing wealth around, spending more, censoring religion and what not. Sure he has a history of supporting big government ideas, and that's why I'm not a Gingrich guy, but that doesn't make him a socialist.
That said, Gingrich's comment was still stupid. It's typical anti-capitalist rhetoric that Leftists use. Gingrich's comment sounded exactly one of Paul Krugman's articles in the The New York Times (better known as the New York Slimes) that I read earlier this week. (Yes I will read Krugman's work, as sickening as it is to read it does give me a look at the other side) In his column, Krugman tries to argue that because Bain Capital destroyed more jobs than created while making a profit that means that job creators simply don't exist. Of course this coming from the same Paul Krugman who argued that the economy would get better if we scared everyone with the thought of being attacked by aliens.
This rhetoric is even more apparent when earlier this week Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claimed that millionaire job creators were like unicorns- simply didn't exist.
Am I saying Gingrich is as bad Reid or Krugman? No. But he needs to think things through before he says things like that. Instead, Gingrich should be arguing against Reid and Krugman's rhetoric with the same type of logic I'm about to use.
First, if Krugman and Reid are arguing that the rich don't create jobs, then why do they think that members of Congress, whom nearly half are millionaires, can create jobs? And all of you who have ever gotten a real job from a poor man, raise your hand now. Exactly- you haven't.
Now more importantly, the myth that corporations purposely fire workers to squeeze a profit. It's really not a valid argument if you use common sense. In a healthy economy, businesses (which yes includes corporations) will always want to expand and grow, so they can beat their competitors. This will cause them to hire more workers, because the more they expand and grow, the more profit they will make. When a business incurs losses, then they have to lay off workers to remain profitable. And somehow, that part of the business cycle is where people like Krugman try to smear those evil corporations for being "greedy." Tell me Mr. Krugman, why would a corporation purposely fire a worker whom could be employed by one of their competitors? That's why corporations want to keep their employees happy- so their competitors won't get them.
If corporations were greedy, and those millionaire job creators didn't exist, how come the Reagan tax cuts (slashing federal income taxes by 25%) and deregulation created 43 million jobs and $30 trillion in revenue over 25 years?
Gingrich should be more careful with what he says so he doesn't sound like Krugman or Reid.
No comments:
Post a Comment