Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but you seem to imply that mergers are a “job creation” mechanism. If they are, I’d love to hear about it, because that is not my impression.

Can anyone point out a major merger where net jobs were added immediately after the marriage and not consolidated and eliminated?

Mergers may have a great many benefits, but I have never been under the impression that net job creation is one of them.

Perhaps we should put out the house fire before we start construction on the new wing.

You might legitimately argue that Obama is deliberately slowing down mergers to make job numbers look strong(er) for the election. But the suggestion that a slow merger approval process is a sign that he opposes job creation is one of those eye rollers that makes it hard to get independents to take republicans seriously.

The statement doesn’t fly on even the most superficial level.

And that begs the question: if our arguments are sound to begin with, why is it that me need to stoop to artificial arguments that aren’t supported by logic or common sense to make our case?

Statements like that just make us look like we are weak and out of ammo.