Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Back to work

October 12, 2011

Advertisement

To the editor:

The divisiveness in Washington is costing American jobs. Over three weeks have passed since President Obama sent his American Jobs Act to Congress, but the Republicans refuse to even look at it.

President Obama’s American Jobs Act is exactly the type of solution that we need: a bill full of ideas that both parties support. It is a deal that creates jobs by lowering taxes and investing in our future. And, the best part: It is fully paid for.

We need relief for the middle class now. It’s time for our politicians to get over politics and put America back to work.

Comments

ksrush 3 years, 2 months ago

Sammie, Sammie, Sammie. The dems didn't even vote for that disaster of a bill. You may a well stick a fork in Osama Bin Bama he is done

mustrun80 3 years, 2 months ago

Sammy or anyone,

Please offer some specifics on how this jobs bill lowers taxes? As in lower's them from where they are now? You may in fact be right. Just curious.

And how does it lower taxes while spending more money, all while being "paid for"?

"but the Republicans refuse to even look at it."

Honestly? Do you even attempt to be anything other than a passive consumer of news from the left? The republicans have been trying to get the senate to vote on it - if that's what the Dem controlled senate wanted. Harry Reid has been stopping them.

Try a little harder.

CountyResident 3 years, 2 months ago

ksrush: All of the dems, except 2 voted for the jobs bill. As usually none of the repubs. voted it.

mustrun80: The jobs bill lowers the payroll taxes for all workers. On average $1,500. It also lowers the payroll taxes for businesses. It is paid for by adding some taxes to those with income over $1,000,000. and by making other budget cuts. I suggest you read the bill.

Ron Holzwarth 3 years, 2 months ago

"And, the best part: It is fully paid for."

Really? Do you mean that the Federal Debt is paid off already? I hadn't heard about that yet.

Richard Heckler 3 years, 2 months ago

The RINO party formerly a republican party despise and fear employment for USA blue and white collar workers. No matter that these jobs would generate new wealth for the nation as a whole and no matter that these jobs would generate other new jobs throughout the communities of America. In fact this RINO party are looking more anti american as each day passes.

There is still another bill with job opportunities that we must push for. This Congressional Budget plan eliminates the deficit in 10 years, puts Americans back to work and restores our economic competitiveness. http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=70

Flap Doodle 3 years, 2 months ago

RINO sighting! Everyone has to chug whatever drink you are holding now.

jaywalker 3 years, 2 months ago

... " a bill full of ideas that both parties support."

...." the Republicans refuse to even look at it."

Um..you....er........... never mind.

CountyResident 3 years, 2 months ago

The economy much better than it was when he took office.

Fred Mertz 3 years, 2 months ago

Even Obama just said the economy is worse now than when he took office.

Fred Mertz 3 years, 2 months ago

Even Obama just said the economy is worse now than when he took office.

volleydad 3 years, 2 months ago

Sheesh - LJW seems to enjoy printing the kool-aid drinker propaganda lately. Did this just come in all pre-formatted and with LJW fax number printed on it from the White House?

rtwngr 3 years, 2 months ago

The president couldn't get any Dem in the House to sponsor his bill. Therefore it can't come to a vote there. Harry Reid refused to bring it to a vote at first but was pressured by the public because Mitch McConnell insisted. The government doesn't create jobs, Sammie. Private industry does.

CountyResident 3 years, 2 months ago

Only companies that do not receive government contracts or government subsidiaries should be called "private industry".

mloburgio 3 years, 2 months ago

2.4 million jobs lost due to China from 2001-2008 That's right. 2.4 million jobs lost in 8 years can be directed attributed to China. Since China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, 2.4 million jobs have been lost or displaced in the United States as a result of the burgeoning trade deficit with that nation http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/24-million-jobs-lost-due-china-2001-2008

love2fish_ks 3 years, 2 months ago

The President has failed America. His 'Jobs 'Bill' was so distasteful that despite a month of arm twisting it could not pass the Senate. He is using this as a campaign item, not a serious attempt at getting the economy humming. All or none - take it or leave it - will not work. We can have bipartisan support for many things. Sad, very very sad.

It is time to have a serious push to draft Hillary. We would not be in this mess if we were not duped by President Obama. We need a leader not s speach maker.

verity 3 years, 2 months ago

Then let's hear some better suggestions.

madameX 3 years, 2 months ago

I have a sort of philosophical question for you, Liberty. You're clearly against the government doing much of anything, regulation-wise. But it's been my observation that there are, and probably always will be, no shortage of individuals who, if left completely to their own devices will amass as much wealth as they can, have no scruples about harming and/or taking advantage of others to do it, and having amassed said wealth, use it to keep their position of power, making it close to impossible for anyone to come close to challenging them. In short, if they can manipulate the market to their own advantage they will, and a regulation free environment would certainly give them the space to do that. Even with all the so-called "burdensome regulations" we have, this has still happened.

So here's my question: Supposed we had whatever kind of utopian, regulation-free, unicorn ranch based economy that you think we should have; what's to stop all the wealth and power from being concentrated in the hands of a few? I see that as pretty much inevitable. And that having happened, do you proposed everyone else do? I mean, if they can't do anything themselves because the balance of power has tipped to far in one direction, and you don't consider any kind government regulation a reasonable option, are they just supposed to live with it? Steal the unicorns and storm the castle?

madameX 3 years, 2 months ago

Wal-Mart and Target are actually a great example of what I'm talking about. Sure, they compete with each other, but it would be pretty difficult for an average person to open up a chain that could compete with them.

What I'm asking is, supposed Wal-Mart and Target were the only two retailers (like they are in some parts of the country). Supposed instead of competing with each other, they decided to get together and hike their prices while lowering their wages. If both Wal-Mart and Target charge $100 for a roll of toilet paper and both pay $1.00 per hour, there would be at least some people who would have no alternative but to pay/work for what Wal-Mart and Target charge/pay. What then? If Wal-Mart and Target have too much power for the people to do anything to change what they're doing on their own, and asking for government intervention isn't an option, then are they just supposed to live with it? I'm not looking for a particular answer, I was just interested to see what answer would be given.

I realize this is not something that's likely to happen exactly as I've written it, but I think it does happen on a smaller scale. I hear people talk about competition being the thing that keeps whatever potential bad market forces they're willing to acknowledge in check, but that completely ignores the reality that "competition" frequently unequal, and therefore not likely to keep anything in check.

madameX 3 years, 2 months ago

I believe price fixing is against the law, and that would be price fixing, would it not? And we have a minimum wage, so they would only have so much to gain by colluding on wages since they couldn't go below a certain level. And, of course, the real market place is far more diverse than my hypothetical one, so if they actually did they'd probably just lose out to K-mart, which I tried to cover with "this is not something that's likely to happen exactly as I've written it."

However, anti-price-fixing laws and minimum wage came into being precisely because companies did do things like what I described above. And probably would have continued to do so had there not been any regulations passed. That's why I asked what I asked: If the general public is being screwed by 'the market' and government regulation is not an option, what do you propose as an alternative. So far, you seem to be giving me the answer that people just don't get screwed by the market, but I don't think that's true.

gudpoynt 3 years, 2 months ago

I love how you can live in a world where small business retail has all but been eradicated by a mere handful of big box retailers....

... and then you point to competition between two of the largest big box retailers, who have all but decimated small market retail -- leaving only the quaintest of boutiques in areas with higher than average consumer bases such as small communities rich in character like Lawrence and large urban areas -- as an example of how competition is an equalizer.

I'm sure that the thousands upon thousands of small retailers that went out of business in the 90s would love to hear your explanation of how competition is an equalizer.

See? That's the problem with absolutist libertarian thinking. Yes, all economics 101 students can illustrate how competition puts equalizing forces on a free market.

But take a couple more years of econ and you'll see myriad contours, peaks, and valleys in the playing field that was once considered level, and how simply removing regulation is insufficient to re-level the playing field and get everything back to that idealistic set of conditions where the simple economic models actually hold true.

gudpoynt 3 years, 2 months ago

(facepalm)

which retail market do you think is healthier? One with a handful of big box retailers occupying a lionshare of the market with relatively few mom & pops occupying a tiny portion? Or one with a lionshare of the market occupied by comparably sized retailers? Which one do you think would better allow entry of new competition (also known as economic growth)?

madameX 3 years, 2 months ago

Quick response to your long one, since I don't have a whole lot of time:

"Government should enforce market regulations by enforcing property rights, enforcing contract rights and maintaining laissez-faire in other areas"

When I say "regulation free" this is what I mean. Or more, specifically, the laissez-faire in all other areas is what I mean. So no need to explain that to me.

"Laissez-faire is not utopian."

Yeah, I certainly don't think it is either. I was being facetious; I'm also aware that you don't support a unicorn-ranch-based economy. However, I hardly think government regulation strives for utopia; more like it tries to prevent harm. The bank bailouts, for example, were not just to keep the banks in business because oh, those poor banks, how sad would it be if they collapsed! It was to prevent them from collapsing and taking the rest of us out with them.

"The greatest period of economic growth and increasing prosperity was during the industrial revolution when, in Britain and the US, there was relatively laissez-faire economies with a few exceptions"

Here's the thing about that. Growth and prosperity were increased for some people. A relative few people. For the masses, however, the industrial revolution meant working long hours, for very little pay, in horrific conditions before going home to a tenement room shared with your family of ten. There was a massive gap between rich and poor. So on paper the US and England were very prosperous, but that prosperity was at least in part achieved by creating a system under which it was necessary for huge numbers of people to live in horrible poverty. I would argue that some of these conditions have been relieved by regulations on child labor (I know how you feel about that one, but I'm not gonna agree.), minimum wage, hours, safety conditions, etc. I completely fail to see how 'everyone' was better off before these regulations than after.

But that gets closer to what I was actually asking: If a majority is doing badly under a lassiez-faire system, and they don't have the power to do something about it themselves (and I don't think who is on top is as relevant as how many people are on top and how big of a gap there is between them and the next guy down), what do you see as a reasonable remedy if demanding government intervention isn't?

George Lippencott 3 years, 2 months ago

Republican Plan: Tax breaks for the rich and famous (their constituency) with a hope for trickle down

Democratic Plan: Direct payments for unions (teachers and construction) with a hope it will trickle out (their constituency).

We can do a lot better. How about more money for the middle – all of it!

George’s Plan: Tax increases for the rich offset by tax reductions for the middle. Get the government out of picking winners and losers. Regulation holiday. Review most costly regulations. Tariffs on countries that undersell us while despoiling the environment and their workers.

gudpoynt 3 years, 2 months ago

I'd like to hear from any of: FalseHopeNoChange Liberty_One rtwngr volleydad DIST mustrun80 or ksrush (especially ksrush)

on which of the provisions in Obama's jobs bill you think is a bad idea? Do you even know what they are, or are you just being lazy and subscribing to the political identity that requires you to reject anything and everything remotely associated with Obama?

After reading the details (http://www.whitehouse.gov/), if you don't agree with something in it, then I'd like to hear some semblance of a rational argument as to why it's a bad idea.

On the other hand, if after reading the details you agree with anything in it, I would encourage you to call you Senator and Representative and suggest supporting it when it comes back around by itself, separate from the larger bill.

gudpoynt 3 years, 2 months ago

actually, the bill is right there. Look again.

gudpoynt 3 years, 2 months ago

actually, the bill is right there. Look again.

gudpoynt 3 years, 2 months ago

First, flat out lying? You mean like repeating Hannity's flat out lie that Obama quadrupled the deficit?

I fail to see any flat out lies. Where are they? Try to name a single one of any substance that is independent of your preconceived notions (that again, are a necessary requirement of the Fox News political identity). That is, instead of assuming that Obama is flat out lying, and trying to get me to believe your assumption, how about you actually repeat something that was flat out lied about, m'kay?

Second, Reid was resisting a vote (while McConnel was calling for one) because they both knew that it wouldn't get a filibuster-proof number of votes. Duh. That's political strategy. To see this common occurrence and then claim that Reid is actually opposed to the bill is naive.

Republicans aren't the only ones stopping this. But they are the overwhelmingly most prevalent, unified, and unwielding body standing in it's way. That much is undeniable, so you don't get any points for noting that two Democrats in the senate actually voted against it.

classclown 3 years, 2 months ago

xclusive85 (anonymous) says…

This seemed very familiar. In fact I read it just two days ago.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2011/oct/10/jobs-bill-support/?letters_to_editor

=====================================================

Interesting how the LJW has been doing stories and polls on plagiarism and then they go and publish this LTE.

Jon Jambor 3 years, 2 months ago

Yeah... weird. Damn near word for word.

beatrice 3 years, 2 months ago

It passed with a 51 majority, but in our bizarro political world of today, that no longer qualifies as a majority. Now, a vote of 60 is needed in order to override threatened filibusters. The thing that iritates me to no end about Democrats is that they don't then tell the Republicans, "go ahead, filibuster." I say, let Republicans have to stand on the floor of the Senate and go on and on and on about why they are against a jobs bill. Politics ... ugh.

jafs 3 years, 2 months ago

Yes, these days the mere threat of a filibuster suffices, and nobody has to actually do it.

Make them all do it, instead of just threatening it - maybe it'll happen less often that way.

Dan Eyler 3 years, 2 months ago

No but heck no to more government spending. It isn't working here, it isn't working in Europe and its time to stop. 9-9-9 is a good starting point. Get on the Cain Train people.

Jimo 3 years, 2 months ago

I find the Obama proposal pretty weak tea.

That said, it is the sole proposal on the table that would actually create jobs immediately. And it's the only approach available until voters can turn out the Do-Nothing obstructionist Congress.

Where's the GOP jobs plan?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.