Letters to the Editor

Jobs, spending

October 24, 2011


To the editor:

According to CNN Money, economists estimate that the country needs to create at least 125,000 jobs per month just to keep up with the nation’s expanding job force. That translates into 11 million jobs just to get back to the 5 percent unemployment rate from before the recession, which began in 2007. 

According to what I read, those 11 million jobs are lost and will likely not return — for they went abroad. Are Americans generally lazy and unwilling to work? I say no. Approximately 11 million Americans are looking for full-time employment.

Where are 11 million new jobs? Home loan scams and free trade agreements put Americans out of work. Outsourcing U.S. jobs provides cheaper goods for Americans to buy. Is that so? Where is the hard evidence? I say putting Americans out of work adds a great deal to the cost of U.S. goods produced outside the U.S.

Putting Americans out of work by the millions prevents economic growth, which in turn prevents new employment opportunities, which in turn prevents creating new wealth for the nation as a whole. This long-term expense to the nation is unacceptable.

When Americans suddenly become unemployed they require unemployment assistance.

When Americans suddenly become unemployed they lose medical insurance.

When Americans suddenly become unemployed retirement plans often times go up in smoke.

How in the world is the USA saving money considering all of the above?

Americans need to be employed to buy these cheaper goods.


Abdu Omar 6 years, 7 months ago

Yup, you're right. So we have a president who has a plan and it was voted down before it got started. So the Republicans didn't want it, so where is their plan? We need a plan, Senators, Congressmen! get to work or get replaced. This country is in the mood to make some changes and make congress start to work together. To hell with the party, it won't keep you in office, but the American people will if you do your job. We didn't sent you to Washington to listen to lobbyists and special interest groups. We sent you there to tackle our problems and find a solution. If you don't want to play ball, get out of our way!!

rtwngr 6 years, 7 months ago

For the record: No Democrat in the House of Representatives would sign their name to the "Jobs" bill so it was never introduced into the House as a bill at all. It was introduced into the Senate where the majority leader, Harry Reid, (D) NV, refused to allow it for a vote until he was pressured to do so. The Democrat controlled Senate had a 52-48 majority to pass the bill but failed to do so. Harry Reid cast a no vote, along with several other Democrats, and killed the "Jobs" bill that wouldn't have created any jobs at all.

Several Republicans have floated plans that included closing tax loopholes, revamping the tax system, incentives for small businesses and many other economically sound ideas. These plans never see the light of day in the Senate because of Harry Reid. The House of Representatives passed Paul Ryan's (R) WI, plan but it was tabled in the Senate with no hope of ever seeing the light of day. Maybe it wasn't a good plan. I don't know. But to say the Republicans don't have a plan is an Obama talking point and, frankly, that's all he has.

Robert Schehrer 6 years, 7 months ago

rtwngr: You must not know how the senate works. The "Jobs Bill" needed 60 votes in the Senate to move forward. It received over 50 votes, but not the 60 votes, because no Republican voted for it. Harry Reid voted for it, but after it did not receive the 60 votes required to move the bill forward, he changed his vote to No, so he could bring the bill up later.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 7 months ago

"So the Republicans didn't want it." Neither did the Democrats.

jaywalker 6 years, 7 months ago

I agree with you, wounded, but I don't think there's any way our leaders solve jack because they are the problem. Our government is a gigantic, bloated mess and needs to be severely cut back if we wish to solve the debt problem and bring back the economy. Our budget's 4 trillion yet we're bringing in 2, and for the love of Oprah - government is not built to create jobs!
It would be painful and it would take serious sacrifice, but if our system isn't significantly pruned I don't see anything getting better. Of course, that would mean relying on the one's in power to relinquish a great deal of that which they covet. And that doesn't sound realistic.

lunacydetector 6 years, 7 months ago

lower the corporate tax rates, problem solved.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 7 months ago

I'm amazed that this thread has escaped the comment spamming of a certain prolific poster.

Richard Heckler 6 years, 7 months ago

Maintaining a high unemployment rate is not worth having Chinese made goods on the shelf. There is no evidence that these goods made for less labor cost has reduced the cost of living in the USA.

Considering the extraordinary profits, CEO salaries,golden parachutes for CEO's,number of corporate special interest dollars flooding the campaigns,number of Americans becoming unemployed and the middle class numbers shrinking there is no way possible that outsourcing USA jobs provides cheaper goods for Americans to buy.

The cost to each American to support all of the above is too great. Yes USA consumers,taxpayers,voters,those employed and unemployed have been duped once again by corporate USA and USA politicians.

Losing trillions annually in wages,benefits and tax dollar generation simply is not paying back on a fraudulent investment aka outsourcing. Instead it is draining our wallets and increasing taxes across the board.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 7 months ago

The current leader for run-on sentence of the day has been identified.

Richard Heckler 6 years, 7 months ago

USA car makers were complaining about the cost of health insurance not the cost of labor. They were loud voices for Single Payer Insurance to relieve them of that expense.

Americans were ponying up to buy cars. It wasn't the price of the cars it was the quality of the cars. It was not the price of the car nor the cost of labor it was the quality of the car.

Toyota,Honda's and Subaru's don't cost less yet they run for many many many years and many many many of them are produced in the USA. These cars don't cost less. USA car dealers do not give cars away.

USA car makers were complaining about the cost of health insurance not the cost of labor.

UNIONS brought to the work force: 1. Job protection from discrimination for whatever reasons 2. Good wages 3. 40 hour work week 4. Vacation with pay 5. Pay increases 6. Medical Insurance Coverage Corporate American did not offer any of that up.

For many many many decades the USA auto industry "trucked" along at high speed and was the model for success. USA auto executives were asking USA consumers to pay more while giving out less for that USA buck.

If USA car makers were building vehicles that are as dependable as a Toyota,Honda or Subaru Americans would buy them without blinking an eye.

Simply because Corp USA is paying less for wages does not mean that savings is being passed along. That I say is an illusion. The cost of cars with American names does not get reduced. If that were the case shareholders would be hard to find for they would never gamble in favor of less profit. Shareholders like to make money.

Think about golden parachutes. That money does not come from the sky. That money is attached to the cost of USA products including the medical insurance industry.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.