Comments about ‘Letter: Politicians should stop reciting failed economic ideas’

That's the point of green initiatives that Obama has been promoting. Conservation is best really which is why he has pushed for home efficiency programs and conservation.

Green energy production is important as well. The author seems to ignore that there is an entire political party that IS pushing for sustainability. There's also the green party which promotes environmental justice.

Most of the world gets it. Conservatives are protesting until theologists and pundints tell them it's the right thing to do.

I'm not sure what you are really saying here, but Romney and Ryan are spouting the same ideas as Bush. They even hired the same economic team. And loo what they gave us by the end of that Administration. President Obama was handed the worst economy since the 1930s, and not the Republicans are mad because Obama couldn't turn it around fast enough, in part because the Republicans swore to stop everything. Now the GOP wants to go back and do it all over again. Ask yourselves, who benefited? The middle class, or the wealthy? That should tell you who Romney/Ryan are serving, and it isn't the majority of us.

Wouldn't it be nice to live in a fairy-tale world where there isn't a $16 TRILLION deficit? Wouldn't it be nice to live in a world where everybody, not just you, has a comfortable house, adequate clothing, and nutritious food? Wouldn't it be nice to have the assets of Robert Redford who wanted Provo Canyon to NOT be improved, but who flew his guests to his resort via helicopter so that they wouldn't have to fight the traffic slowly moving through Provo Canyon?

That's the fairy-tale world that some people live in, but the rest of us don't own property there.

We produce things to meet the needs of people. We use resources to heat our homes and to fuel our cars. Someday, we might have better ways to heat our homes and fuel our vehicles, but TODAY we use what we have.

Obama wasted 1/2 billion dollars on his friends at Solyndra. Their solar panels were not cost effective. That money was YOUR money and MY money. It didn't belong to Obama.

How about finding solutions that work TODAY. How about solving TODAY's problems?

Good, thoughtful letter. Well done.

All of the sustainable systems in the world depend on a cycle of redistribution. Systems without redistribution fail without constant new input.

Economic capitalism is a broken cycle because the upper class refuses to redistribute the wealth to the lower class. As a system, it will eventually fail when the source of new input stops.

Without a change in the operation of the system our economic system must continue to grow and obtain new input.

@Mike Richards:

You obviously missed the entire point of this letter. We have systemic problems that no one is addressing. We have to look beyond TODAY, because the current system has no TOMORROW.

@ Mike Richards,I'm wondering when Republicans will finally realize that their recessions have consequences. People lose jobs, tax revenue falls, deficits increase, and it is hard to break the cycle, especially when the GOP fights any efforts to do so. It is obvious from our living laboratory experiment that lower taxes is not what drives the economy. If so, the recession should never have happened in the last year or two of the Bush Administration following their big tax cuts.

Blaming Republicans is a favorite tactic of the left. The left knows that it is responsible for the last $5 Trillion in the deficit and for most of the other $11 Trillion. Instead of facing reality and taking responsibility, they want to shift the blame to the Republicans. That is childish and non-productive.

Yes, we can look to the future. We do that by giving PRIVATE investors an incentive to develop solar, wind, thermo, and nuclear energy sources. Those incentives include tax rates that do not use Chicago style strong arm profit grabbing IRS agents. Those incentives include allowing resources to be used and developed instead of locking people out.

Environmentalists complain about building coal fired plants in southeast Utah, but they think nothing of having the entire landscape covered with windmills, solar panels, and solar mirrors.

When government and environmentalists get out of the way, PRIVATE companies will find a solution.

But that's not what environmentalists want; they want "free" power, paid for by some 'rich guy' so that they can bask in comfortable homes without paying their way.

@J Thompson.
I do believe that you and Mike are in a contest to see who can be more conservative.

When you say “Blaming Republicans is a favorite tactic of the left”, you seem to imply that the left is everyone not a republican.

The national debt has never caused a recession or depression or even a boom.

When you say republican please use their more descriptive name business people. That way we will know that you are including the vast number of business people that claim to be democrats. Also the use of the word left or right is misleading. The real war between citizens is between business and working people. And always has been.

As far as the difference between coal and the so called green sources of energy is in the result. No one seems to get sick from the byproducts of the green machines.

Do you favor coal because it creates more health problems and is therefore a boon to the medical industry businesses. Is that the same reason you want to do away with the regulations that protect people.

It’s not only environmentalist who want to bask, it’s everybody.

The letter writer seems to be implying that a poor, slowly growing economy is preferable because it's good for the environment; that high unemployment, lost savings, poor investment opportunities, failing businesses, and a demoralized populace are good things.

If those are your priorities, count me out. If I wanted to live in Europe, I would.

Question: If growth is the answer to all of our problems, how is it possible to make it sustainable in an increasingly connected and competitive world market? Growth in the economy cannot continue unless the growth in the population also implies that they have disposable income to spend. Isn't it realistic to envision a world without the Third world in the next 25 years...where every nation is industrialized and competing for business? No one or commodity would be left to exploit hence growth would be a zero sum game...ergo, game over for half the world's economies.