Sorry but the 535 produces a budget. They don't spend anything. The
executive branch has the power to spend less than budgeted but of course never
does. Obama is currently the buck stopper and runs the executive branch. He owns
This letter makes a good point. But unions? Look at the "Ding Dongs"
that shut down Hostess, and tell me again why anything involving a Union is a
good idea (YES I know the COROPORATE "Twinkies" WERE ALSO TO BLAME but
this isn't about them!)? A national union reeks of Socialism!However businesses DO need incentives to hire employees and grow their
businesses, and Obama & CO (senate and congress included) seem to be blind
to(or completely aware of)the fact that taxing businesses to the gills is not
working! He touts growing the economy but punishes the very people that can help
him make that happen.
To "LDS Liberal" regulations are the biggest obstacle.Read
"Report: Obama Administration Added $9.5 Billion in Red Tape in July" in
US News. If businesses have to pay out $9 billion to comply with regulations,
that means there is $9 billion less to hire people.Also read
"Home Depot Co-Founder: Obama Is Choking Recovery" at IBD. The CEO of
Home Depot states that current regulations would have killed them in their early
days.Read "Business leaders say Obama's economic policies
stifle growth" in the Washington Post.The obstruction is coming
from Regulations. Cut the regulations back to Clinton era, and maybe we can
start to have some of the Clinton era growth.
Redshirt1701Deep Space 9, UtTo "airnaut" that is what you
hear when you only listen to Liberals/Progressives.Too bad we
didn't elect a conservative, we would be hearing people say, why does the
government obstruct business so much and make it so difficult for them to hire
more people?9:53 a.m. Dec. 4, 2012============= Really?Name ONE obstacle Government has made to make hiring
people more difficult.Hint: I heard the CEO of Northrup Grumman
complaining this morning that his company can not go out an hire without knowing
what the republicans in Congress are going to do.Who's
obstucting? Hint: it starts with the letter "R".
You do realize that this would require hundreds of workers to move to Yuma,
Arizona, to pick lettuce, right?
To "airnaut" that is what you hear when you only listen to
Liberals/Progressives.Too bad we didn't elect a conservative,
we would be hearing people say, why does the government obstruct business so
much and make it so difficult for them to hire more people?
Every Christmas, we hear the same thing -- Are there no prisons?Are there no WorkHouses?!
Mr. Neale (and Mr. Samuelsen) must not have lived through the Cold War, during
which the Soviet people pretended to work for the USSR and the USSR pretended to
pay them. It doesn't work. (And don't forget this bit: absolute power
@Ultra Bob:"I must be mad."If you're a
democrat I would have to agree."I cannot recall a single
instance where the size of the national debt has had any detrimental effect on
the growth, the power, the welfare and happiness of people, business, religion,
science or the price of eggs."The national debt has little or no
effect on the things you list. The problem with the national debt spiraling out
of control (as it is) is simply the trashing of the entire American economy...
which may take decades to recover from.
@one old man: "Please do some research and learn that much of that $5
trillion did not originate with Obama."If it happened on
Obama's watch then it belongs to Obama. Stop acting like a typical
Democrat blaming others for situations that happened on your watch. If a
president can't turn an economy around in a term (and Obama didn't) he
shouldn't be president in the first place.
Sally: I love Obama because I can get health care even though I'm
unemployed.Jane: Why are you unemployed?Sally: I got
laid of because by employer can't afford to pay for Obamacare.
Congress does not execute any law. That role is reserved for the President.
Congress passes legislation. That legislation becomes law when the President
signs it or when he allows it to become law without his signature or when
Congress over-rides his veto. Even after the legislation becomes la, ONLY. The
President can enforce that law. Congress has no authority to enforce anything.
Enforcement is a duty reserved for the President.Obama is solely
responsible for the $5Trillion that e spend during his first term. No one
except him had Constitutional authority to write the checks. Congress has no
authority to write checks. The court has no authority to write checks. Only
the President has that authority.He can complain. He can mislead.
He can pretend that Bush is responsible, but he and he alone spends the
money.He has no intention of stopping poverty in America.
Everything that he has done has been geared to put people on welfare, not to get
them off welfare. Public sector jobs will never decrease his deficit. There is
no money in the treasury to buy an ice-cream cone, much less hire anyone to do
anything at government expense.
Mike Richards --- Obama is the ONLY person who can cut spending.You
seem to have forgotten that there are 535 or so others who actually control the
spending. Have you forgotten Congress?Living in a fantasy world
must be so much fun!
Redshirt 1701.Now I’m really mad, all this time I’ve
thought we were talking about the American national debt.
To "Ultra Bob" you said that you "cannot recall a single instance
where the size of the national debt has had any detrimental effect on the
growth, the power, the welfare and happiness of people, business, religion,
science or the price of eggs." Go back to your history book and read about
what happened in the 1930's in Germany.The German national debt
was effecting all aspects of life. It was so bad that if you went out to eat
you paied before you ate, otherwise the price would go up as you ate. The price
of eggs skyrocketed, people were miserable, businesses suffered because the
german dollar was worthless. The only way the german economy could grow was to
go to war.
I must be mad. I cannot recall a single instance where the size of the national
debt has had any detrimental effect on the growth, the power, the welfare and
happiness of people, business, religion, science or the price of eggs.
This is brilliant!I can't see why one Conservatives could possibly be
against this!Imagine, FORCING the Unemployed to work?No more
Free-loading!A Tea-Party dream come true.Isn't that what
they complain about daily?Ironically, this also makes them more
Socialist than even "I" can imagine.BTW - My Granpfather
worked the CWD during the depression, That FDR, what a Socialist whack -
building the greatest infrastruture the World has ever seen, and transforming
America from a backwards argicultrual farming nation, into the greatest
industrial nation in the world! Socialism - phrewy!
I think this is an awesome letter. Maybe it's not completely workable (for
one thing, what do you do with folks who are disabled), but I love the idea of
thinking outside the box like this. Well done!I rather like Mike
Richards' tax credit idea too. The problem with it is that the amount of
money businesses would receive in that tax credit would be so small, I'm
not sure it would incentivize much hiring. I'm not sure what you mean by
'welfare' because there are many different kinds of help people can
get, but none of it's in any sense lucrative.
No amount of re-writing history will change the FACT that Obama is responsible
for more than $5 trillion dollars in additional deficit spending between 2009
and the election of 2012. He was the only person in America who could execute
the laws where that spending took place. He was sitting the in the Oval Office.
HE, and he alone, was the chief executive officer of the United States. He
cannot blame Bush. Bush did not execute those laws. He cannot blame Reagan.
Reagan did not execute those laws. He can only blame himself. If he
didn't want to spend the money, he could have refused; just like he refused
to act on illegal immigrants; just like he refuse to uphold the marriage act;
just like he refused to allow drilling for oil in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado.He is the President. The buck stops at the Oval Office. No amount of
finger pointing will ever convince anyone that someone other than Obama was
President when that money was spent.Spending more money for
government jobs will increase the deficit. A 3rd grader knows that spending
money will not reduce the deficit.
Christian, you are completely missing the boat. For a president to undo
policies set in place by previous presidents is almost impossible. The Bush tax
cuts to the wealthy are just one example.
I am not sure if this letter was being sarcastic or not.You
can't mandate employment any more than you can mandates prosperity.
No Old Man,Reagan gets credit for 1.7 trillion in 8 yearsBush
1 gets credit for 1.4 trillion in 4 yearsYou conveniently forgot
Clinton at 2.5 trillion in 8 years but he also emptied the SS trust fundBush 2 gets credit for 5.0 trillion in 8 yearsObama does in fact
have to own his debt of 5.6 trillion in less than 4 yearsNow you
will say BO inherited a bad economy, but so did Reagan, and Bush 2, so if that
is an excuse no more bashing them.But if you still want to play the
victim card for Obama, look at the expanded social programs and unaffordable
health care costs he is saddling the future presidents and our children,
grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc. with. Either way, he is a disaster to
the economy for generations to come.
It looks great on paper Mr. Neale. But the real world often presents mixed
results. Sort of a CCC and/or WPA for 2012.I recently visited Mark
Keppel High School. It is a part of the Alhambra School District in LA County.
Many of the original buildings were a WPA project in 1939. The plaques stating
so are still displayed in several buildings. Many WPA projects are still
serving citizens of this Republic.
Mike Richards, are you mad?Please do some research and learn that
much of that $5 trillion did not originate with Obama. Where did it come from?
From policies set in place by his predecessors all the way back to St. Ronald
the Reagan. A whole lot of it comes directly from policies instituted by
President Cheney and his little buddy.Although this letter is a bit
over the top, similar ideas might be something worth considering.
So we should punish businesses for not hiring people they can't afford by
taking the money (they don't have) anyway and starting yet another
graft filled big government program to pay people high wages they haven't
earned? If Mr. Neale wants socialism, which this program is, I think the
shortest way for him to find it to move to a country that already has it. In
short time he will find that it is no solution. Don't get me
wrong, there is nothing wrong with requiring work from welfare recipients, but
to blame the businesses for not hiring them, and to guarantee high wages is
crazy. Higher wages are earned by being a good employee and by improving
personal productiveness.If the writer feels he is not paid what he
wants or deserves, find a better employer and be a better employee. That is how
Are we mad? Have we forgotten already that Obama added over $5 trillion to the
deficit in his first term? Give a 2nd year tax credit to any
business who hires someone who is receiving welfare. Make that tax credit equal
to 50% of one year's welfare payments. At the end of the 2nd year, the
government would have saved 150% of what it would have had to pay the welfare
recipient and it would have received income tax revenue because that person
would be paying income taxes instead of taking government welfare. That welfare recipient would be back in the workforce. The employer would
have received an incentive to expand his business. The government would have
received immediate relief from paying welfare and it would have received more
than enough in income tax revenue to pay for the 2nd year credit to the
employer. Revoke credits if the business abused the program. Refuse
future welfare if the employee abused the program.The goal is to get
people working. The goal is to expand the tax base. The goal is to reduce
The letter offers a variation on FDR's efforts to solve the unemployment
problem of the Great Depression.Here's another suggestion that
takes advantage of two economic realities:First, this nation has a
staggering amount of neglected infrastructure. Our national and state highways,
bridges, airports, canals, ports, levies, etc., are crumbling. Infrastructure is
essential to the economy, and we have neglected ours for decades. It
is short-sighted to the point of madness to believe that being cheap with our
infrastructure is wise public policy. This work has to be done. There is no
avoiding these responsibilities.Interest rates for government bonds
are so low right now that money is available at zero interest, and in some
places, negative interest. The bond market is willing to essentially pay
governments to hold their money.A powerful, effective, and fast way
to stimulate employment would be to take advantage of these historically low
bond rates and get busy rebuilding infrastructure. Middle class employment
would go up sharply, and vital work would be done that our nation desperately