Letters: Political scapegoats

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Oct. 29, 2013 10:50 p.m.


    Do you really think that the widow, the fatherless, and the orphan, should pay the wages of the government worker? That's what's happening. Everyone who works in the private sector pays the wages of the public sector worker.

    When the government can "create" jobs without first fleecing the private sector first, then, you may have a valid argument, but when the public sector cannot exist without the private sector FIRST being taxed, then the government has not created jobs, it has redistributed wealth from those who paid with the sweat of their brow to those who sat at their government supplied desks to receive that money.

    The government takes money from the private sector. It does not generate revenue. Only a government worker would tell us that the government created his job and that his job is more important than the job of the private sector worker who made his government job possible.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 29, 2013 9:27 p.m.

    JT: Since when does the term "create jobs" tie to the source of the money that creates the jobs. Mobsters can steal the money to set up a legitimate business and it is still counted as a "job" in the listing in the monthly jobs report. If you are seeking to have us delve deeper into the meaning of the term "create" then it would seem you are dangerously close to the pariah (in your eyes) who brought the term "It depends on what the word "is" is". To the rest of the world other than Tea Parties and Utah valley partisans, the government does create jobs no matter where the money comes from and even if it is just in the ordinary business of running the country and not as part of a stimulus package.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Oct. 29, 2013 5:33 p.m.

    Grover (2:38 p.m.),

    Do you really think that the "government" has some large pool of money to pay its employees with? Just who pays the wages of every government worker? It's not the government. Think a little. As you implied, millions of people feed off the public sector when they are paid from revenues that were paid into the government by those of us in the private sector. Sure, government workers pay taxes, just like the rest of us, but, unless they are taxed at 100%, they can't pay the costs of even their own job.

    You and I might pay 25% of our income in income taxes. We might pay 25% of each purchase to cover the taxes paid to cover the company's tax burden. (You don't actually think that business pay taxes do you? Every business passes along all expenses as part of the price it charges. Taxes are part of those expenses.)

    Whatever you do for a living, you might want to start a business, even a lemonade stand. Hire a few people. Pay for everything mandated by government. Then, tell us that government creates jobs.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 29, 2013 3:59 p.m.

    Re: "Government cannot create jobs"...

    The government can create jobs. But Government can't create jobs out of thin air... meaning they can't create jobs and pay employees without first taking that money from someone else (taxes/fees).

    Don't be offended... businesses are in the same boat. They can't pay their employees a dollar they don't first get from a customer. Difference is... the customer is completely free to decide if they want to purchase the product or service or not (Taxes aren't as voluntary). And if the business doesn't provide a service that people want bad enough to pay for... they can't pay their employees... they go out of business. Government never goes out of business... taxes are compulsory (whether you want or even GET that product or service).

    Every job government creates takes more dollars out of the economy (taxes). Government employees put $$$ back into the economy, but they can't put more $$$ back than they earn. It's impossible for government to put more $$ back into the economy than they take OUT (in taxes). So those jobs don't really HELP the economy any more than they burden it.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 29, 2013 2:38 p.m.

    "Government cannot create jobs" is a patently false statement on its face. Think about that for a moment. The Bureau of labor statistics has a separate category for "government workers" and says that the federal government is the largest employer in the Country. That numbers is completely dwarfed by the numbers of people employed by State and local governments nationwide. Besides the people directly employed by the government, untold millions more are employed in support services contracted by the government (does Halliburton in Iraq ring a bell?). Finally there is another huge chunk of jobs generated by the need to feed and attend to the needs of those employees.

    That statement is just one of at least ten assertions in M. Richards post above. I believe they all are worthy of as much credence and the one stated above i.e. none at all.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 29, 2013 12:29 p.m.

    Fact is... Most Congressmen have almost no interest in making TOUGH decisions (especially if they could be seen as controversial or painful to any voter). They only like to make SAFE decisions and put off anything tough ones for another Congress to stick their neck out on and decide.

    Today's Congress is 100% about re-election and maintaining numbers and control for their party (not just in election years but all the time). There's no time they would dare make a tough decision (because it may come back to bite them on TV that night and in the next election).

    It's sad... but true.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Oct. 29, 2013 12:28 p.m.

    To "ProSteve" how about we return to the original method for choosing Senators and the VP? Senators used to represent the interests of the State Governments. It balanced things out more. It also put in a VP that would most likely oppose the president in most matters. That is also good because it forces the President to justify his position, not just get the approval of his yes-men.

    To "Grover" the reason why the deficit and debt are so important is the simple fact that there is so much money going to pay people to not work. Remember the 99 weeks of unemployment that people are able to get? People have found that it is easier to do nothing than to work. If you want to get employment number up, let more people go hungry. It will motivate them to take jobs they feel are "below them" and will humble them and eliminate "jobs that Americans won't do."

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 29, 2013 12:17 p.m.


    Do you believe that Obama has put people back to work with all of the money that he demanded from us for his "stimulus"? He spent almost $1,000,000,000,000 to "stimulate" job growth. What did it "buy"? It bought over 1,000,000 lost jobs! He spent that money on his union friends and on projects in other countries. $2,000,000,000 went to Brazil. Canada got 12% of G.M. Mexico got contracts to develop "efficient engines" for the government owned auto plants. $500,000,000 went to a bankrupt solar company. $600,000,000 when to a Canadian company for his failed ObamaCare website.

    Government cannot generate jobs. The private sector generates jobs. The private sector cannot and will not risk its money when the government is demanding that all of the profits be handed over in higher taxes and penalties.

    Government has caused many of us to have our hours reduced by 25% or more because governemnt treatened those who hire people full time that they would be taxed (penalized) out of existence with ObamaCare.

    The economy will grow when government stops threatening those who provide jobs.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 29, 2013 10:37 a.m.

    Can anyone on the right please explain why the national debt and the current deficit are a more important focus than the 11 million people still out of work? If there is one thing that ALL politicians agree about: growth of the economy and full employment lifts all ships and takes care of the deficit and whittles on the debt without causing pain to anyone. Why is not full employment more important that a balanced budget?

  • ProSteve Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 29, 2013 9:54 a.m.

    Public financing of all elections
    Redraw congressional districts by nonpartisan committee
    One term limit
    Eliminate all corporate and private money

    Result: Better government

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 29, 2013 9:16 a.m.

    When the government and the people pretend that there are no rules; that they can do whatever they want, as long as it is popular; that the Constitution, instead of being the Supreme Law of the Land, is just something that dead and forgotten people once believed in; then we will continue to have the nonsense that is going on.

    The Constitution clearly divided the responsibilities among three branches of government. Each branch had specific LIMITED duties. All duties not authorized to the Federal Government were to be left to other levels of government.

    The people, in their whining, have demanded that the Federal Government wipe their noses. Corrupt politicians, eager for votes, have complied. They know that if the only "revenue" to the people is from government "handouts", that they will eventually control the people - the people who once valued freedom and liberty.

    If we return to the basics and require that the people be responsible for their own personal welfare and that all levels of government limit themselves to their authorized duties, we will have prosperity again. Until then, we will continue to have chaos.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Oct. 29, 2013 8:40 a.m.

    When one party starts out with the statement and a commitment to doing everything in their power to make the president fail, even if it causes America to suffer or fail, is probably the most arrogant useless political maneuvering , I've ever heard publicly voiced.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Oct. 29, 2013 8:35 a.m.

    "Instead of facing down our national debt and finding a solution, Congress meets, argues, points fingers and no one takes responsibility." Sounds just like Barrack Obama who is more culpable than anyone in congress! The most unaccountable, irresponsible "leader" in the history of America! He won't lead, he won't compromise he won't negotiate! He just blames others or claims he "didn't know".

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 29, 2013 7:00 a.m.

    The House Republicans know how to legislate. Shutdown the government and damage the economy. It this the approach to Immigration too?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 29, 2013 4:46 a.m.

    You are exactly right. But, we the people, must accept the blame.
    We are no different. It is always about blame. Always.

    Look at the recent recession. Shared blame? Nope. We want to (make that "NEED TO") put the blame 100% on the other side. As if there is not enough blame to go around.

    Not exactly conducive to finding the real causes to prevent a repeat.

    Any and every idea proposed by Congress is blasted by the other side. Without fail. With no attempt to honestly evaluate it.

    We do it. Why should Congress be any different?

    Until WE put America ahead of Party, Congress wont.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Oct. 29, 2013 12:17 a.m.

    In a time of intense political and social tension, it's not at all reasonable to expect politicians to step up to the plate for America. That's asking for the kind of leadership that will not get one re elected. The kind of leadership we need is thoughtful, compromising, and not at all self interested. Certainly one term. The moneyed interests in our political system do not want this leadership, and we will not get it in the current context.