Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: American billionaires

Comments

Return To Article
  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 11, 2013 12:21 p.m.

    If you want to be rich, you have to work at it. Nobody deserves to have his wealth redistributed just because some people are so foolish that they think that they are "owed" wealth.

    The formula is simple; it has been known for thousands of years. If you want to prosper, you get out of bed, early. You work hard, all day. You spend less than you make. You invest your excess. Anyone who buys a soft-drink has spent some of his excess. Anyone who has two pairs of shoes has spent some of his excess. Knowing the difference between wants and needs is a major step in learning what things MUST be purchased and what things must NOT be purchased.

    Greedy people demand that money that they have not earned be redistributed to them. Bank robbers feel the same way. The money in the bank is not theirs, but they feel entitled to it. A bank robber is a thief. Anyone who allows the government to forcefully redistribute the wealth of others, for his own personal welfare has the same philosophy as that bank robber.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Dec. 11, 2013 12:29 p.m.

    Why are Democrats offended if someone, anyone, in America is successful (except of course rich liberals)? Should we punish success and make certain no one in America is successful, like N. Korea, or Cuba? The more we punish success, achievement and prosperity in this country the less we will have of it at every level. The solution is the more people in America who succeed the better everyone will be. Get the government out of the way and lets all have a chance at success instead of punishing it.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Dec. 11, 2013 12:37 p.m.

    All they [Republicans] hear is guys like Mitt Romney, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity telling them what they want to hear.

    Listening to any one of them is almost like attending an Am-Way convention.

    See all this wealth?,
    if YOU work hard enough, you too can be this wealthy.

    But you will NEVER be wealthy like me if the Government raises taxes,
    and whne YOU get wealthy, you don't want to be taxed at a higher rate either --
    so for YOUR own good, don't raise taxes on the wealthy,

    We create your jobs,
    We create your wealth,
    hurting me is just hurting you.

    Pay no attention to the fat little man behind the EIB curtain...

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 11, 2013 12:59 p.m.

    I wish I could post links here, but I can't. Forbes magazine, which bills itself as "the Capitalist Tool" posted an article on their website the other day which, upon examining historical data, found that large concentrations of wealth at the very top are always, always bad for the economy. it always leads to speculative bubbles, which invariably pop. It also leads to underinvestment in the productive economy, because there is insufficient demand to justify it.

    The article also states that the economy does better under Democrats than under Republicans.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 11, 2013 1:23 p.m.

    @Roland Keyser
    I'd seen before that the worst years for income inequality the past century were 1928 and 2007. The economy crashed shortly after both of those years. Turns out squeezing the lower and middle classes isn't good for the economy.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 11, 2013 1:23 p.m.

    @Roland Keyser
    I'd seen before that the worst years for income inequality the past century were 1928 and 2007. The economy crashed shortly after both of those years. Turns out squeezing the lower and middle classes isn't good for the economy.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 11, 2013 1:23 p.m.

    @Roland Keyser
    I'd seen before that the worst years for income inequality the past century were 1928 and 2007. The economy crashed shortly after both of those years. Turns out squeezing the lower and middle classes isn't good for the economy.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 11, 2013 2:02 p.m.

    It's not Mitt Romney's responsibility to pay my bills or pay for my share of government resources.

    The fact that Mitt Romney is rich does NOT make the government more expensive.

    Its sad there are so many lazy people who think rich people should pay for their share of the country's expenses.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Dec. 11, 2013 2:33 p.m.

    I had an epiphany last week...

    BrighamYoung taught about "usury".

    If someone takes money out of circulation, that money no longer getting "used".

    We see this happening with the 1% who own 80% of America's "usury".
    They already have everything money can buy; so there is no incentive to spend or "use" it.
    So the take it out and bury it away.

    Jesus taught a valuable lesson about a Master, his servants and his money.

    He gave some talents.
    Some took that which he gave and they "used" it.
    They circulated it and it blessed everyone.

    One took that which was given to him and buried it in the ground.

    When the Master returned,
    those who had spent and stimulated the economy were praised.

    But, to the one who buried his treasure in a safe place, the Master scolded and castout for being a slothful and unwise servant. He blessed no one with the "usury".

    Mitt Romney showed us how the uberrich take money OUT of the economy and offshore it, burying it in the ground of foreign banks.

    It blesses no one but themselves.

    FYI --
    America's uber-rich have buried over $21 Trillion in foreign bank accounts.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 11, 2013 2:41 p.m.

    I agree with several of the posts above that mentions that the government should "just get out of the way and let's all have a chance for success." The government getting out of the way would have to include making Romney and Buffett paying the same tax rate as the average Joe or Jane Doe. The Rom makes $21 million for the year he showed his tax return and paid 14.3 % in tax. 14.3% when the lowest tax rate is 15%? Nice work if you can get it. Also the poor hedge fund manager pays the cap gains rate (15%) for all of his income. Let someone making $50 or $60 K do that and they throw them in jail. So yeah, absolutely get the government out of the way and level the playing field and then lets see how things go.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 11, 2013 2:58 p.m.

    alt134,

    Have you seen that before? It wasn't clear the first 3 times, maybe you could post it a 4th time? Again, its not Mitt's job to share his money with me. It's my job to make myself more valuable to EARN more.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 11, 2013 3:39 p.m.

    Anybody that has actually studied our own American history should realize just how bad it can get. There was a time when the average American worker was at the mercy of big business. Sure, we can get up every day and work. Most of us do! There have been times when big business paid what they wanted. Workers worked 16 -18 hours a day for basically nothing!
    Of course, it is great that we can get rich in this country. It is what makes it such a good place to live. Nobody wants to take rich people's money! Don't you think that they should pay the same percent of their income as everyone else! As their wealth increases, the rest of our incomes dwindle, and it isn't because we are lazy!The rich deserve a tax break no more than the rest of us! As far as redistributing wealth, give me a break! What a joke. Why don't people add up the tax cuts given to the rich. Call the average American lazy, it gives them more excuses to pay us less!

  • Roger Terry Happy Valley, UT
    Dec. 11, 2013 3:39 p.m.

    Unfortunately, this letter and several others slipped through the cracks at the Des News and didn't get posted when they were printed. Consequently, Republicans have had an extra week to think about my challenge. So far, no takers. Nobody willing to offer specifics on how Republican policies can decrease the dangerous and increasing gap between the ultra-rich and the rest.

    And Mike, just spouting platitudes about how it's unjust to redistribute a billionaires wealth doesn't count. When the six primary owners of Wal-Mart have as much wealth as the bottom 42 percent of Americans and pays wages so low that many workers qualify for food stamps, something is structurally amiss in America, and government is the only institution with the power to do something about it.

    Please, offer some realistic solutions, not excuses.

  • Semi-Strong Louisville, KY
    Dec. 11, 2013 4:27 p.m.

    Open Minded Mormon,

    Though I have significant concerns about wealth distribution in the US and the reasons for it, please note that usury or lending does not take money out of the economy. It cycles through and creates more.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 11, 2013 4:37 p.m.

    This is one of the best letters I've seen in awhile.

    The reason Republicans have no credible responses to this situation is because they focus on Micro Economics, not Macro Economics.

    Everything is seen through the prism of individualism, perhaps most notably described by the conservative hero, Margaret Thatcher of the UK, who once stated "there is no such thing as society. There are individuals, and there are families, but society doesn't exist". Who really believes this?

    When your focus is entirely upon individuals, it's hard to grasp larger problems that are at the societal level. We see it here in the responses above. They have no answer, other than to reinforce individual rights and sort of assume everything will work out fine.

    When you throw macro economic problems at conservatives, their toolbox of solutions is very meager: "Max freedom, low taxes, little-to-no regulations, and everything will be fine. Anything else is a non-issue, by definition."

  • Curmedgeon Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 11, 2013 5:12 p.m.

    Grover,

    The field is level. The tax code applies to everyone equally. It is how individuals use the tax code to pay more or less tax than someone else. Two individuals who make the same amount of income will pay different amount of taxes based upon how they live and use the tax code. It is possible to earn 100k a year and only pay 3K in taxes. It is possible to earn 100K a year and pay 20K in taxes.

  • Unreconstructed Reb Chantilly, VA
    Dec. 11, 2013 5:27 p.m.

    "Through the tax code, there has been class warfare waged, and my class has won. It's been a rout."
    -Warren Buffett

    Great letter, Roger, no matter the delay. I begin to wonder at a certain irony from the Right. In their panic to avoid any policy with a sniff of socialism, they have enacted policies that will, if unchecked, bring about the very economic conditions which historically create the underlying rage powering every socialist revolution. I have no interest in such an outcome, which is why we need to create a check on these policies now.

    Chris B, considering the cut 'n paste spam you post on sports article after sports article, you ought to be above getting after someone for what's obviously a submission error.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Dec. 11, 2013 5:53 p.m.

    To understand trickle down,

    you need to look at what you have, and NOT at disparity (what others have).

  • Midwest Mom Soldiers Grove, WI
    Dec. 11, 2013 6:54 p.m.

    "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof ..."

    "So the last shall be first and the first will be last ..."

    I'd love to hear the explanation to the Savior by those who hoard more of the Lord's blessings than they can ever use in a multitude of lifetimes. There will be no spin doctors there, but surely the Savior's atonement will help them see things as they truly are and give all opportunity to repent.

    We all need to be more charitable with the blessings we have. Some "of their abundance" may give millions away, but with their trophy mansions and extensive off-shore accounts, I doubt that they are anywhere near the class of the widow who "cast in all that she had, even all her living."

    I fear that, for all the talk about wars on Christmas, and American Christian piety, that Mary and Joseph would find little welcome in the United States today.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Dec. 11, 2013 10:15 p.m.

    @Mike Richards – “If you want to be rich, you have to work at it.”

    Mike – can you explain the “work” involved that makes someone 10,000 times wealthier than one of his employees? And you may need to start with some (so far unknown) science because I think the laws of physics would be at a loss to explain how the efforts of any one individual can possibly be 10,000 times more productive than another.

    I’ll save you the trouble – the vast majority of a billionaire’s wealth is simply a function of economies of scale. Sort of like compound interest – after a certain level is achieved (no doubt through talent & hard work), further gains are almost magically effortless.

  • high school fan Huntington, UT
    Dec. 12, 2013 2:06 a.m.

    Just remember that the tax code was written by congress which the democrats have controlled for much of the past ninety years. Ask the founder of Facebook about being wealthy, or the owner of the Dallas mavericks or how about the Larry H Miller family, or the Huntsman's or the Romney's or anyone else that now has money when their ancestors didn't.
    That is what makes America, our ability to progress. And now as to nearly half the country that pays absolutely nothing in federal taxes, you can't get better than zero except yes you can because of earned income credit rule. You get money back that someone else paid in. Only in America.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 12, 2013 6:05 a.m.

    I suggest that we look at the realities of the disparity in wealth and the trend.

    By any reasonable account, this is terrible for our country.

    So, we must ask ourselves, "WHY is the wealth collecting so rapidly at the top?"
    It would be easy to just say that the rich are getting smarter and working harder.

    But, does one really believe that? Can someone show me how the poor and middle class are getting dumber and lazier?

    This is terrible for our country. We need to understand why it is happening. Then, make some changes.

    Any suggestions as to WHY?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Dec. 12, 2013 7:47 a.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah
    If you want to be rich, you have to work at it.

    12:21 p.m. Dec. 11, 2013

    =========

    No you don't.
    The truth is -- MOST rich people have never worked a single day in their lives.
    They inherit their wealth.

    Some ancestor of theirs did the "work",
    and they simple reap the rewards of someone else's "work".

    It goes against 100% against God's law of the Harvest.

    BTW - Why do you covet the rich?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 12, 2013 8:08 a.m.

    Joe, "WHY is the wealth collecting so rapidly at the top?" Details are important but let me give my opinion as to the meta cause of this transformation.

    America was equalized as our economy was industrialized. Starting in the late 70's and especially the early 80's America began to de-industrialize and turn it's economy into a financial economy that just simply doesn't need workers (of course that's a little bit of an overstatement but not much).

    A financially based economy is designed to amass the wealth in the few. It's been described as a larva eating it's host alive from the inside out.

    The problem simply doesn't have a conservative solution because the old is gone. Reality demands a new economy, one where the old platitudes like you need to get up early and work hard make some sense;

    BTW, President Obama has made such suggestions multiple times and been rebuffed by the right every time. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Dec. 12, 2013 9:08 a.m.

    Grover, Mitt's 2.9 million (14% of 21 mil) is most likely way more than you have paid in income taxes your whole life. Personally, I think that Mitt has paid his fair share. By the way, he took advantage of legal deductions.

    Mr. Letter writer, just who has been president most of the time since 2007? The rich have gotten way richer with a Democrat in the White House the last six years, not a Republican.

    While I agree that sometimes the rich overdo it, they have earned the money and worked hard to get it, so they deserve to keep as much as they legally can. Until we have a flat tax that hits everyone the same percentage, nothing will change.

    Republican solution? Flat tax, no deductions. Simple as that. Not your "progressive tax" nonsense with all kinds of loopholes and deductions.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 12, 2013 9:14 a.m.

    One thing is for certain: we need to allow the billionaires and millionaires to hoard more money so the poor and middle class can pay all the taxes.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Dec. 12, 2013 9:34 a.m.

    Tax deductions were originally set-up as a means to force spending.
    [see my earlier comment about "usury"]

    If a person or business sat on his money [buried it like the unwise and slothful servant] - he would be taxed for it.

    However --
    If you "used" it, invested it in something "useful" [equipment, machinery, computers, trainging, hiring new employees, expanding a business, home improvements, etc.] - he could deducted it and not show it as earned "profit" and therfore avoid the tax entirely.

    The problem is --
    The uber rich and businesses have been abusing and gaming the system to their advange the rest of can't.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 12, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    I have to agree with Chris B, who at 2:02 yesterday posted:
    "Its sad there are so many lazy people who think rich people should pay for their share of the country's expenses."

    Let's edit that a bit to make it accurate:

    It's sad there are so many hard working people who think rich people should pay for their share of the country's expenses by eliminating their ability to dodge tax payments by hiding their money in overseas bank accounts and finding creative ways to use a multitude of tax shelters that are not available to those of us who are less affluent.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Dec. 12, 2013 10:12 a.m.

    high school fan:

    Please explain to me, then, why we refer to the huge tax cuts on the wealthy as the Reagan tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts?

    Flashback:

    It doesn't matter who is president when the tax code is almost set in stone (Grover's stone, that is). Look what it took to merely allow the Bush tax cuts on the ultra-wealthy to expire, raising the top rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. But tax rates are merely a mechanism to fund (or underfund, if you're Republican) the services we require of government. The real problem is the initial distribution of wealth, which has gotten more and more skewed over the past 30 years. The problem is that the people who actually create the wealth don't get a fair share of it. Why? Because corporate capitalism has a dual pay system. It pays a small cadre of owners and executives as much as possible, while it pays the workers as little as possible. This is viewed as good business. Labor is merely a cost to be minimized. And if workers won't accept lower pay, ship their jobs off to Bangladesh or Vietnam.

  • Roger Terry Happy Valley, UT
    Dec. 12, 2013 10:20 a.m.

    What? Still no takers? I'm still waiting for a Republican response to my challenge. Mike Lee tried, in his recent attempt to convince establishment Republicans that he is no tea party stooge, but his proposals do nothing to reduce the ever-widening gap between the rich and the rest.

    Maybe I'll have to wait forever . . .

  • a bit of reality Shawnee Mission, KS
    Dec. 12, 2013 11:48 a.m.

    I have more disdain than empathy for people who covet the wealth of others. I'm okay with inequality.

    That said, we do need to recognize the fact that the money one earns is a function of what you *negotiate* more than what you actually produce. The people who get fabulously wealthy in this economy are the ones who were able to negotiate for themselves wealth that was actually produced by legions of others. Again, I'm okay with that.

    My concern is with the effect that inequality has on the overall economy. Say a poor man and a rich man work *together* to produce a dollar (worth of goods and services). How they divide the dollar they jointly created effects the macro economy. The poor man will spend his part, while the rich man will save his. Given that an optimal economy has a macroeconomic balance between saving and spending, too much money going to the rich hurts the economy.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 12, 2013 1:08 p.m.

    To "Roger Terry" the best plan Republicans have is to get rid of Obama and let the free market operate again. This is what pulled us out of the great depression, and has a 100 year track record of working with every recession that has occured.

    As the Huffington Post and Daily Kos have pointed out in some articles, under Obama, income inequality has INCREASED. See "Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush" in the Huffington Post.

    What bothers me most is that people think that Obama just needs more power and more time to get things right. Unfortunately that not only won't work, but ultimately leads to less freedom.

    The only plan Republicans need is to have is dismantle most regulations and government programs that have been enacted over the past 20 years.

    To "Open Minded Mormon" it is a lie that most wealthy people have inherited their wealth. Read "The Decline of Inherited Money" in the WSJ. Less than 10% of the wealthy inherited their money.

    To "one old man" but the wealthy do pay their "fair share" of taxes. They account for around 35% of all income in the US, yet pay close to 40% of all income taxes.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 12, 2013 3:04 p.m.

    Cur: So your solution to income inequality is to hire a smart attorney so that you pay the lowest rate? You think you get Buffett level advice from H. & R. Block?? The tax code was written by no one of either party. It was written by those with the most money to pay lobbyists to favor their "sacred cow'. Didn't Confucius say: "Them that has gets!"

    Flash: The Forbes 400 list catalogues the 400 richest in America. How many know more than the Gates and Buffets? #6, #7, #8, and #9 on the list all share the same last name: Walton. That would be the fortune amassed by Sam Walton. 6,7,8,9 are his kids. Only number 7 has ever had a thing to do with Wal-Mart, yet their total fortune is listed at 136 Billion dollars. That figure would make them #56 in a United Nations list of Countries by GDP. Do those facts give you not the slightest pause that the playing field is level in the USA, that hard work will win the day?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 12, 2013 6:14 p.m.

    RedShirt," under Obama, income inequality has INCREASED. Of course it has. It's steadily been increasing for the past 40 years despite the President. It has to do with the structure of the economy not who's in the White House.

    Who's in the White could effect the structure of the economy but hasn't so far. This is what pulled us out of the great depression, and has a 100 year

    "This is what pulled us out of the great depression, and has a 100 year track record of working with every recession that has occurred." First of all not exactly true, but more importantly what worked in an emerging industrial society, and a fully functioning industrial society is not what will work in a post industrial society.

    Until you have an economy with jobs that once again demand an equal share of the wealth unleashing unfettered market forces simply centralizes the wealth in the top 1%.

    Such jobs are not easy to come by, but they certainly aren't created by further empowering the financial sector. There's absolutely no incentive for them to do anything but create and hoard.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 12, 2013 9:33 p.m.

    "We need to understand why it is happening."

    Multi-factorial.

    Tax structure--low capital gains tax and carried-interest loophole.
    Pay structure--worker wages not increasing along with management wages.

    From an article "The Causes of Rising Inequality" by the National Bureau of Economic Research:

    "Their review of the CEO debate places equal emphasis on the market, in showering capital gains through stock options, and an arbitrary management-power hypothesis based on numerous non-market aspects of executive pay. "CEOs, through compensation committees and inbreeding of boards of directors, have a unique ability to control their own compensation," the authors write. "Furthermore, if a director approves a higher compensation package, that may subsequently lead her to receive more compensation at her own firm."

    They cite one study of 1,500 firms that found that the compensation earned by the top five corporate officers in 1993-5 equaled 5% of their firms' total profits during that period; by 2000-2, that ratio had more than doubled to 12.8%. The trend was caused in equal parts by arbitrary pay decisions by corporate boards and by the showering of stock options on CEOs, they conclude."

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 13, 2013 6:53 a.m.

    Since when is it "coveting" the wealth of others to work an honest day's work and have the fruits of your labors go to the man at the top? It seems to me, the coveting is being done by those at the top. They're coveting (and taking) the fruits of another man's labor.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Dec. 13, 2013 7:54 a.m.

    To "pragmatistferlife" actually the person in the White House can significantly alter the economy based on the policies that they implement or the laws that they allow to be passed.

    For instance, in the article "$1.8 trillion shock: Obama regs cost 20-times estimate" in the Washington Examiner points out that the regulations and Obamacare combined are going to be sucking $184 billion out of the economy each year. What do you think happens to businesses that now have to pay more to comply with regulations?

    How can jobs be created when the employers end up with fewer profits to use for expansion?

    You are wrong about how to pull out of the recession and get the economy going again. If you go back to 1900, and look at every recession since then you find the same thing. The more the government tries to "fix" thing, the worse it get. When the government backs off, or better yet cuts taxes and spending, the recession is over quickly. Individual people are the solution, not government regulations and programs.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Dec. 13, 2013 8:27 a.m.

    To "Ranch" it is coveting the minute you begin to desire what belongs to another person.

    From Webster's Dictionary the definition of covet is "to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably". If that isn't good enough, Oxford's dictionary defines it as to "yearn to possess or have (something)".

    Your statement shows that you covet what the wealthy have. The question is who's labor is more valuable. Is it the person with no skills flipping burgers, or is it the person that makes decisions regarding contracts and marketing for the entire company? If the burger flipper doesn't perform well it will only directly effect that one location. If the CEO constantly makes bad decisions, it destroys the company. Tell me which is harder to find, a good burger flipper or a good CEO?

    You want to go the communism route where everybody is paid the same regardless of skill or knowledge. The free market teaches us that you are paid according to what skills and knowledge you bring.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 14, 2013 8:35 a.m.

    So Redshirt, rather than argue ideologies with you, let me just encourage you to look at the countries that are in fact doing well. The common thread is they have re-tooled, re-educated and moved ahead with new industries that demand higher skills and thus higher wages.

    They are producing (first plus) products that no one else can (what America use to do, and needs to do again). That should be the goal not simply less government involvement in the economy.

    I and most "liberals" would in fact favor government policies that move us to those goals. In some cases I'm sure that would involve getting out of the way. Other policies may in fact require some government support (technology development).

    Given our current economy however, there is no natural movement to a new technology driven industrial economy, which is the answer to inequality..higher paying work.

    BTW this use to be the Republican/Conservative view.

  • The Judge Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 15, 2013 8:47 a.m.

    Check the numbers. If you define the "Reagan Era" from the time Reagan took office to the time he left, the numbers are stunning. GDP growth averaged 3.1 percent per year, including the 80-81 recession. Real median family income grew by 0.8 percent per year, from $36,500 to $41,000. (All figures are in 1994 dollars). This followed zero household income growth from 1973 to 1980, and was followed by a decline of -0.3 from 1988-95. (Source: Economic Report of the President, 1996). The numbers get even better if you define the "Reagan Era" from '81--when his tax cuts passed--to '89, the year after he left. And yes, the growth was across all household income levels.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Dec. 16, 2013 8:10 a.m.

    To "pragmatistferlife" I know you would like to think that liberal policies would restore manufacturing to the US, but history has shown us what really happens. Liberals will continue to "regulate our way to prosperity", which never works. Companies go overseas to locations that are willing to work with US manufacturers and allow them to operate with fewer regulations than what the US imposes.

    The only way that liberal policies can restore the manufacturing jobs to the US is to collapse the economy so much that that US dollar becoems worthless.

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 16, 2013 12:14 p.m.

    Redshirt 1701,

    Companies go overseas to places where there are no regulations, and they can hire child labor for pennies on the dollar. The only goal of those companies who go offshore now is to make the largest profit possible. They don't care about the workers or being a good steward of the land and or the environment. It is all about the bottom line. They have the right to do that even though many times what they do is morally and ethically wrong. As many posters have said, companies have no responsibility to create jobs or pay good wages, labor costs cut into profit and companies exist for profit. So lets all be honest see most companies for what they are and applaud those few companies who actually care about their employees.

    If we deregulate and cut taxes for business to zero, there will be no increase in jobs, no increase in wages but there will most certainly be an increase in profits, because that is what companies are designed to do. We should not make companies villains or victims, but we should understand them for what they are.