Tom Coburn Government Jobs Don't Create Wealth

[moestietabarnak]

Yet, Without government (ARPA and census) we wouldn't have computer and internet today. Sorry for the waste!

[TWSceptic]

@moestietabarnak You don't know that. We don't need government for scientific progress.

[goodnoss]

Gov. should provide public service only. If Gov. creates Jobs that also created an unbalance in economy and society. There will be a BIG damaged for our economy. That why our generations and our nation are suffering so much. That is bad principle, and really bad. We need a CHANGE.

[LexPhilogus]

Good point. Here is a chance for me to clarify the Republican position. The Keynesian style stimulus is meant to cause a temporary spike in consumption so as to inject confidence into the securities markets.

The actual issues regarding Keynesian policy are not whether Government jobs are in of themselves productive as jobs in the market are.

[lisabob22]

Another myth is that Reagan was one of the best Presidents for job creation. In reality, he's among the worst:

Job Growth Per Year Under Most Recent Presidents8

Johnson 3.8%

Carter 3.1

Clinton 2.4

Kennedy 2.3

Nixon 2.3

Reagan 2.1

Bush 0.6

*Bureau of Labor Statistics.*

[LexPhilogus]

There are three ways to look at the problem. One is the use of the TARP funds to help bottom out the trouble assets in the banking industry because its crucial to bank lending capacity. This is the bill weve passed already. That may have already been enough because consumption itself may not be a problem if bank assets bottom out and begin to appreciate. If that happens, unemployment would go back down.

[onemanband1963]

The American economy is on the edge of collapse

[thereallurker]

Coburn was happy to pass all those huge military budgets that got us nothing but deficit.

[blair227]

Where were these so called fiscal conservatives when Dumbya and they were in charge?This idiot is a hypocrite of the first order.

[coffeenuts44]

The only year Republicans held the Senate was in 2004 election. 55/45 The other years were Dem/Independent majority. So tell us again how that is "in charge"?

Ohh ya talking out of your ass with no facts as usual and then calling others the idiot. Typical stupid American.

[blair227]

And thank God for that shit stain.We would be in even worse shape than we are now.They were seeking the so-called nuclear option for a time so they could shove even more anti-middle class bushshit down our throats.Maybe the Dems should consider the nuclear option so you repugicunts might be dragged into the 21st century.Fuck all of you Repugnicunts,you un-patriotic braindead bastards.

[il128]

Tell Tm Coburn that Boeing got wealthy on the back of the American tax payer.

[evan13579b]

Interviewer: Ya, but you're offering no alternative way of making us go deeply into debt, and thats what the problem is. Until you can come on here and explain to the american people how to waste at least 1 trillion dollars, I can't trust you!!!

[evan13579b]

"you guys are offering a critique but no alternative"

Doing nothing is the alternative. Get it? Understand it?

Is that so difficult to comprehend?

Is it so difficult to comprehend that the only thing that can get us out of a government-caused problem is stopping the government?

What a biased view that is that comes from all the people who interview republicans on television.

"Hey! Where's your trillion dollar spending plan!" "Ahah you don't have one do you!!!11!"

[mickeysears]

Very funny.

Very True.

[smasila]

I noticed many more people are starting to think like Peter Schiff has been saying for sometime now. We cannot prop up these bad companys and make gov't bigger. It's going to make things alot worse.

[mickeysears]

Unfortunately, this package will go through at close to $1 Trillion. That amount will take a couple of years to go through. But that doesn't mean they would be back for more. The next stimulus will be at least $2.5 Trillion and then probably one more. By then our dollar won't be worth what it is even today. I hope even more people will wake up soon because we don't have too much more time. 6 to 8 years and this country will be toast.

[diffidatio]

this guy is a crook AND a liar. should be jailed. he's a traitor to the common good in this country. the fact that he is protecting corporate interests at this time in our history is scandalous.

[mickeysears]

My guess is that you believethe stimulus is a good idea and must go through. So anyone wanting to cut it in half is not pulling for the common good. After all, the idea of the stimulus is to put money in the economy to get "it moving again." Right? Well wouldn't those corporate interest want the most money flooding the system? They would stand to gain the most by getting the most when the money spicate is turned on. So how is he protecting corporate interests when hes trying to cut the amounts?

[diffidatio]

No, if you invest in schools, bridges, the healthcare system, etc., you create or sustain jobs, which help working people survive. You make it all tax breaks and the poor people hold onto what little they get out of fear and the corporate elite make millions (through the cuts). You're thinking at the system level. If corporate execs and bankers thought that way, we wouldn't be in this mess. They think short-term personal gain.

[jbach002]

Coburn has a point on the public works spending, it does have to be on things that will be economically useful such as bridges, sewers, railroads. Things that will help the economy for the future. Though I must disagree that govt jobs don't create wealth,.

Let me ask fiscal conservatives a question. If you make a bill of entirely tax cuts right now...If u r a worker worried about losing his job. r u going to spend that tax break, or save it?

[LexPhilogus]

"If you make a bill of entirely tax cuts right now"

Why are you so dedicated to the Idea that Tax cuts are necessarily Income tax cuts (which are what Obama has proposed for the middle class, by the way).

What do you think a "corporation" does with extra money from a tax cut? I'll tell you. They invest in more production which creates more jobs.

[jbach002]

Yeah I meant the income tax cuts. Business tax cuts can create jobs thru additional investment, I'll grant you that. I don't know if right now it will though, businesses aren't going to hire more workers right now just because they get a tax break, it doesn't make sense for them right now to hire more workers to increase productivity when inventories aren't selling.

[LexPhilogus]

It all depends on how bad you think things will get. Keep in mind that due to the Savings and Loan crisis, unemployment got up to 7.5% before it went down. We didnt pass an 800 billion dollar stimulus to get us out of that one.

[LexPhilogus]

The Democratic position is, that the economy is in such dire straits that the economy needs both the bail outs and the stimulus because of the precipitous climb in unemployment. The third position is, do nothing at all.

[jbach002]

I do think it is pretty bad, this isn't really like the S&L crisis, it's more complex, the housing bubble burst, unemployment is up, businesses & consumers are afraid, The banks need to be stabilized first. I do think a stimulus is in order because people are so scared, and businesses are pretty scared too.

[jbach002]

Coburn is right though in that we have to be mindful of the debt we ring up. Some of the things in the stimulus are stupid, like an endowment to the arts and such. It should really only be spent on infrastructure & other construction jobs. Something that is reasonable, will have an economic impact and will be used. Not just shoveling dirt pile A to dirt pile B and getting paid for it.

[jbach002]

Fixing bridges would be good. Maybe even starting construction on a national maglev line. Replace Amtrak with those awesome new fast magnet trains Japan, Germany, & China have. It could revolutionize business travel and such.

[lisabob22]

Republican, Bush, Paulson told us that without the bailout there was going to be a meltdown of the worlds financial system. Now Democrats are doing something about it, following Bush's first steps. Whether or not they are good steps is hard to tell, but it started as a Republican plan.

[lisabob22]

Small business creates more jobs than large corporations. History and facts show us that tax cuts do not create jobs in the real world, only in supply siders fantasy world. Eisenhower had a 91% tax rate on the highest incomes when he was President and corporate tax rates were twice what they are now and our economy grew and was stable, 3 to 4% growth under Eisenhower, unemployent low middle class thriving.

[pspguy28]

Taxing ANYONE at over 90%, regardless of income level, is just plain unamerican. It will erode people's motivation to work hard if they know that Uncle Sam will be taking away that much of their hard earned dollars. The government just needs to cut all of its wasteful and useless spending and then we can have a FLAT tax all the way across the income scale, which will make everything much less complicated

[lisabob22]

the last 8 years proves you wrong.

Actually a higher tax on top incomes or corporate profits has lead to more job creation in the past 80 years, tax cuts on the top earners and corporate profits have only tranfered wealth from the middle class to the wealthy in a unhealthy balance

[wackassegyption]

Government Jobs would mean GOVERNMENT SPENDING

GOVERNMENT SPENDING WOULD DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF TAX CUTTS, WHICH CAN HELP US OUT OF THIS PRE-DEPRESSION.

ITS NOT HARD TO UNDERSTAND. . . THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA TRIES ITS BEST TO MAKE IT SOUND CONFUSING.

PEOPLE!, BE ALERT FOR PEOPLE LIKE Peter Schiff or Ron Paul, IF ITS HARD TO GRASP THE ACTUALITY OF TODAY'S "CRISIS".

[dumbworld]

Bridges don't create wealth ether!!

[LexPhilogus]

"Bridges don't create wealth ether!! "

Yeah that is true. However, if bridges fall Semi Trucks that carry tons of freight of goods produced in the market do not get to their destination.

I don't think that that keeping salaries of government workers at the level they are now, has nearly the same impact on the economy as roads and bridges. Especially since we are so badly in need of repairs.

[dumbworld]

It will be great to repair our roads and bridges, but we don't have the money for that right now. China stopped buying our treasury bills long time ago, so the only way to pay for the bridges is by printing money and inflation.

Only the free market can get us out of this recession, and the government stimulus will make everything worse.

[LexPhilogus]

but we don't have the money for that right now. China stopped buying our treasury bills long time ago, so the only way to pay for the bridges is by printing money and inflation.

That's a very good point, and I agree! But I think Coburn is comparing the return for taxpayers between government spending on bureaucrat salaries and building the roads, with the presumption that a stimulus bill will get passed.

Fixing the bridges is the lesser of 2 evils.

[johnedwards1968]

Trusting the free market to do the right thing is what lead to this mess in the first place. You have to try harder than that!

[dumbworld]

It's not the free market that lead us in this mess,It was government regulation. Freddie and Fannie were the ones that were securing the mortgages and "landing" free houses to Americans. They are the ones that create the housing bobble, which lead the economy into recession. Right now they are creating a bobble on the bond market, and when this bubble bursts, the US government will need a bailout.

[johnedwards1968]

OMG, are people still buying into that crap. The housing bubble is NOT the problem. There is a "credit crunch" for the last time.The reason there is no credit is because the Federa Government spent it all on an unnecessary war in Iraq.

Big government conservatism caused this mess, GROW UP and stop listening to talk radio.

[mickeysears]

Your right, the housing bubble is not the problem. It's the result of the problem. You say there's a credit crunch but the problem is that we had too much credit. We borrowed too much. We built too many houses. We bought too much crap from China. And we spent on a useless war. The last thing we need is more credit. We need to cut spending not increase it. We need to let mortgages get tight and interest rates to go up. You can't keep your foot on the accelerator and never expect to run out of gas

[johnedwards1968]

I totally agree with you. Understanding the problem is very important, and blaming this mess on the Dems is a disastrous misinterpretation.

Responsible government spending is the key to a prosperous sustainable economy. Don't spend what you dont tax.  That's just common sense.

If you're going to shrink government, you need to shrink the military in the US. You CANNOT do one without the other.

[mickeysears]

Absolutely, shrink the government. Shrink the military budget and close half the bases overseas. We really could cut the government by 50% and not miss a thing.

[johnedwards1968]

I think you should close ALL of the bases overseas. It's just foolish to have your military sitting in a foreign country for such a long time, that you NEED a base there.

[evan13579b]

johnedwards19 68:

I don't get why one couldn't shrink the government without shrinking the military.

Does all of the budget go to the military?

No. So you are wrong, and what you are saying is strange.

Perhaps what you meant is "if you're going to shrink the government, make sure you shrink the military"

[johnedwards1968]

Actually as far as expenditures go military spending makes up more than half of the US budget. You could cut out the other less than half, but that's probably not going to cut it.

The problem with social security cutting etc. that radio conservatives won't tell you, is that they actual bring in revenue at this moment. If you cut those programs the government revenue will shrink by a greater amount.

[johnedwards1968]

Most of those social programs are covered by "payroll" taxes. If you cut the programs, you won't have those taxes to rely on.

[evan13579b]

johnedwards1968:

Payroll taxes are taxes and they are actually regressive taxes as well.

[johnedwards1968]

Yes, but I'm not sure what you're getting at with that.

[evan13579b]

johnedwards1968:

I guess I was just trying to hint that I don't like them.

But I would be fine with them if they were only paying the debt.

[johnedwards1968]

That's a fair viewpoint, and I really can't argue with it. As of this moment payroll taxes DO cover their programs. It's only in future projections that they run into difficulties.

[evan13579b]

We could modify the programs in order to keep the payroll taxes but eliminate the vast sums of entitlements if we wanted.

[johnedwards1968]

You could, but that would be disastrous for whoever decides to do it. These aren't like the other taxes, where your money just goes into a pot, and people don't really expect anything.

If you have a targeted tax, and fail to produce the expected service, I don't know how you could expect to be reelected.

And that's not even getting into the outright dishonest of that.

[evan13579b]

johnedwards:

People don't get what they put in, so they aren't really paying for services, imo. The hardest working people are paying for other people's services really.

[johnedwards1968]

This is true. I don't think most people realize how much the government transfers wealth. The people who benefit most from government spending are in the top 5% income bracket.

The truth is the government does transfer wealth UPWARDS. "Conservative" radio hosts have it completely backwards.

[johnedwards1968]

I guess I should have said if you're going to significantly cut the expenditures of the US government, you'll have to cut military spending.

I didn't phrase that very well.

The only other honest alternative is to raise taxes, and that just doesn't go over well.

[uturniaphobic]

In taking money from helpless little little children. You've entered them into a contract and MINORS (especially unborn Minors) CANNOT Enter into contracts, by your own law...

You folks are lawbreakers not lawmakers!

I no longer recognize this establishment!

[uturniaphobic]

hey Tom Coburn the crime is behind you!

it took place for the last five years...killing THAT would have been the "right thing to do" as it is said here.

go to hell...

Here's one you;ll NEVER Mr. Self-Centered

spend the money on the KIDS YOU'RE ROBBING!....punk

[cacaduk]

He just makes no sense. If someone doesn't have a job, then gets one, TA DA! Things are better. It's like he's on drugs.

[47f0]

Coburn is another short-sighted Republican idiot. The wealth produced by government jobs is directly measurable, because government employees are consumers. They buy cars, houses, lawnmowers, bicycles, food... the money paid to a government secretary or groundskeeper doesn't vanish - it goes directly into consumer spending.

Thing is, Coburn and his buddies know this, but they need the smokescreen so they can keep servicing their corporate lifeline.

[LexPhilogus]

"because government employees are consumers. "

A steel mill worker is producing a commodity that has a market price and private demand for thousands of tangible goods in the economy. What exactly does a government bureaucrat contribute, that has any multiplier effect on the economy other than the redistributed paper money that he gets?

Steel Mill workers contribute a multiplier effect of actual commodies as well as being consumers. Government workers do not.

[LexPhilogus]

When an Auto worker builds a Car for example, he/she also employes a steel worker, an electronics curciut board worker, an engineer, a rubber tree farmer, a rubber factory ect. That car is sold to a consumer who employs a person working in the oil fields, in the refineries, and the local gas station. Futhermore that person buys the car uses it get to thier job place and back while working at a housing construction comapny

All of that is not including the value that they create as consumers.

[LexPhilogus]

Government bueraeucrats do not produce any goods to sell, therefore they are not paid according to what they produce since they by definition do not produce anything.

Government employees get paid what they do because government is competing with wages in the private market for similer job skills. However, these government jobs don't create any real goods. A welfare worker can only contribute as a consumer and in some measure as an administrator of monetary redistrbution. This is not wealth.

[LexPhilogus]

"government employees are consumers."

Government employees get thier money from tax revenues which are taken from businesses and other consumers. Sure the government employee becomes a consumer, but when a government employee who makes $600 a week, that's $600 taken away from other consumers and business investing in new technology, labor saving production techniques, and job creation in the market place.

All that is, is a shifting of money, not an increase in a real production of goods.

[47f0]

All, every dime of the money I make in my business is a shifting of money from other consumers.

That's what you guys fail to understand - it doesn't matter what pipeline the money goes through, whether I invoice a consumer or some government employee is paid by consumers taxes, we will both go out and buy a car - which IS production.

By your argument none of the supervisors, managers or executives in a company have any value - they do not "produce anything".

[LexPhilogus]

Assuming that you're correct and it's simply a redirection of funds that has no net difference on consumption. First of all, it would be poitntless becasue that money would be spent or invested by the market place anyhow. In the second place, the government does not have the funds to spend, so it will actually cost the american taxpayer even more becasue the cost of redirecting funds will 1, not go to efficient uses and 2nd, it will cost interest payments becasue we have to borrow the money

[LexPhilogus]

" shifting of money from other consumers."

That's not the entire picture. It's not about the money so much as it is about the production of goods that have market value.

A consumer makes a purchase in your business they utilize that good in the production of other private goods. It's not simply a transaction of money, there are 2 social phenomenon happening. Paying government workers only has one multiplier effect through the money, but there are no same effect on goods.

[LexPhilogus]

"whether I invoice a consumer or some government employee is paid by consumers taxes, we will both go out and buy a car - which IS production"

Yes that government worker will have a multiplier effect with money, but a proportional amount that would be invested or spent without the stimulus is taken out of the economy by the government.

[47f0]

Again LexPhilogus - the idea that the money is "taken out of the economy" seems to be your sticking point. It is not "taken out of the economy" - it is paid to government workers, who buy stuff, which is production, and is still in the economy. You seem to postulate taxes as some sort of black hole where money goes to die. They guy who sells the Ford gets the same money whether from a gvt employee or not, and so do all the people who built that Ford.

[LexPhilogus]

"supervisors, managers or executives in a company have any value - they do not "produce anything"

This is simply false. CEOs organize financial resources, Raw materials, and labor into a an investment plan to produce an xyz quantity of goods for the market. Without this organizational expertise by corporate managers, production will get done. They are directly responsible for the production of many commodities and services.

[LexPhilogus]

Correction to the line I wrote

"Without this organizational expertise by corporate managers, production will get done"

Without this organizational expertise by corporate managers, production will get NOT get done

[LexPhilogus]

Gee I can't win for losing .

production will get NOT get done

Production will not get done.

Whatever

[lornloxor]

Do government jobs create something which can be exported? I think that's what he was going for.

[LexPhilogus]

It can only be exported if it's a real good such as Google, cars, houses, telephones, and groceries.

[rkcoon]

What about Doctors, trained and paid thru federal means? Teachers in the same way? Military personell and, by outsourcing, military equipment? Hells, how much of the various scientific communities out there exist solely and directly from government funding? all those can be considered "goods" as well, so, I personally would say that this argument that the government creates no wealth in and of itself is shot to slag.

[LexPhilogus]

First of all I ws talking about Civil Service.

I never said that they weren't necessities.

Second of all, Almost all the real science that gets done is funded by Corporations in company researh and development, and that's including the Scientific Research getting done in the top Universities, Institutions like MIT Cal Tech Harvard ext. Universities where the most cutting edge research is getting done, Are heavily funded by free entiprise and rely much more on that than government funds.

[capriconss]

i don't think it is true. Most research fundings to top universities are from government organizations like DOE,NIH and NSF.

[LexPhilogus]

I never addressed federal funding in general or even patent opposition to a stimulus package. What I and Coburn are talking about are salaries.

We are not talking about Federal Grants to education for facilities of specific research projects, or the College Student loan system.

Most of the things you mentioned are all necessities, but do not create wealth like the free market, although a case may be made for Student loans in a long term sense, because that's human capital.

[rkcoon]

My question when that republican idiot said, "Government jobs do not create wealth" would of been very much to the point - "And how much do you make, Senator?"

[tubervillefan]

Government jobs DON'T create any wealth because wealth has to be taken from somewhere else. That's his point, idiot. He would agree that his job doesn't create any wealth....but it's in the Constitution that you have to have a military and Senators. Not Frisbee Golf courses and the National Endowment for the Arts.

[LexPhilogus]

Well said. But other than just taking money out of the economy with taxes, they will be putting money into labor markets where it is impossible to determine what the contribution to the overall economy is. A steel mill worker is producing a commodity that has a market price and private demand for thousands of tangible goods in the economy. What exactly does a government bureaucrat contribute, that has any multiplier effect on the economy other than the redistributed paper money that he gets?

[LexPhilogus]

"And how much do you make, Senator?"

Actually, on the average, Senators are usually millionaires from money they've made in the private market.

Tom Coburn could be making a lot more money in his medical practice. His Senate salary is peanuts compared what he can make privately.

Besides, the salaries aren't the point. Government jobs do not produce wealth because they do not create goods and services such as Google, cars, houses, telephones, and groceries. That is wealth my friend.

[totobaya]

Government does not create jobs? so says the government employee.... Aren't these the the same guys who rubber stamped sending 10 million dollars a day to Iraq for the last 5 years? Now they have and an issue with helping Americans going through a rough patch...way to go Republicans, See you in 4 years , when you lose you senate majority.

[LexPhilogus]

We never went to Iraq for the sake of creating Jobs. You're conflating 2 seperate and distinct issues.

[totobaya]

We spent money didn't we? If we are going to freely spend billions on others, why can we not spare some change for ourselves.. remember, Charity starts at home...

and btw I think Haliburton and Black Water might disagree with you on the job thing. I guess government jobs are only good when one of the boys(republicans) is getting a cut.

I forgot, contracts are not jobs, government does not create jobs, because jobs do not have an end point like contracts..riiiiight..keep it up, see you in 2010.

[burntonion05]

The most efficient use of money is in Iraq killing people. And that money doesn't count when discussing the burden it creates for our future. But spending money on OUR economy is a waste and is a burden on our future generation who has to pay it back. I got it

[LexPhilogus]

I think the point Coburn's making, is not that spending money on the economy is a waste, but that what much of the specifics of the bill, does not do much for the economy. Just because you think that we are wasting money in Iraq does not justify wasting more money on domestic spending which won't provide much for the economy relative to the amount.

Besides you can blame the Democrats like Ted Kennedy for voting for the war and for appropriting funds for it along with the Republicans.

[burntonion05]

Keep telling yourself that the Repubs are concerned about the economy. They could care less about the economy and especially the rich ones who are taking advantage of the buyers market. The rich keep getting richer and that is ok with them. Also keep telling yourself that it wasn't Bush and the Repubs who got us in this mess and the mess in Iraq. Yup just keep telling yourself and all will be ok.

[LexPhilogus]

Of course even if it were true that the "rich ones," as you call them, didn't care about the economy, it would be irrelevant. Economic growth only comes from profit seeking behavior, and you can only get profits by adding economic value.

If you were right about rich people not caring about the economy, then Henry Paulson would not have sacrificed lucrative profit opportunities at Goldman&Sachs for Secretary of Treasury salary. Trust me, that was peanuts compared to what he could have made.

[LexPhilogus]

"They could care less about the economy and especially the rich ones who are"

Are you a mind reader" Where is the evidence that they dont care about the economy?

"taking advantage of the buyers market."

If the "rich ones," as you call them, don't take advantage of the market then assets won't bottom out and unemployment will precipitously rise. Be glad that they take advantage of a buyers market.

[jcb74]

Who are these morons?

Govt jobs don't create wealth? WTF?

[policeeatdoughnuts]

any job creates wealth be it government job or private sector job one more reason why the (R) party is stupid

[drunk3director]

No surprise a douchebag like this guy makes douchebag statements that are well received by his wealthy douchebag backers.

[kurtdawolf]

I really have tried to listen to the GOP hacks the past couple of weeks, but they just dont have anything to say. Mostly attacks, and more more more of the same. Where was this guy when we went to Iraq? How'd that "responsible" spending go? Why did the bridge problem not exist a few months ago? These guys act like they have the answers and for the past 8 years THEY have been held back in helping the American people? Sad, stupid and ridiculous.

[LexPhilogus]

"Where was this guy when we went to Iraq?"

What does Iraq have to do with the stimulus package?

[rell127]

Whats funny how stupid can he be to say this because most Conservatives think we should create jobs.

[kargenlewis]

blah blah blah. if your fooled by old bush politics then f you!

why dont republicans take responsibility for helping bush murder millions and destroying america? fuk you republicans pigs!

[LexPhilogus]

"for helping bush murder millions and destroying america?"

Interesting, care to cite the statistics that back that assertion up?

[kargenlewis]

look out the fucking window!

[wervasdeferens]

The Party of largest deficits in History, now cares about the debt?

The Party of anti-labor,anti-union,anti- minimum wage, anti consumer protections ,etc, now cares about the American worker?

You poor and middle class Southerners need to Wake the hell up and stop voting based on Guns,Gays, God and Racism.

The GOP is the Party of crooks, the government just gets in their way.

[LexPhilogus]

Labor unions extort money from investors through manipulating market labor prices, which have deleterious effects when they force corporations to be insolvent.

Whos the worker going to work for when the company goes under because 70% of its input costs are 200% over market price?

What on earth ever gave you the idea that minimum wage is proworker? Minimum wage is a price control that causes unemployment by forcing small businesses to pay people more in wages than what they produce.

[wervasdeferens]

First of all, I was a Teamster who worked for UPS for many years. You might want to check out their finacial statements and compare their market share to Fed Ex then spout your Conservative "Mr. Scrooge" non-sense.

Secondly, if the government didn't step in and force some type of wage and labor laws we'd all be slaves. You supply-siders forget one thing : DEMAND!

We've used credit in place of high wages and look where that got us..

Have you ever played "Monopoly", how does the game end?

[LexPhilogus]

First of all I was not talking about FedEx or UPS. It may be that UPS Unions simply have not extorted the company enough to cause serious problem.

Second of all, the American Auto companies had plenty of market share, but the credit crunch caused the need for the bail out. If GM had had the flexibility to hire workers at market value instead of being forced to pay way over the market wage, plus a plethora of fringe benefits, they would not have needed the taxpayer bailout.

[wervasdeferens]

Lex,

I don't disagree about letting the market determine a just wage. But the fact is corporations, by nature, have to make more and more profits and the easiest way to cut costs is cutting labor costs.

The problem is you don't see executives and upper management sharing the burden in the USA.

You bring up the UAW, granted retirement costs are enormous. But Pintos, Tempos and Gremlins are the reason Detroit lost market share.

Pensions also burden the govt.,should we kill all retirees?

[volumedealer1]

Eliminate almost Everyone in office. Im talking about congress, senators, presidents, all the way down the totem pole. Start over, with normal people, like me and you.

[PussycatGoGo]

Yeah jobs don't create wealth. Wealth comes off of being an over paid politician. Finally, I can agree with a Republican.

[LexPhilogus]

Tom Coburn made his money from owning a lucrative medical practice, not as a politician.

Believe me, If wealth is what you're after, getting elected to public office is not the way to get there.

[phildog67]

This guy is giving us a welfare band aid, In his point of government jobs dont create wealth Is he suggesting manufacturing? Or just people that make money off their money?

Because the Repugs are completely losing me,

Still Pushing Supply-Side Economics!!!?

How about a Capital Gains Tax?...