Less spending, more jobs
Both Kathleen Bollinger's letter that “it takes private sector jobs, not public sector spending to fix the economy,” and George Wesolosky's letter that “wealthy creators, American small businesses” need government support to stimulate the economy, can be better appreciated when you understand President Obama's economic policies.
He basically follows the Keynesian economic beliefs that a government can spend its way out of a recession. This prolonged recession — the four-year, 8 percent unemployment, the doubling of gas prices and the drop of middle class income — has again proved that this “print more money” approach does not work.
Neither will the simplistic belief that raising tax rates will automatically increase tax revenues to the government. Further increases from our present tax rates will only further slow our already weak economy. Job producers will be less likely to expand and hire under the burden of higher tax rates and more regulations. Fewer workers and less expansion will produce less, not more, tax revenues to our government.
Only the cutting of government spending and the removing of unnecessary regulations and taxes on job producers will help balance the federal budget and avoid a greater recession.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- For Steelers, a fight to finish for playoff berth
- Pirates enter Plan B with Martin off market
- Leak of grand jury information could cost Attorney General Kane
- Starkey: No explaining Steelers, AFC North
- Pitt beats Syracuse, snaps 3-game losing streak
- D.C. charges woman over armed protest
- Freezing rain hits Western Pennsylvania, many accidents reported
- Islanders outwork Penguins to sweep back-to-back meetings
- Egypt’s beleaguered tourism industry bounces back
- For Pitt men’s basketball team, trouble in paradise
- The bullet inside your body ‘becomes a part of you’