More By This Author

Current Issue

Current Issue

Posted: October 09, 2012

Readers respond: Put spending power in middle-class pockets

The candidate who does that gets my vote

Ed Knox

The simple truth is that businesses always thrive when middle class people have money to spend. 

If the question is which regime would be better for business, the answer is:  The one which will stimulate business through economic stimulation. 

I know that sounds too simplistic.  But here’s a point:  The Cash for Clunkers program created an environment in which 750,000 new automobiles were sold in the United States in a matter of around 50 days.  That was a definite shot in the arm for our domestic economics.  However, think what could have been accomplished if there had been a simple requirement that every new automobile sold under the Cash for Clunkers program had to have been -- at the very least -- assembled in the United States. 

Now we’re talkin’ economic stimulation! (Some reports found that 80 percent of those 750,000 new autos were not domestically assembled).

Gov. Mitt Romney's platform did not then - nor will it ever - favor an economic stimulus that comes from middle class people. Conversely, President Barack Obama's platform has favored – and continues to favor – putting spending power into the pockets of the middle class.  Economically, the majority of the country is better off today than four years ago, and there is an upward slope of economic opportunity for the middle class that hasn’t been matched since President Bill Clinton's administration.

Obama is simply the better choice for business.

After working in the electrical industry for 15 years in the non-union sector, Aurora resident Ed Knox joined the Electricians’ Local Union 68 in August 1993. Not long after, became interested and involved in world issues. Ed believes that the world is run by those who show up. His mantra: If it's good for workers, it will be good for business! 

 

Enjoy this article? Sign up to get ColoradoBiz Exclusives. The opinions expressed in this article are solely that of the author and do not represent ColoradoBiz magazine. Comments on articles will be removed if they include personal attacks.

Readers Respond

John, "...and does not have a net positive output. When government is too big, it drains resources that are better put to use by private enterprise." How so? Example? By David on 2012 10 11
The difference is that Governor Mitt Romney favors private enterprise while President Obama favors a government solution. While private enterprise is a net producer, big government is a net consumer. Big government relies on tax revenue from private industry to function and does not have a net positive output. When government is too big, it drains resources that are better put to use by private enterprise. Think! Government programs are not free and are usually not even a bargain when you look at the bottom line. Tax payers and future generations of tax payers have to pick up the tab. Do you really want to put that debt on your kids? By John Gimple on 2012 10 10
WWII itself was a stimulus program: The guv'ment hired millions of men, and then bought enough from contractors that they hired the women. Some argue that just giving the money away is kinder than a modern war. By David on 2012 10 10
Cash for Clunkers was a massive boondoggle. It simply changed the timing of automobile purchases and drove up the cost of used cars while adding to our crushing debt load. It was a teachable moment on the lack of reality in supposedly well-meaning liberal policies. By Robert on 2012 10 09
You actually touch on an interesting point. Forget the whole "middle class" thing, which is nearly meaningless without some serious definition of "middle class". Government stimulus can drive economic activity to some extent, but consumer goods are increasingly made outside the United States, limiting the effect of stimulus programs. Given the economics of manufacturing, I find it unlikely that anything short of massive protectionism or a major change in transportation costs will change the offshoring of labor intensive manufacturing, and the sale of goods from highly automated factories in the US may not help the "middle class" very much. During the great depression, the government used large stimulus programs without a lot of effect, but the absolutely massive stimulus of WW II put everyone back to work. De we even have the ability to apply enough stimulus? By John Unruh on 2012 10 09
Strong, independent Americans create the strong middle class. Not the government. When you raise your children, do your ride the bike for them? Or do you instead, because of your deep love for them, encourage them to journey out on their own. Do you stop them from falling, or do you help them thru the "trauma" to get right back up and on that bike again. And again. Do you prevent the scraped knees or do you wash it, kiss it, and cover it with a bandaid. And encourage them to get right back on that bike again. And again. Then after all of the heartache and worry, do you revel in their accomplishment? Do you share in their joy when they ride freely thru the puddles after the rain. The government coddles from birth to grave. Effectively stealing both accomplishment and joy. I prefer independence. I vote for Romney. By Heather on 2012 10 09
Perhaps you will realize your mistake when it is too late. Obama is for more government spending, which will grow the government and not the middle class. Everyone realizes, including Mitt Romney, that middle class needs to be strengthened. The choice is whether it will be by way of government dole out, or by hard work by all involved. The democrats and like others not used to hard work, prefer the former dole out. The republicans are suggesting that we all put shoulder to the wheel and move "Forward". Realize this, nothing is free. If we opt for government dole out, you will have to pay for it later. By John Republican on 2012 10 09
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

ColoradoBiz TV

Loading the player ...

Featured Video