Skip to Navigation Skip to Main Content

Letters to the editor, December 24

Different take

This letter is in response to Bill Lawson [DRC, Dec. 11].

If Obamacare is the financial disaster some suggest, wouldn’t the financial markets have reacted in a negative way? Instead of shuddering at the thought of a job-killing, financial-draining program about to set the country on a downhill slide, they have reached record heights.

The financial wizards are betting on better financial times, not Armageddon. They are betting on more business.

The U.S. has an underdeveloped health care network and Social Security safety net, which leaves millions of citizens facing catastrophic illness and abject poverty. Such insecurity, either experienced or feared, has a negative impact on just about every facet of life.

The World Health Organization says that the most effective intervention is to invest in education and care in early life. “If you fail to invest in early child development, you’re storing up problems for the future.”

How can Congressman Burgess be against these things (if it is not about money)?

Mr. Lawson suggests the “elite rich” (my words) 2 percent “… employ 93 percent of the people.” He is correct. They employ and make money off them.

They do not create jobs. The guy buying the shoes, car or toothpaste causes a job to be created. The elite rich (who own the companies) supply what we demand and make money in the process. If they can keep unemployment high (labor costs down) they make even more.

We subsidize fast-food workers’ salaries with food stamps. Shouldn’t the 2 percent (company owner) do that?

Bill Reed,