Is business success really what we should be looking for when choosing a president?
By
-
To the editor:
I watched an interview of author Walter Isaacson about his soon to be released biography of Steve Jobs on "60 minutes," October 23, and something was overwhelmingly obvious. Although Steve Jobs was almost incomparably successful in business, taking a company from near bankruptcy to being second in the world in stock value, he would be about the last person anyone who values democracy, individual rights, equal opportunity, and respect for the law and his or her fellow man would want as president.
He made his way in the world in general and the business world in particular by breaking laws and rules and by treating employees and fellow workers like crap. The first product he marketed was the "Blue Box" that allowed people to rip off phone companies by placing free long distance calls on pay phones. He drove a car that didn't have license plates and parked in handicapped spaces because, as he said, he could. In his opinion, he was special and laws didn't apply to him and I guess he was right. What would happen to you or me is we drove without license plates or got caught parking in handicapped spaces? When he fathered a child out of wedlock he refused to accept any responsibility, offered assistance to the mother and had nothing to do with the daughter he fathered until she was a teenager and he was a multi billionaire.
There was a time when success in business in America was at least indirectly connected to creation of American jobs, not overwhelmingly connected to export of american jobs. When successful american companies contributed a substantial share of their profits to paying taxes to maintain the infrastructure and society of the country they depend on instead of setting up phony corporate headquarters to avoid taxes or avoiding taxes via paying off politicians to create tax loopholes. When successful american companies made money by serving the American public instead of by fleecing them. When successful american companies would use record amounts of cash on hand to invest in America and create much needed jobs instead of setting on it in hopes of swaying the next election in their favor. This is not that time!
I for one would rather have a president who is part of the 99% than part of the 1%. Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against someone making a lot of money but do have a problem with multi millionaires or billionaires claiming to be good Christians who believe in the teachings of Jesus in a political campaign.
Jesus was pretty clear about people gaining wealth while other people remained poor. He said that the Rich should," Go sell everything you own, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come and follow me. He said," Watch out! Be on guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist of the abundance of his possessions."
He said," In the same way, any of you who does not give ip everything he has cannot be my disciple. He said, " It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god." Im not a good church going Christian but evidently I have a lot better chance of qualifying as a follower of Jesus and getting into the kingdom of heaven than any of the Republican candidates, most of whom are multi millionaires if not billionaires, and who all have plans to cut taxes of the already obscenely rich while most blame the poor for being poor and offer them no assistance.
While the American public is finally waking up to what a third of a century of Reaganomics has accrued and is finally demanding a piece of the prosperity that the top 1% has enjoyed since 1980, every Republican candidate has put forth a plan to further lower the tax rate of the rich. Perhaps it is time they stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and the Tea Party and start listening to the majority of the American people for a change.
Sincerely,
Charles Leach
Lynchburg[[In-content Ad]]
I watched an interview of author Walter Isaacson about his soon to be released biography of Steve Jobs on "60 minutes," October 23, and something was overwhelmingly obvious. Although Steve Jobs was almost incomparably successful in business, taking a company from near bankruptcy to being second in the world in stock value, he would be about the last person anyone who values democracy, individual rights, equal opportunity, and respect for the law and his or her fellow man would want as president.
He made his way in the world in general and the business world in particular by breaking laws and rules and by treating employees and fellow workers like crap. The first product he marketed was the "Blue Box" that allowed people to rip off phone companies by placing free long distance calls on pay phones. He drove a car that didn't have license plates and parked in handicapped spaces because, as he said, he could. In his opinion, he was special and laws didn't apply to him and I guess he was right. What would happen to you or me is we drove without license plates or got caught parking in handicapped spaces? When he fathered a child out of wedlock he refused to accept any responsibility, offered assistance to the mother and had nothing to do with the daughter he fathered until she was a teenager and he was a multi billionaire.
There was a time when success in business in America was at least indirectly connected to creation of American jobs, not overwhelmingly connected to export of american jobs. When successful american companies contributed a substantial share of their profits to paying taxes to maintain the infrastructure and society of the country they depend on instead of setting up phony corporate headquarters to avoid taxes or avoiding taxes via paying off politicians to create tax loopholes. When successful american companies made money by serving the American public instead of by fleecing them. When successful american companies would use record amounts of cash on hand to invest in America and create much needed jobs instead of setting on it in hopes of swaying the next election in their favor. This is not that time!
I for one would rather have a president who is part of the 99% than part of the 1%. Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against someone making a lot of money but do have a problem with multi millionaires or billionaires claiming to be good Christians who believe in the teachings of Jesus in a political campaign.
Jesus was pretty clear about people gaining wealth while other people remained poor. He said that the Rich should," Go sell everything you own, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come and follow me. He said," Watch out! Be on guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist of the abundance of his possessions."
He said," In the same way, any of you who does not give ip everything he has cannot be my disciple. He said, " It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god." Im not a good church going Christian but evidently I have a lot better chance of qualifying as a follower of Jesus and getting into the kingdom of heaven than any of the Republican candidates, most of whom are multi millionaires if not billionaires, and who all have plans to cut taxes of the already obscenely rich while most blame the poor for being poor and offer them no assistance.
While the American public is finally waking up to what a third of a century of Reaganomics has accrued and is finally demanding a piece of the prosperity that the top 1% has enjoyed since 1980, every Republican candidate has put forth a plan to further lower the tax rate of the rich. Perhaps it is time they stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and the Tea Party and start listening to the majority of the American people for a change.
Sincerely,
Charles Leach
Lynchburg[[In-content Ad]]