Kudlow Exclusive- Jack Welch: I Want to Take This Administration Out

LARRY KUDLOW, host:

We welcome back to THE KUDLOW REPORT an old friend, the great famed CEO Jack

Welch.

Mr. Welch, thank you for coming back, sir.

Mr. JACK WELCH: Larry, it's great to be here.

KUDLOW: Let me just begin, as we have all day, luminaries like yourself, the way too soon passing of the brilliant entrepreneur Steve Jobs, what's your thought on that?

Mr. WELCH: Absolutely tragic. I mean, his family has certainly had the biggest loss, but America and the world has lost something. He wasn't just a genius entrepreneur, he was an executor. He got--people are not giving him enough credit for getting a million or two million or five million to the customer on time with great quality. That's a real job.

KUDLOW: He was a great retailer and a great marketer you got there.

Mr. WELCH: Great marketer. Great--a supply chain manager and a great genius of an entrepreneur. He--to show you his impact, though, I had an experience at home. My stepson's grandmother called, 85 years old, upset as could be.

KUDLOW: Mm-hmm.

Mr. WELCH: The kids called from college, two of them. They don't call when CEOs die.

KUDLOW: Yeah.

Mr. WELCH: They were so impacted. What this guy did for business, he invented cool.

KUDLOW: Yeah.

Mr. WELCH: He made cool--most business guys are in suits like you are and I am right now.

KUDLOW: Right.

Mr. WELCH: This guy, though, delivered products that made business cool.

KUDLOW: And he made a better world of it. I think...

Mr. WELCH: You know...

KUDLOW: ...everybody agrees that his impact was just vastly beyond just being a businessman.

Mr. WELCH: Oh.

KUDLOW: Just vastly beyond.

Mr. WELCH: I mean, he was a true visionary.

KUDLOW: Yeah. All right, I appreciate that very much.

Let me come back to some of the current events of the day. President Obama had a lengthy news conference today, over an hour. Among the many points he made, I want to get your take on this, he is endorsing the Senate Democrats' idea of a 5.6 percent surtax on millionaires. And the president also indicated, however, that other tax increases

kent522 Wrote: Oct 11, 2011 11:15 PM

As usual Larry and Welch are full o cr ap. Obama didn't come up with the 750bil bailout Mr. Paulson/bush DID. He said the admin doesn't no how to create jobs...since when is Gov superposed to create them? I thought the tax cuts and deregulation and wallstreet investors were the deal makers? what happen to all the record profits... I thought they were always reinvested into entrepreneurs and business? what happen to supply side trickle down? Sounds like good cop bad cop to me. WAKE-UP Folks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Flag as Offensive

Kevin690 Wrote: Oct 12, 2011 8:19 PM

Oh yeah? The stimulus that is referred to was signed into law in February, 2009; it was written by Nancy Pelosi.

Hanky-Panky Paulson's bailout of banks (TARP) was NOT designed as a "stimulus."

Chries Wrote: Oct 10, 2011 10:50 AM

From the Column:
"Mr. WELCH: 'I mean, they are spenders. They believe government should do more. They don't believe jobs come from the private sector. They believe government creates jobs.'"

Robert, do you consider this quote from Mr. Welch to "unfounded" and "wrong-headed"?

kent522 Wrote: Oct 11, 2011 11:16 PM

He's talking out of both sides of his mouth....just like most reps do. Personal responsibility my a ss

Robert39 Wrote: Oct 10, 2011 9:08 AM

Mr K: Am surprised at unfounded, wrong-headed, assumptions of conservative and liberal analysis. It's not true that: 1) Prosperity of lower income quintiles depends upon their or others marginal tax rates (I've never heard discussions of origins of this accepted wisdonm; 2) You can't tax the wealthy-only an economy. Any tax regime affects opportunity costs to relative benefit of the mobile wealthy having greater freedom of residence, type, liquidity, tax subjection, risk, etc-always "at the margins" not in black & white asroutiinely assumed. The regime does affect efficiency, transactions & social cost, & gross revenue; 3)Doubling incomes and wealth doubles the gaps although making idjits like Bernie Saunders unhappy.

oricowits Wrote: Oct 10, 2011 8:33 AM

To an unwashed rube's eye, Mr. Welch seems more than a little conflicted. "I want to take this administration out" and arrogantly dismissing Hermain Cain and going all in on Romney simply can not be squared. While long haul I fear the 2012 election will prove to be painfully academic, it would seem there are more effective steps Welch could propose in order to achieve his stated goal.

kent522 Wrote: Oct 11, 2011 11:19 PM

Larry was baiting him. He's a crap stirrer. he didn't ask or receive one insightful comment. what a waste of electricity

GARY187 Wrote: Oct 10, 2011 1:56 AM

While I may not want to take this administration "out," I DO want to help end the legal and ethical corruption of this disdainful party. In fact, daily I come to believe that both parties contain career-minded, posturing elitist intent on maintaining the status-quo. When is the last time you heard from either party the need to work for the common good of this nation? Like many of you, I AM STILL WAITING.

kent522 Wrote: Oct 11, 2011 11:20 PM

right on bro. u got it!!

bassboat Wrote: Oct 10, 2011 12:57 AM

I have a question for Jack and Larry. They say that now is not a good time to raise taxes. When is a good time? All it does is take from further economic growth and give it to the moochers. The left has won this war of words and Jack and Larry are not eben aware of this most basic concept of capitalism.

Ira Thurby-Wright Wrote: Oct 10, 2011 3:51 AM

"They say that now is not a good time to raise taxes. When is a good time? "

There's never a "good" time, but there are definitely "worse" times, and we're in the middle of one of those "worse" times in the history of the country. Don't take it personally, but why would you ever endorse the transfer of wealth from one group to another!? That doesn't create equality, it destroys the incentive of both the beneficiary and benefactor, creating poverty.

BobbyStix Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 6:46 PM

One word to condense all of this: WEALTH!
If you can not define it, as in the case of imamobama, then you do not know how to create it (wealth!).
If you do not know how to create wealth, the country can not be turned around. It is Wealth that creates jobs!
If you dont understand what i mean ... then you have to research the economic meaning of wealth and the economic and financial process of creating weatlh. Steve Jobs understood how to create Wealth. Mr. Trump and Mr. Kirowsoky understand how to create "wealth".

the economic petire dish required to create wealth is:

Equal opporutnity is born of Liberty
Equal outcome is meted by Tyranny.

PhillupSpace2 Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 3:35 PM

Funny thing about regulations, Larry, and you will see this play out with Obamacare and numous invasive and "control freak" types of rules and "Findings." Every action of the Government increases the "viscosity" of the molasses the businesses are required to swim in. BUT!

When on the outside, the challengers berate those putting fetters on the governed but, upon taking offices, look around and say, "Gosh, the Democrats have already been excoriated for doing that and there are things in there I can use to my advantage!

In my comment to the Rick Santorium "Zero-Zero-Zero plan" I asked how many Regulations were repealed during his 12 years in the Senate and if I could count them on my fingers?

John1324 Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 2:51 PM

Don't blame Obama for not creating jobs. He is handicapped by his leftist philosophies and appointees.

On the second thought, he is responsible for leftist philosophies and appointees.

Blair31 Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 12:59 PM

I do too. This is the most corrupt administration since the Nixon administration. What did the President know and when did he know it?

jim39 Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 1:24 PM

Nixon was a Cub Scout compared to these guys.

JRBeaman Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 4:15 PM

I have not decided if the Obama Clan are like the 20 Mobsters, or the 90's Gangstahs. Maybe a combination with a bunch of Muslim radicals thrown in to the mix.... Yeah, Nixon was a wimp compared to Obama's "associates".

There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All

Blair31 Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 7:12 PM

Very true, Jim. So was Clinton.

David9 Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 8:18 PM

One minor break-in and we still here about it 40 yrs later.How about that criminal Impeached President Clinton.Funny how noboby says that when he is introduced but that is what he is.

Conservative Robert Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 12:15 PM

The Obummer Administration belief that government spending can stimulate our economy is wrong, socialist in nature, and analogous to believing that the earth is the center of the universe. In our free market capital economic system, Government is NOT the center of our economic universe, business growth is. The belief that government stimulus after government stimulus will fix the problem is completely backward and is destined to fail. Strangling business growth with enormous taxes and over-regulation makes it much worse Welch is right.

carol1415 Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 12:28 PM

Yes Robert, of course, so why and how has obama and his comrades gotten so advanced with their agenda here.

JRBeaman Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 4:23 PM

The reason, Obama and the other left-wing socialists, like Harry Reed and that Palosi woman, is that they are only interested in what gets them more power. Obama has that, and now wants credit for solving the problem. The real problem is that non of the above know how, as it would require a solution that goes against their agenda. That means they cannot fix it, but continually try and sell themselves as the fixers, and only the truly ignorant, or biased would accept them or their proposed solutions. The countries problem is the huge quantity of those that follow them and their ways. Why else would they also promote illegal immigration? And play cheerleader to the minority community? Because they want the votes from them. The power.

Ward5 Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 12:09 PM

I have to disagree with Jack Welch on his suggestion to suspend new regulations. Suspension won't do the job. A suspension means that the regulations will come into effect at some unspecified future time. This is akin to starting a football game knowing that the basic rules might change at the end of the first quarter. You may know what the new rules are but don't know when they'll go into effect or if the starting rules will hold for the duration of the game. An impossible situtation. In the same way that whole Federal departments need to be shut down, so too many regulations need to be abolished.

carol1415 Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 12:31 PM

Touche' Ward - they MUST be abolished. We need and want a true and real FREE ENTERPRISE system. Give us back our capitalism and obama can take his damnable communism to some deserted island some where and live out his life there

Brad493 Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 3:24 PM

You're talking about going back to the 1870's

calhoun211 Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 6:29 PM

Don't be a idiot.

PV Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 11:05 PM

He can't help be what he is. A leopard can't change its spots.

silentCalfan Wrote: Oct 10, 2011 1:15 AM

Nah, we'll settle for the 1950's.

Harry259 Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 4:56 PM

Absolutely correct! Well said Ward

Pynck Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 11:42 AM

I bought GE stock when Welch ran the company, and it was a GREAT investment! Look at a graph of GE's historical price and it just went up........until Immelt took over!!

Why the stockholders put up with Immelt (aka GEmelt) is beyond my comprehension! I sold my stock!

Just_aJoe Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 11:37 AM

Don't forget that GE is a big time Obama supporter. They've bought and paid for so many in the government that GE is part of the problem and not the solution. Welch on the other hand is speaking as a private citizen and not for GE but don't confuse the two.

The Sloandog Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 11:25 AM

Welch better give Cain another look.Cain is the only top tier conservative. Romney is not a conservative and not a straight talker.

jim39 Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 1:32 PM

That's why he likes him: he can be controlled. Romney is a good Repubblyclubber. Like Trent Lottsforsale.

Notice the Repubblyclubber Establisment said nothing about Kelo in the '08 elections? That's because they loved the idea of Pfizer getting the property from those "worthless" homeowners. Kelo could have been called th Naboth's Vineyard Decision, written by the Jezebel Court. And Romney and his comrades weren't particularly offended by the decision, because he and his pals don't give a rat's backside for us little people. Odumbo's bureaucrats are far worse, but that's why it never occured to McLame to bring it up as a campaign issue.

Maybe Jackie boy thinks differently? Don't make me laugh!

JRBeaman Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 4:33 PM

You need to look at what the candidates stand for, and what you expect them to do,
I certainly like what Romney proposes better than what Obama proposed or has done, as it is far more compliant to what made this country strong. That is the bottom line. The fact that the current GE promotes other than Welsh recommends is indeed strange, but then Welsh isn't running that show any more. So your argument is shallow at best. (It's not the same leadership) or can you look past your obvious bias to see that?

PV Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 11:07 PM

Pfizer didn't get the property in Kelo. That was to go to a developer who was going to build upscale condominiums and shops which ostensibly would provide greater property tax revenues to the government.

The homeowners lost their homes, and the land is still sitting vacant to this day.

silentCalfan Wrote: Oct 10, 2011 1:19 AM

Don't you just enjoy the heck out of all these wizards of smart who are counting Cain out? They ought to be counting Cain's poll numbers. Cain is getting my money and will be getting my vote. NO MORE RINOs!!!

Retired_Geek_from_VA Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 11:13 AM

Obama's Full scale Assault on America

President Barack Obama throughout his life, his candidacy and during the first years of his Presidency has been consistent in conducting and planning the economic downfall and destruction of what has made America great, free markets.

The foreseeable future of a Government Controlled by the Barack Obama Regime is the implementation of tax increases, layers of Government restrictions and regulations with the intent of crippling business and new job creation.

President Barack Obama's solution to the economic crisis, is borrowing and spending to fuel an ever growing massive, inefficient and wasteful Government.

Barack Obama has purposefully chosen a dangerous path for America.

JRBeaman Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 4:42 PM

Obama has chosen the same path for America as Regan did for Russia. A military war to defeat the other is not reasonable, but it can be done economically. Both Obama and Regan were successful in bankrupting the target countries by destroying their economy, and turning them into a democracy which is one of the worst forms of government possible. The reason so many people bought into Obama was that the government controlled school agenda, designed by Democrats, has dumbed-down everyone from it's first involvement. A resounding success by the progressives. A resounding success for those that hate America, a resounding success for Obama's true objectives in complete harmony with his past indicated, just as predicted. Too easily sold.

Bluebonnet Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 11:09 AM

There is a formula for success of a nation, for the country to recover and for everyone to prosper....it is called the Constitution. However, there have been so many butchers of freedom who have taken their cutting tools to the Constitution, it is not likely we will ever get it back.

But, apparently that is what the people want because they keep voting the same corrupt individuals back into office succumbing to power and greed, ultimately putting the working class and below into slavery. "A quart of wheat for a day's wages......"

We have been warned!

lilly18 Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 10:41 AM

Obama was elected in 2008. In 2009 ExxonMobil made 70 billion in profit and paid zero federal income tax. I have a long list of similar, all taken from SEC filings. Every day we hear how many trillions of dollars Corporate America is sitting on and not putting into hiring or research or infrastructure. Our CEOs are making proportionally MUCH more than CEOs in any other industrialized nation. Big Business is in the driver's seat, as posts to this thread prove (see H, 10:21 for one). If you people think Capitalism is being killed by Obama you are amazingly stupid.

BK22 Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 10:50 AM

If you people think Capitalism is being killed by Obama you are amazingly stupid.
____________________________

You know people allege that you are stupid all the time Lilly. But true to your character..you continue to post and remove all doubt.

ANYONE who is stupid enough to vote for the incompetent clown currently in the whitehouse now is beyond Hope or Change.

carol1415 Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 11:11 AM

And, moronic lillylapper, to add to BK's comments, just in case YOU haven't noticed, let's point out just a few extremely salient reasons companies is NOT hiring: 1) EXTREME amount of regulations put in place by your fuhrer, obama THAT COSTS TONS OF DOLLARS YOU MORON; 2). CORPORATE income tax in the U.S. Is higher than any other country in the world, YOU MORON; 3). Damnable unions price ALL unionized businesses OUT OF THE MARKET YOU MORON and companies take their business out of the country where there are NO UNIONS YOU MORON.
We can alk see how compketely ILLITERATE lillylapper is!

JRBeaman Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 4:44 PM

That's why he is known as the Chocolate Hitler.

TheOtherWhiteMeat Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 11:13 AM

This has to be a record-it usually takes about 5 posts before name-calling starts!

carol1415 Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 12:14 PM

Look surrunreal, it doesn't require any time at all to call a person just exactly what that person is. And now, here we have lillylapper, entertaining us with her inanities.

Pat Alexander Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 11:55 AM

"If you people"

Oh No!! It's the dreaded: "you people"

R.O.T.F.L.

theformernana Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 3:31 PM

Oh Obama is killing Capitalism alright.

And why the name calling?

PV Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 11:10 PM

Exxon never paid zero in federal taxes. Where do you come up with this nonsense.

And their actual profit percentage is between 6% and 8%, which is below what most other major industries earn.

I'm glad you are no longer a teacher and able to poison young minds with your drivel.

H55 Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 10:21 AM

I have to laugh about Welch, we had a small contract with GE to produce a product for them. A few years ago at the end of the contract GE notified us that we would have to reduce our price 10 percent or they would send the contract to China. They were told we could not do that and still pay a living wage. Well I guess China must have gotten it. Nice going Jack Welch.

BK22 Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 10:51 AM

still pay a living wage
______________

and just what IS a living wage? Is that any wage that allows you to live or one in which YOU believe will justify those 3 cell phones, cars and a home that you can't afford.

H55 Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 2:03 PM

Ah BK you sound bitter and stupid probably bitter because you are stupid. Go join your fellow idiots storming the space museum

PV Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 11:15 PM

No, H. He asked you a very reasonable question. What is a living wage?

And why should the wage be based on anything other than the value of the productivity it provides? Based upon the actual value provided, that wage could be higher or it could be lower, but it should be based on the actual value. Not some subjective arbitrarily derived amount.

TheOtherWhiteMeat Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 11:15 AM

Maybe obama meant 6% unemployment in CHINA ?!

Art6 Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 10:00 AM

Sorry Jack. I worked for GE for 35 years. I started with GE when it was a great company worthy of its Edison heritage. I retired from a company which became a credit-card driven entity. Jack had more to do with that horror story. Under his leadreship, technology was driven out and finance was embraced. Look at it now. It needed government TARP bailout ($130B loan guarnatee) to avaoid bankruptcy. GE has liability of $600B with assets covering $450B. The stock is in the tank. Immelt is an idiot. He is giving up on $20B worth of aircraft engines and power generation business to promote the guaranteed to fail wind power business of $5B.

PV Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 11:26 PM

It also had an arbitrary, brutal, management approach. Every year, managers were force-rated from top to bottom with the lowest 10% immediately fired. Performance management is certainly required, but to arbitrarily follow a stupid formula is ridiculous. After a few years of this you get to the point where you are starting to eliminate some pretty good talent, all on a completely arbitrary basis. All this system produces is a bunch of yes-men whose primary objective becomes not making any waves. Innovation and thinking outside the box goes right out the window.

PV Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 11:32 PM

GE also was the creator of the absurd Six Sigma process. As an operations manager, I would look at the business process and determine how people were spending their time. I would identify where the inefficiencies were and eliminate them. I could do this rather quickly, and put new processes in place that were aligned with the objectives we were hoping to achieve. I didn't need any stupid Six Sigma consultants spending months in committee deriving irrelevant measures to tell me what was wrong. Think about the overhead costs baked into your business to pay all these pinheads for doing what any decent manager could easily accomplish.

PV Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 11:36 PM

Making matters even worse, many of these GE castaways were hired into my company as senior managers. They were treated as geniuses without ever having demonstrated anything that would support this perception. They didn't know our business, but still used their bizarre management practices to wreak havoc on our operations. Everything was turned into project management instead of operational experience and insight of how the business actually worked.

Lazy-J Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 9:06 AM

Steve Jobs didn't invent the cell phone. He invented a way to make idiots want their phone to do everything. My cell phone from a competitor has camera, calculator, calender, timer, texting, internet, e-mail and actually works as a phone. Unfortunately for me, it's not cool. I still have to press buttons to make it do things. I can't just point my finger at the screen. It must be such a vast improvement to point at the screen. BTW my cell phone also is a music recorder, answering service and FM stereo radio. All I wanted was a phone which could send or recieve phone calls. Can anyone say Jitterbug?

Richard572 Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 9:27 AM

Get a Jitterbug and stop whining.

carol1415 Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 10:06 AM

So why didn't you purchase an I-Phone in the first place - doofas

Lazy-J Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 11:00 AM

I wanted a cell phone. I have no use for an I-phone. I'm not whining. Motorola copied Star Trek to make the flip phone and took home a fortune. Jobs and co. made improvements. That is how American commerce works. How many of us would like to drive ten lizzy's? I enjoy the benefits our great country has made possible. I just find it intimidating to have a darn phone that's smarter than I am.

Lloyd113 Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 2:06 PM

It's a 'Tin Lizzy' and it would be worth a whole lot of smart phones not to mention the attention one would get driving it, of course not on our freeways. 'Too slow'... for those who got up too late.

theformernana Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 3:27 PM

"I wanted a cell phone. I have no use for an I-phone. "

Well I don't know what to say about that, dearie.

You must be a victim.

Illinois Roy Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 6:34 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK_TXfKfyag

theformernana Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 3:23 PM

Basic, simple devices have always been available too. Did you not read the fine print or wonder why you were paying so much for bells you don't wanna ring and whistles you can't blow?

Allan Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 8:57 AM

Could someone explain this statement from Mr Welch to me: "I just had a review of my 12 companies in the last week--they're on fire. They're growing revenues at 7 percent average, the 12 companies. " and yet says President Obama is stiffing the economy. Is this what we call greed?, why didnt Mr Ludlow ask how many people he has had hired since his companies are doing so well?

jim39 Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 9:00 AM

Doubt that they're American companies.

Probably Canadian or Mexican. Canada is recovering, so is Mexico. Meanwhile, Odumbo is flushing us down the international toilet.

carol1415 Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 10:10 AM

Allan - evidently you ate not among the intelligent sect of our society. Just WHY woyld any company or corporation hire ANY new employees (no matter how much money they have on hand) when it's going to cost those companies gazillions of dollars with obamacare for just one new employee and with ALL of the damnable obama regulations.
YOU truly are a blockhead. Would YOU spend any money at all with that CRAP in your way.

Allan Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 8:37 PM

At what point do regulations become an impediment for hiring people?
Do you think that food safety, occupational health and safety, antitrust legislation, Federal Deposit Insurance regulations are unneccessary? They all cost employers money. At what point do you think they become an impediment to hiring? Are these regulations worth it?
PS..The way thanks for the personal comments about my intelligence. I am equally impressed with erudite vocabulary.

PV Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 11:42 PM

Allan, you are posing red herring arguments. Of course all those things are necessary, but the question is do we need over-reaching government, who actually is very poor at accomplishing those things, in every aspect of our lives - both personal and business?

Government has shown itself to be the least capable of performing its stated objectives.

BK22 Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 10:54 AM

why didnt Mr Ludlow ask how many people he has had hired since his companies are doing so well?
________________________________

Doing well and hiring people are not necessarily consistent. You can do well by cutting costs and maintaining your current workforce. Demand dictates hiring.....You aren't real up on the whole economic thingy are you?

theformernana Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 3:20 PM

Another excellent, succint post!

theformernana Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 3:19 PM

I am always disturbed by finger pointing and "GREED" calling. It's relative you know. He's greedy because you don't think he's spreading it around enough. To the vast majority of hungry, poverty stri Ken people in the world YOU are greedy because you have your own computer and play online while they suffer. To them, anything beyond the bare minimum for survival is GREED.

It's not up to you to decide for a big businessman or me. It's your job to decide for you and act accordingly.

Allan Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 8:41 PM

At what point does a person become greedy? Does greed really exist?

PV Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 11:45 PM

And why is someone greedy if he wants to retain the fruits of his own labor rather than seeing them stolen through legalized theft and given to people who had no role in its creation. And to people who never say thanks, let alone having any idea where it came from.

I would suggest that it is more greedy to want something you had no role in, then to want to decide how to utilize what you have made for yourself.

jim39 Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 8:50 AM

Odumbo is a No Growther. That's his principle economic theory: he thinks you can have zero growth and jobs, too.

He's surrounded by No Growthers, too.

theformernana Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 3:03 PM

No Growthers....

I like it!

Luny Tune Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 8:49 AM

Welch slid on a very important issue. We don't need to freeze regulations, we need to roll back regulations. I am assuming he meant freeze "growth" of regulations. However, if he meant "freeze" as in "kill" regulations, I'm with him.

jim39 Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 8:56 AM

you can freeze a wart and it may kill it, but the EPA would just go into hibernation.

theformernana Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 2:59 PM

I want the wart sliced off and the skin cauterized. Then I want the viral EPA neutered!

Is that too much to ask?

No more unelected groups passing laws, regulations and taxes.

Allan Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 8:50 PM

Are there any regulations at all that you believe are necessary?

joev Wrote: Oct 09, 2011 8:41 AM

Obama, the man who keeps on taking and has no prior "REAL" work experience is killing America along with the other members of Congress.

Ed Morrissey	Shocker: Obama WH leaked sensitive info for The Obama Is Totally Awesome blockbuster movie
Ed Morrissey	Support for abortion drops to record low
Ed Morrissey	Free speech moment: Standing with Stacy McCain, Patterico, Liberty Chick, and Aaron Walker
Ed Morrissey	Obama loses 40% of the vote in two Democratic primaries
Ed Morrissey	Quinnipiac FL poll puts Romney up by 6, 47/41
Ed Morrissey	Palin endorses Hatch in Utah

Kudlow Exclusive- Jack Welch: I Want to Take This Administration Out

Larry Kudlow

Most Recent Articles

Video

Kudlow Exclusive- Jack Welch: I Want to Take This Administration Out

Larry Kudlow

Most Recent Articles

Sign-Up to receive Updates from TH

Video