No Barry, you do not grow the economy from the middle out

[Mycroft]

Oh....do tell....this should be good.

You call it promoting aristocracy...conservatives call it allowing people the freedom to achieve anything they want.

You would rather level the playing field...conservatives call that dumbing down people.

It's really as simple as that.

 

[disneydude]

You call it promoting aristocracy...conservatives call it allowing people the freedom to achieve anything they want.You would rather level the playing field...conservatives call that dumbing down people.It's really as simple as that.

Ah...but that is where you are wrong. The GOP isn't interesting is "Allowing people the freedom to achieve anything they want"....talk about "Utopian" fairy tales. The GOP is only interested in helping those who have "achieved" by way or Aristocracy to continue to acquire and keep more of the nation's wealth thus securing the aristocracy for generations to come.Leveling the playing field? Perhaps...but more in line with allowing others equal access and fair play rather than slanting the rules so that only the Aristocracy get the advantages.The "Dumbing down people" talking point is merely propoganda to try to convince the working class conservatives to vote against their own best interest. They do this by tossing them bones towards their conservative social agenda in order to get them to vote against their economic interests.It really IS as simple as that.

 

[Mycroft]

Ah...but that is where you are wrong. The GOP isn't interesting is "Allowing people the freedom to achieve anything they want"....talk about "Utopian" fairy tales. The GOP is only interested in helping those who have "achieved" by way or Aristocracy to continue to acquire and keep more of the nation's wealth thus securing the aristocracy for generations to come.Leveling the playing field? Perhaps...but more in line with allowing others equal access and fair play rather than slanting the rules so that only the Aristocracy get the advantages.The "Dumbing down people" talking point is merely propoganda to try to convince the working class conservatives to vote against their own best interest. They do this by tossing them bones towards their conservative social agenda in order to get them to vote against their economic interests.It really IS as simple as that.

LOL!!

Okay. Discussing this is like discussing religion. Nobody's mind is going to be changed and hyperbole wins the day.

No thanks.

 

[tjelen]

Ah...but that is where you are wrong. The GOP isn't interesting is "Allowing people the freedom to achieve anything they want"....talk about "Utopian" fairy tales. The GOP is only interested in helping those who have "achieved" by way or Aristocracy to continue to acquire and keep more of the nation's wealth thus securing the aristocracy for generations to come.Leveling the playing field? Perhaps...but more in line with allowing others equal access and fair play rather than slanting the rules so that only the Aristocracy get the advantages.The "Dumbing down people" talking point is merely propoganda to try to convince the working class conservatives to vote against their own best interest. They do this by tossing them bones towards their conservative social agenda in order to get them to vote against their economic interests.It really IS as simple as that.

Government can help the economy grow by spending money, but it depends on what the government spends money on. If the government just gives people money, that won't grow the economy. Also nation building overseas doesn't do any good for us. If we spend money on ports, railways and the electrical grid the economy would improve in the long run because it would be easier for companies to transport products and people around the country. Fixing the electrical grid will keep us from having large blackouts like the one in the Northeast a few years ago. A blackout cause a large loss to the economy.

Republican don't care if people in this country succeed. They only care about how the rich are doing. They think that giving the rich tax breaks will cause the economy to grow. The sad fact is that if our infrastructure and schools are horrible and higher education is unattainable, no one will want to do business in this country. It would be better for our economy if we implemented a flat tax at the 20% Rick Perry proposed. We should also do the same to the corporate tax. This would cause a hike in corporate taxes because many corporations would lose their tax breaks. If we used the new revenue to close the deficit and re-prioritized what we spend on the military and welfare to education, infrastructure and college of all types, the economy would start to grow. It may take a few years to see a boom, but we would see growth in the future. I also would like to see those that are working and poor get a monthly tax rebate instead of welfare, but keep unemployment. The rebates would do away with the problem of people working just enough to keep their benefits because the would get cash. When they work and make more money, they will have more and a smaller rebate. Some will say people will use the money irresponsibly, but if there is less welfare, they will have to find another way to live.

I know what I have proposed above isn't likely because Republicans don't want to increase the tax burden, spend money on education and infrastructure and cutting the military are no starters. It would be logical to do this. Canada did this and now they are doing well compared to us. We should raise the tax burden if it means nation building at home and closing the deficit. This needs to be accompanied with cuts to the military, elimination of welfare programs, and implementation of the flat tax above. Don't get me wrong, Democrats don't care much about the middle class at the national level. Democrats at the state level seem to care more because they actually try to do things like make higher education more affordable, lower education better, pay the bills and build necessary infrastructure. National Democrats just pay lip service to the middle class to keep the base happy.

 

[fmw]

The GOP is only interested in helping those who have "achieved" by way or Aristocracy to continue to acquire and keep more of the nation's wealth thus securing the aristocracy for generations to come.

Nonsense. The GOP is interested only in winning elections like any other political party.

 

[disneydude]

Nonsense. The GOP is interested only in winning elections like any other political party.

Well of course...any political party is interested in winning elections...but every political party also has an agenda they are pursuing in doing so. Why would you want to win an election just to win an election if you didn't have a larger purpose in mind?

 

[Kushinator]

Sometimes, I think this is true. What is definitely true is that there is a unique intolerance to criticism of this President.

No, there is a normal intolerance to criticism based entirely on partisanship. Are there things to criticize this administration about? Of course. The problem is, cognitive dissonance ensures that the opposition will fail to acknowledge the mishaps of this administration.

1.) Didn't get a public option. You would think that the opposition would be happy about this. Nope! Instead, we get complete backlash from a plan that still centers on free market principals.

2.) Didn't get an adequate stimulus package. Most tax incentives, credits, and shoring up state and local governments. Limited (at best) infrastructure investment in a nation where bridges are crumbling, roads are ****, and electricity is still dominated by outdated methodologies (coal power).

 

[fmw]

Well of course...any political party is interested in winning elections...but every political party also has an agenda they are pursuing in doing so. Why would you want to win an election just to win an election if you didn't have a larger purpose in mind?

In a word, Power.

 

[Joe Steel]

And no, Henry Ford did not pay his workers more so they could buy his cars ( groan-how silly)

Caroline Baum schools the babbling idiot from Chicago on basic economics.

Did you read her bio? She had no training in economics.

Baum has a B.A. in political science from Tufts University and an M.A. in cinema studies from New York University.

Caroline Baum

Other than your own delusions, what makes you think she knows anything about economics?

 

[Kushinator]

Did you read her bio? She had no training in economics.

Other than your own delusions, what makes you think she knows anything about economics?

That he/she agrees with her statements is enough evidence.

 

[disneydude]

In a word, Power.

Power to pursue their agenda. What good is power if it isn't intended to accomplish something. Don't fool yourself. Every political party has an agenda.

 

[fmw]

Power to

pursue their agenda. What good is power if it isn't intended to accomplish something. Don't fool yourself. Every political party has an agenda.

I don't think so. I think it is just plain power and control. Any political party will change its platform in an instance if they think doing so will win an election.

 

[disneydude]

I don't think so. I think it is just plain power and control. Any political party will change its platform in an instance if they think doing so will win an election.

Power and control to do what? What do you want control for? You want control because you want to pursue your agenda.

 

[upsideguy]

And, more importantly, you don't grow an economy with government action.

Tell that to FDR

He didn't do it...it took a war. Is that what you want?

It always cracks me up when people say government spending can't simulate an economy.... and it was WWII that ended the depression (as per above). What was WWII? Massive government spending.

I do agree with the post that you "don't grow an economy with government action"... but you can stimulate it (give it the spark it needs). No single entity has sufficient spending power to impact an economy nor is any "for profit" entity in position to take the risk necessary to provide the spark. The private sector CAN lead a recovery, but someone has to make the first move and no entity is better positioned than the US Government.

 

[fmw]

Power and control to do what? What do you want control for? You want control because you want to pursue your agenda.

No. Politics does what it does to control people. There is an element of the population known as control freaks. Politicians are a part of that group. They want power in order to control people. They are driven by the desire to control people. They want it whether there is an agenda or not and regardless of their personal beliefs. There is no other reason to engage in politics in my opinion.

 

[sawdust]

It always cracks me up when people say government spending can't simulate an economy.... and it was WWII that ended the depression (as per above). What was WWII? Massive government spending.

I do agree with the post that you "don't grow an economy with government action"... but you can stimulate it (give it the spark it needs). No single entity has sufficient spending power to impact an economy nor is any "for profit" entity in position to take the risk necessary to provide the spark. The private sector CAN lead a recovery, but someone has to make the first move and no entity is better positioned than the US Government.

The economy started to recover during Great Depression prior to the start of WW2. It ended because the Supreme Court ended FDR's attempt at price controls under the National Recovery Act and FDR stopped treating the industrialists of the day as enemies. The economy was growing when WW2 started.

Government encourages growth in the economy not by spending, which it has to take money out of the economy to do, but by creating an atmosphere where entrepreneurs are encouraged and feel they are working for themselves not the government, people are made confident in the government to manage their fiscal affairs with competence, the regulatory arm of the government is fair and not over reaching. None of these goals exists today under Obama.

The article in the initial post mentions the Keystone Pipeline as an example of how government can create fifty permanent jobs but over four thousand construction jobs by it's passage. With a country of three hundred fifty million people and a hundred fifty million workers if my memory serves me correctly, four thousand jobs is insignificant. Government doesn't create jobs other than government jobs. All government jobs are overhead. No government jobs are productive from an economic standpoint. All government jobs are paid for, not by production, but by money taken from the private sector. All economic growth happens in the private sector. All production happens in the private sector. Growing the economy is simple. Control overhead, nurture the private sector.

The other day Obama said a government shut down would hurt the economy. He said that because he believes that the economy is government. It's not. The economy is main street all over the country and the only people who care about Washington DC are residents of Washington DC and the political class.

Rant over.

 

[KLATTU]

Did you read her bio? She had no training in economics.



Other than your own delusions, what makes you think she knows anything about economics?

It's just common sense. DUH!

And, oh by the way, the babbling idiot from Chicago doesn't have any training in economics either. (wink)

I know, I know, it's obvious.

 

[upsideguy]

The economy started to recover during Great Depression prior to the start of WW2. It ended because the Supreme Court ended FDR's attempt at price controls under the National Recovery Act and FDR stopped treating the industrialists of the day as enemies. The economy was growing when WW2 started.

Government encourages growth in the economy not by spending, which it has to take money out of the economy to do, but by creating an atmosphere where entrepreneurs are encouraged and feel they are working for themselves not the government, people are made confident in the government to manage their fiscal affairs with competence, the regulatory arm of the government is fair and not over reaching. None of these goals exists today under Obama.

The article in the initial post mentions the Keystone Pipeline as an example of how government can create fifty permanent jobs but over four thousand construction jobs by it's passage. With a country of three hundred fifty million people and a hundred fifty million workers if my memory serves me correctly, four thousand jobs is insignificant. Government doesn't create jobs other than government jobs. All government jobs are overhead. No government jobs are productive from an economic standpoint. All government jobs are paid for, not by production, but by money taken from the private sector. All economic growth happens in the private sector. All production happens in the private sector. Growing the economy is simple. Control overhead, nurture the private sector.

The other day Obama said a government shut down would hurt the economy. He said that because he believes that the economy is government. It's not. The economy is main street all over the country and the only people who care about Washington DC are residents of Washington DC and the political class.

Rant over.

Libertarians are so cute... like small children, their naivete shelters them from the real world in a blanket of innocent fantasy. In their world, where the sun always shines and the temperature is always a comfortable 72 degrees, there is no poverty, no sickness, no corruption, no exploitation, no crime...and thus no need for government. This cocoon is well protected by the invisible hand of capitalism that always makes things right so long as all follow the gospel according to Ayn Rand, God's favorite "profit" (before God learned that Ayn was an atheist)..... and because of this simple view of the world, there is no need to waste time trying to actually understand economics.

This notion that the government creates no jobs, only "steals" from the private sector is laughable. Below is a list of the 25 largest defense contractors

Top 25 US Defense Companies - Business Insider

Note Lockhead Martin, the largest of the defense contractors, employs 132,000. $35.7B of its $47.1B in revenue come from the government.... 132,000 jobs... given that nearly 75% of Lockhead Martin's revenue comes from the government, it seems to me at least a few of those 132,000 jobs were created to serve the needs of the government (of the people of the United States). And, guess what, Lockhead Martin has facilities (employees -- want to see all of the places that Lockheed Martin has employees --- about 100 http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/corporate/documents/Locations-Map-US.pdf)

Lockheed Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
America's Career InfoNet: Largest Employers
LMT Income Statement | Lockheed Martin Corporation Com Stock - Yahoo! Finance.

Now, here in the Metro Denver area Lockheed Martin employs about 14,000, making it the largest "private" employer in Colorado. And, these are not low paying jobs... these are rocket scientists and aeronautical engineers and technicians (six figure people). If we extrapolate that payroll at $75,000... that is more than $1B just of payroll (not to rent and other goods and services Lockheed Martin buys in Colorado). Of course, those employs will re-deploy that payroll at Whole Foods, Starbucks, Home Depot, Macys, REI, etc... they buy houses and cars... and because of those purchases people at those stores will have jobs... and they will spend their money, etc.... all because the US government needed rockets and jet fighters... of course, this is one company and one state.. there are 100,000+ other companies and 49 other states.... and there are other goods and services the government buys on behalf of its citizens, including highways, airports, parks and forests, etc.

Here is a list of the top 100 defense contractors. There are thousands more (DOD Getting a Better Handle on Contractor Numbers | Center for Effective Government)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_defense_contractors

Now, if you are making the argument that the government doesn't produce anything, therefore how can it contribute.... well, the argument could be extended to most of the service industry, including banks. Banks just take money from people and give it other people. Maybe their jobs aren't real jobs either? I might run with that argument myself, as the creators are the core an economy... but middle men have a role in adding value. Like banks, governments aggregate capital from small contributors and deploy it in concentrated ways. Unlike private industry, however, government can take BIG risks. Would we have landed on the moon in 1969 without the government (would we have won the space race from the USSR, which had government backing)? Would we have ended WWII in 1945 without the government sponsoring the Manhattan Project or should we merely have waited for GE? Perhaps Brown and Root should have stepped up and built the Interstate Highway system in the 1950's.... All of these things happened BECAUSE of the government and BECAUSE of the timing of such, the US became an industrial and world power.

Throughout world history, it was governments that made the big and bold moves. The explorations of Columbus, Hudson, Verrazano and Cook were all government sponsored Governments built the great harbors, airports, highway systems... governments lead the way on nuclear energy harnessment.

Governments are neither inherently good nor inherently bad. They just have a role....In the US, the federal government comprises nearly 20% of GDP. No single business has the kind of spending clout that can actually impact an economy in short order; nor is any entity in position to deploy $1T of risk capital. Sorry, the government has a role in a recession... its the only entity that can actually do something.

Sorry, but this idea that government never created a real job is a comment of the uneducated. You are free to argue the role of government, including how far it should go, how big it can be and what role it should have, but only in your little cocoon is it impotent in economic crisis....

...and as to sequester or government shut down, I invite you to contemplate the micro economic model articulated above. If the government cuts spending to Lockheed Martin by 20% consider the effects of that retrenchment.....

 

[Peter King]

And no, Henry Ford did not pay his workers more so they could buy his cars ( groan-how silly)

Caroline Baum schools the babbling idiot from Chicago on basic economics.

A User

I think growing it out of the middle is much more realistic than the trickle down BS that was the stupid mantra for years.

 

[Hatuey]

The economy started to recover during Great Depression prior to the start of WW2. It ended because the Supreme Court ended FDR's attempt at price controls under the National Recovery Act and FDR stopped treating the industrialists of the day as enemies. The economy was growing when WW2 started.

Weren't we in a recession in 1938?

 

[sawdust]

Weren't we in a recession in 1938?

By 1838 economic conditions in the great depression had started to improve. We hadn't totally recovered until the start of WW2.

 

[sawdust]

Libertarians are so cute... bla bla bla actually understand economics.

This notion that the government creates no jobs, only "steals" from the private sector is laughable. Below is a list of the 25 largest defense contractors

Top 25 US Defense Companies - Business Insider

Note Lockhead Martin, the largest of the defense contractors, employs 132,000. $35.7B of its $47.1B in revenue come from the government.... 132,000 jobs... given that nearly 75% of Lockhead Martin's revenue comes from the government, it seems to me at least a few of those 132,000 jobs were created to serve the needs of the government (of the people of the United States). And, guess what, Lockhead Martin has facilities (employees -- want to see all of the places that Lockheed Martin has employees --- about 100 http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/corporate/documents/Locations-Map-US.pdf)

Lockheed Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
America's Career InfoNet: Largest Employers
LMT Income Statement | Lockheed Martin Corporation Com Stock - Yahoo! Finance.

Now, here in the Metro Denver area Lockheed Martin employs about 14,000, making it the largest "private" employer in Colorado. And, these are not low paying jobs... these are rocket scientists and aeronautical engineers and technicians (six figure people). If we extrapolate that payroll at $75,000... that is more than $1B just of payroll (not to rent and other goods and services Lockheed Martin buys in Colorado). Of course, those employs will re-deploy that payroll at Whole Foods, Starbucks, Home Depot, Macys, REI, etc... they buy houses and cars... and because of those purchases people at those stores will have jobs... and they will spend their money, etc.... all because the US government needed rockets and jet fighters... of course, this is one company and one state.. there are 100,000+ other companies and 49 other states.... and there are other goods and services the government buys on behalf of its citizens, including highways, airports, parks and forests, etc.

Here is a list of the top 100 defense contractors. There are thousands more (DOD Getting a Better Handle on Contractor Numbers | Center for Effective Government)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_defense_contractors

Now, if you are making the argument that the government doesn't produce anything, therefore how can it contribute.... well, the argument could be extended to most of the service industry, including banks. Banks just take money from people and give it other people. Maybe their jobs aren't real jobs either? I might run with that argument myself, as the creators are the core an economy... but middle men have a role in adding value. Like banks, governments aggregate capital from small contributors and deploy it in concentrated ways. Unlike private industry, however, government can take BIG risks. Would we have landed on the moon in 1969 without the government (would we have won the space race from the USSR, which had government backing)? Would we have ended WWII in 1945 without the government sponsoring the Manhattan Project or should we merely have waited for GE? Perhaps Brown and Root should have stepped up and built the Interstate Highway system in the 1950's.... All of these things happened BECAUSE of the government and BECAUSE of the timing of such, the US became an industrial and world power.

Throughout world history, it was governments that made the big and bold moves. The explorations of Columbus, Hudson, Verrazano and Cook were all government sponsored Governments built the great harbors, airports, highway systems... governments lead the way on nuclear energy harnessment.

Governments are neither inherently good nor inherently bad. They just have a role....In the US, the federal government comprises nearly 20% of GDP. No single business has the kind of spending clout that can actually impact an economy in short order; nor is any entity in position to deploy $1T of risk capital. Sorry, the government has a role in a recession... its the only entity that can actually do something.

Sorry, but this idea that government never created a real job is a comment of the uneducated. You are free to argue the role of government, including how far it should go, how big it can be and what role it should have, but only in your little cocoon is it impotent in economic crisis....

...and as to sequester or government shut down, I invite you to contemplate the micro economic model articulated above. If the government cuts spending to Lockheed Martin by 20% consider the effects of that retrenchment.....

I didn't say that government's employees didn't create demand. I'm surprised that you didn't mention stapler and paper clip companies. I didn't say that government has no function. Certainly it does. Someone has to fill the pot holes and fix the bridges. You are playing a game of semantics. All of government's employees are overhead and none are productive. Government can create demand for defense materials but bigger government doesn't create bigger demand and that's the largest issue. Lockheed Martin creates the jobs, government is only the consumer. If Lockheed Martin only produced materials for private industry they wouldn't have to lay off their entire workforce, so to say that government's demand creates over a hundred thousand jobs for defense contractors misses the mark.

Your position is apparently that to create jobs, government should start wars to play the semantics game. When this, or any other administration, says it has a jobs bill the purpose of the bill isn't to cause the defense contractors to build more bombs. They target private industry, or in the case of this president, private and public sector unions. When we bailed out GM, we saved the pensions of thousands of auto workers and GM used the money to construct ten new plants in China. We saved retired union workers and created jobs in China by your standards.

My issue isn't government. It's the size of government. As government expands, liberty contracts, to quote some old dude whose name escapes me. Many in Congress don't know what it takes to make a payroll or risk their own capital. It's not easy and often government makes it more difficult by being over regulatory. The economy isn't comprised of all the things government buys. It's consumers buying cars and shopping at the 7-11. Government done right creates consumer confidence because it manages it's affairs in a responsible and sustainable manner. It doesn't replace social security payments placed in the general fund with iou's and then proclaim it's running out of money in October.

With respect to the sequester, contemplate this: Four Months After Sequester, the Economy Continues to Improve | Inc.com

 

[sawdust]

Libertarians are so cute... bla bla bla actually understand economics.

This notion that the government creates no jobs, only "steals" from the private sector is laughable. Below is a list of the 25 largest defense contractors

Top 25 US Defense Companies - Business Insider

Note Lockhead Martin, the largest of the defense contractors, employs 132,000. $35.7B of its $47.1B in revenue come from the government.... 132,000 jobs... given that nearly 75% of Lockhead Martin's revenue comes from the government, it seems to me at least a few of those 132,000 jobs were created to serve the needs of the government (of the people of the United States). And, guess what, Lockhead Martin has facilities (employees -- want to see all of the places that Lockheed Martin has employees --- about 100 http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/corporate/documents/Locations-Map-US.pdf)

Lockheed Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
America's Career InfoNet: Largest Employers
LMT Income Statement | Lockheed Martin Corporation Com Stock - Yahoo! Finance.

Now, here in the Metro Denver area Lockheed Martin employs about 14,000, making it the largest "private" employer in Colorado. And, these are not low paying jobs... these are rocket scientists and aeronautical engineers and technicians (six figure people). If we extrapolate that payroll at $75,000... that is more than $1B just of payroll (not to rent and other goods and services Lockheed Martin buys in Colorado). Of course, those employs will re-deploy that payroll at Whole Foods, Starbucks, Home Depot, Macys, REI, etc... they buy houses and cars... and because of those purchases people at those stores will have jobs... and they will spend their money, etc.... all because the US government needed rockets and jet fighters... of course, this is one company and one state.. there are 100,000+ other companies and 49 other states.... and there are other goods and services the government buys on behalf of its citizens, including highways, airports, parks and forests, etc.

Here is a list of the top 100 defense contractors. There are thousands more (DOD Getting a Better Handle on Contractor Numbers | Center for Effective Government)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_defense_contractors

Now, if you are making the argument that the government doesn't produce anything, therefore how can it contribute.... well, the argument could be extended to most of the service industry, including banks. Banks just take money from people and give it other people. Maybe their jobs aren't real jobs either? I might run with that argument myself, as the creators are the core an economy... but middle men have a role in adding value. Like banks, governments aggregate capital from small contributors and deploy it in concentrated ways. Unlike private industry, however, government can take BIG risks. Would we have landed on the moon in 1969 without the government (would we have won the space race from the USSR, which had government backing)? Would we have ended WWII in 1945 without the government sponsoring the Manhattan Project or should we merely have waited for GE? Perhaps Brown and Root should have stepped up and built the Interstate Highway system in the 1950's.... All of these things happened BECAUSE of the government and BECAUSE of the timing of such, the US became an industrial and world power.

Throughout world history, it was governments that made the big and bold moves. The explorations of Columbus, Hudson, Verrazano and Cook were all government sponsored Governments built the great harbors, airports, highway systems... governments lead the way on nuclear energy harnessment.

Governments are neither inherently good nor inherently bad. They just have a role....In the US, the federal government comprises nearly 20% of GDP. No single business has the kind of spending clout that can actually impact an economy in short order; nor is any entity in position to deploy $1T of risk capital. Sorry, the government has a role in a recession... its the only entity that can actually do something.

Sorry, but this idea that government never created a real job is a comment of the uneducated. You are free to argue the role of government, including how far it should go, how big it can be and what role it should have, but only in your little cocoon is it impotent in economic crisis....

...and as to sequester or government shut down, I invite you to contemplate the micro economic model articulated above. If the government cuts spending to Lockheed Martin by 20% consider the effects of that retrenchment.....

I didn't say that government's employees didn't create demand. I'm surprised that you didn't mention stapler and paper clip companies. I didn't say that government has no function. Certainly it does. Someone has to fill the pot holes and fix the bridges. You are playing a game of semantics. All of government's employees are overhead and none are productive. Government can create demand for defense materials but bigger government doesn't create bigger demand and that's the largest issue. Lockheed Martin creates the jobs, government is only the consumer. If Lockheed Martin only produced materials for private industry they wouldn't have to lay off their entire workforce, so to say that government's demand creates over a hundred thousand jobs for defense contractors misses the mark.

Your position is apparently that to create jobs, government should start wars to play the semantics game. When this, or any other administration, says it has a jobs bill the purpose of the bill isn't to cause the defense contractors to build more bombs. They target private industry, or in the case of this president, private and public sector unions. When we bailed out GM, we saved the pensions of thousands of auto workers and GM used the money to construct ten new plants in China. We saved retired union workers and created jobs in China by your standards.

My issue isn't government. It's the size of government. As government expands, liberty contracts, to quote some old dude whose name escapes me. Many in Congress don't know what it takes to make a payroll or risk their own capital. It's not easy and often government makes it more difficult by being over regulatory. The economy isn't comprised of all the things government buys. It's consumers buying cars and shopping at the 7-11. Government done right creates consumer confidence because it manages it's affairs in a responsible and sustainable manner. It doesn't replace social security payments placed in the general fund with iou's and then proclaim it's running out of money in October.

With respect to the sequester, contemplate this: Four Months After Sequester, the Economy Continues to Improve | Inc.com

 

[American]

He didn't do it...it took a war. Is that what you want?

The economy didn't finally start picking up till the war, before that it was just like with Obama.

 

[Hatuey]

By 1838 economic conditions in the great depression had started to improve. We hadn't totally recovered until the start of WW2.

I didn't ask about the Great Depression. I asked whether we were in a recession in 1938. However, now that you bring up WWII, how would you say we recovered from the 1937-1938 recession?

A) Free market policies
B) Government action
C) Other

Please explain your choices.