Starting in the late 60s and early 70’s parents quit DEMANDING that their children be taught ACTUAL American History and American Civics. The ensuing idiotiods reached an age where they could vote and they naturally thought that the government either owed them something or owed someone else something, based entirely on the ‘country’s’ past misdeeds.
It is said idiotoids who elected and might re-elect our last President. And when I say last I don’t mean that as he’s the last one elected. I mean if he’s re-elected, he’ll be the last American President.
Keynes would not regard ACORN as infrastructure, nor would ‘buying stuff from China’ count for also-necessary local labor hires.
3.9 unemployed workers per job opening is proof of inadequate demand. Every unemployed person could be perfectly trained and motivated for the job openings that exist, and we’d still be far from full employment.
If there was more demand workers might be more willing to quit their jobs and move to better ones, opening spots for unemployed workers.
That’s fair Jim. So where do we derive demand. From a growing private sector. What would a reasonable administration do to stimulate growth in the private sector?
So where do we derive demand. From a growing private sector.
Demand is demand. Part of the reason that demand is low is that the public sector has been cutting back. When you lay off 600,000 government workers you suck a lot of demand out of the economy.
What would a reasonable administration do to stimulate growth in the private sector?
To start, extend the payroll tax cut, so that balance-sheet-constrained consumers will have more to spend.
To start, extend the payroll tax cut, so that balance-sheet-constrained consumers will have more to spend.
If you are going to cut revenue to Social Security, why not just get rid of it? Or are you suggesting we cut revenue to Social Security now and leave the disaster of paying for it in the future to the next generation? Come on Jim, be brave; tell us that Social Security doesn’t need to be funded rather than saying “extend the payroll tax cut”!
I disagree. It IS a demand problem.
Starting in the late 60s and early 70’s parents quit DEMANDING that their children be taught ACTUAL American History and American Civics. The ensuing idiotiods reached an age where they could vote and they naturally thought that the government either owed them something or owed someone else something, based entirely on the ‘country’s’ past misdeeds.
It is said idiotoids who elected and might re-elect our last President. And when I say last I don’t mean that as he’s the last one elected. I mean if he’s re-elected, he’ll be the last American President.
Keynes would not regard ACORN as infrastructure, nor would ‘buying stuff from China’ count for also-necessary local labor hires.
3.9 unemployed workers per job opening is proof of inadequate demand. Every unemployed person could be perfectly trained and motivated for the job openings that exist, and we’d still be far from full employment.
If there was more demand workers might be more willing to quit their jobs and move to better ones, opening spots for unemployed workers.
That’s fair Jim. So where do we derive demand. From a growing private sector. What would a reasonable administration do to stimulate growth in the private sector?
So where do we derive demand. From a growing private sector.
Demand is demand. Part of the reason that demand is low is that the public sector has been cutting back. When you lay off 600,000 government workers you suck a lot of demand out of the economy.
What would a reasonable administration do to stimulate growth in the private sector?
To start, extend the payroll tax cut, so that balance-sheet-constrained consumers will have more to spend.
To start, extend the payroll tax cut, so that balance-sheet-constrained consumers will have more to spend.
If you are going to cut revenue to Social Security, why not just get rid of it? Or are you suggesting we cut revenue to Social Security now and leave the disaster of paying for it in the future to the next generation? Come on Jim, be brave; tell us that Social Security doesn’t need to be funded rather than saying “extend the payroll tax cut”!