The economic literacy of the electorate is at an all-time low. It's pitiful to watch the American public get exactly what they ask for, and then cry in pain as they get it.

Obama's not the problem. Debt's not the problem. Inflation isn't the problem.

A collapse on the demand side is the problem. Massive unemployment is the problem. The solution to these real problems is the exact opposite of austerity measures and tax cuts.

But whatever. We're clearly collectively delusional.

Nickolas, I must say that I disagree with you, not because of the clear ideological differences you and I have, but because you seem to think that pumping cash into the economy IS in fact a treatment for an ailing market. This method of governmental interaction in our privately driven economy is concealed by words like "stimulus" however they are Keynesian policies, period.

You make claim that, and I quote “Any suggestion that reduced regulation or a reduced corporate tax will lower unemployment is ridiculous. MAYBE it would in the long term (though there's no evidence that's true), but in the short term it would mean nothing.”

What is most curious about that statement is that you say there is no evidence that this is true. Perhaps you have never studied history, and by your own accord you are no economic expert so it only makes sense that you would make a statement like that. However there is more factual and economic evidence that suggests these kinds of deregulations and lower tax incentives do, in fact increase employment. You can find mounds of this information by looking at other countries economic situations as well.

Putting the USA aside, I would like to bring up India. A massive country that was poverty stricken for much of its history, it was not until recently that they began to implement capitalist economic policies. In about 40 years India has created some 400 million jobs (that is more jobs than the entire population of the United States). In addition to this, Ford Motor Company (An American Company I might add) has announced early this week their plan to expand into a multi million dollar facility that will create a quarter of a million cars each year to be distributed around the world. Now, the perennial question is where is Ford putting this facility? The answer: INDIA. Why? Simply, because it is actually cheaper and more cost efficient to do business across the globe than in the USA because the regulations have completed grinded production to a halt. So there go thousands of American jobs, to India.

Is the solution to pump more cash into the system or is it to allow businesses to do business? We are loosing our innovative spirit to the idea that the federal government is best and has all the answers. Let the rich be rich because last time I checked a poor man is not going to spend money on a construction company to come and renovate their house for resale (just to set an example).

I agree we have a customer problem but you do not create customers by pumping money because they hold onto it. We need to erase fear and allow for corporations to innovate their way to success. When you tax less more people get hired thus more people pay taxes at a lower rate which in turn (believe it or not, though I am sure you won’t as your liberal mindset takes away any grain of logic) returns more revenue to the government.

In addition, your claim that 300 billion is not a lot of money? You would be correct if our debt to the world was not an accumulation of over 15 trillion dollars, and growing to over16 trillion when we hit our debt ceiling again. I mean you have got to be kidding me, we borrow money at a “low rate?” It almost makes me laugh that you think this, no one even wants to lend to us anymore. Did you even hear about our debt downgrade? There are 15 nations that have a better credit rating than the USA! So much for all our wealth right?

And just to close this useless debate, you make one more claim that we can just throw a boat load of cash to help the economy, which again you note is only a short term fix (which is not true because it is not a fix at all). If that logic was indeed true than why did the so-called stimulus bill stop at 899 billion dollars, why not spend 899 trillion? If throwing money at a problem works than what sense does it make to have a limit on what we throw at it, wouldn’t more make sense?

"however they are Keynesian policies, period"
Ummm, I know that. Is that supposed to be a "gotcha"?

But this is great, thanks for handing it to me:
"it was not until recently that they began to implement capitalist economic policies"
"country that was poverty stricken for much of its history"
Funny stuff. And here I thought India was a huge complicated country that does not lend itself to glib descriptions. But now I find out it's just a case study in "capitalistic" awesomeness! Life is great when you keep your thoughts simple.

If you give a poor person cash, they will most certainly not "hold onto it". They will spend it. Yes, they will probably not spend it on a new construction, but they will spend it at the grocery store, and on gas, and to live. This is basic Econ 101 -- not radical leftist stuff, just math. You're confusing economic theories with morality -- Keynsian econ is just math. Tell me, what was the world like BEFORE Keynes? You're trying to tell me a stimulus won't solve all the world's problems. I AGREE WITH YOU.

"However there is more factual and economic evidence that suggests these kinds of deregulations and lower tax incentives do, in fact increase employment."
Like what? Name one. School me. I'm more than willing to rethink my position. However, I can think of a few counterfactuals without breaking a sweat, so it'll need to be pretty persuasive.

The example I gave you about India is a piece of evidence that deregulation and lower taxes and tariffs actually incentive businesses as well as corporations to expand, invest, and hire. I showed it two-fold; one with their ever expanding economy and with one of many major American companies going there to conduct business therefore creating jobs, however my guess is you missed the point. So, with that being said we can look at regulations and hire tax burdens in reverse so I can better illustrate my point. You would be a fool if you were to deny that some government interaction in the economy is necessary (i.e fair labor laws & anti monopoly laws to increase competition) however, the main component is limitation. Regulations naturally create an adverse business environment.

When the pseudo-governmental agencies regulate what a business can and cannot do it costs a company money to change, thus they are investing their money not to jobs rather they invest it to government agencies or towards practices to avoid fines. Another common diversion that a company may seek to do is to raise their prices to off-set the cost to the company which is a discrete way the government regulation impacts the middle-class because we get stuck with the higher prices. So then our so-called hero aka the government puts their hands-up takes no blame and points the finger at the bad businesses.

So, if regulations as you adamantly declare, do not truly impact hiring than why not have more? Lets regulate how much milk we can buy, lets regulate how much fuel a trucking company can use in the name of the environment, lets regulate salaries, lets regulate carbon emissions, lets regulate water consumption, lets regulate the type of light bulbs a store uses, lets regulate how much salt is used in our products, lets regulate how much crop a farmer can produce each season…why not regulate it all? (even though they are trying to as we speak) BECAUSE IT IS BAD FOR BUSINESS! What is bad for business is bad for employment, FACE IT. A businesses priority is to stay in business not guarantee employment. The best way to maintain quality employment is to have disposable money to invest in hiring not on crummy regulation and even more so, taxes.

Now to the point that lower taxes does not help employment. Again, looking at this in reverse. If this is true than why not just tax a company 85 or 95% of what they make. If lower taxes have no implicit impact on hiring than with that logic higher taxes would not impede on hiring either. According to your theory of higher taxes, it’s a natural win-win, the government gets more money and it doesn’t impact hiring. Of course that is not the case. Tell me, who do you think will have a better chance of hiring you… Company A that pays a flat tax of 20% across the board and has more money left over because they paid their share of taxes or Company B that pays 80% in taxes and is barely getting by because of their burden of expenses. The answer is quite clear.

As I think we both agree the problem is jobs and how to create them, and the only way to create them is to provide incentives and get the government off of our backs. Together as a nation we are all a part of the whole so the bigger the government is, the smaller the people are.

"Now to the point that lower taxes does not help employment..."
I'm done. Your "point" is nothing more than a little ball of meaningless stories that might make you happy but are devoid of content. I wish I could look at the complexity of the world, boil it down to a couple of cutsey anecdotes, and move on, but I can't.

"And just to close this useless debate"
You said that like 4 comments ago. Live up to it.

Thanks Lee. What I see is that liberals are perfectly willing to express dissatisfaction with our leadership, while conservatives always rally behind theirs (and then deny it later). It's galling, and it is very hard to have an honest debate with conservatives who can't see the irony in their constantly-changing priorities.

But back to the issue at hand, I think the meme that debt is the country's the single biggest concern has gained traction with a lot of Americans, but I still don't believe that it's true. I am no expert in economics, but I am pretty well-read and frankly I have never seen any evidence whatsoever that our debt is a SHORT TERM problem. If it was, we wouldn't still be able to borrow so cheaply. We have a LONG TERM debt problem that is pretty much directly attributable to a graying population and our imperial ventures.

But we do have pressing short term problems. We have a generation that is getting left behind. Businesses aren't hiring because there aren't enough customers, not because our national debt is too high. Stimulus spending is not supposed to solve anything, it's meant to inject cash into the system in the hopes that in the meantime business conditions will improve. You can't really say a stimulus "didn't work".

I think it's really quite obvious that ANY president, Dem or Rep, would be introducing a stimulus bill right now. It's the right thing for the government to do, whether it's Obama or GW or Carrot Top in the Oval Office.

You must be very proud

"He has no credibility on spending because he has no competence on spending"
Says you. This is the best critique you can come up with, ROC? Lame! Admit it -- you got nuttin'.

To be precise we'll have $447,000,000,000 less than nuttin'.

"1 trillion got us a 1.5% increase in unemployment, so by my math, we'll be seeing almost 10% by next Summer."

That's a joke and not a none-too-surprising revelation of mindlessness, right?