How many jobs would 2.6 TRILLION Dollars buy ??? ...

[Trajan]

IF one took 2.6 TRILLION dollars, like that which the Bush Tax cut cost america, and used it to create jobs paying $36,000.00 per year .... ($3000.00 per month, a decent middle class wage) ...

2,600,000,000,000.00 / 36,000.00 = 72,222,222 jobs ....

EVEN when distributed over a 10 year span: that would be 7.2 MILLION new jobs per year .... at $36,000.00 per job ....

7.2 MILLION new washer and dryer combos ....

7.2 MILLION new cars ....

7.2 MILLION Plasma TVs with 7.2 MILLION BOSE THX systems ....

7.2 MILLION jet skis or jeeps or motorcycles or horses or sailboats or pooltables or whirlpool baths or new homes or babies clothes ...

... or food and shelter and clothing for those who have neither ....

for 10 years straight .....

THAT is called demand side economics: THAT is how both the workers and the managers BOTH 'get rich' .....

SOMEONE has to make all that stuff ..... Someone has to sell it ...

Instead? .... that 2.6 Trillion dollars is being spent: on shiny yachts .... and pricey european cars ... on marble foyers and gilded balasters ...

THIS is where the GOP and the Democrats differ .... and the difference is huge .....

[Trajan]

1. Do I hear ....

7.2 Million Gucci Shoe Trees ????

[Trajan]

2. How bout ...

7.2 MILLION Hawaiian Vacations ????

[Massacure]

3. Erm, that would be 7.2 million jobs, and those jobs would last 10 years

If you created 7.2 million jobs each year, you would have to lay of the other 7.2 million from the previous year.

[Trajan]

5. er ... yeah .....

Better 7.2 Million jobs each year ... than - 1 MILLION .....

Your right: ..... But I wouldnt actually propose such a straight up dollar for dollar transfer: ... Instead: I would use the 260 BILLION dollars a year to subsidize new hiring, by providing healthy tax cuts to companies that hire new workers ... helping the hiring concern pay the wages and health care of their new charges, adding new consumers to the economy, and making it grow ....

I think it a far superior effort than gilding yachts of the rich ....

[Trajan]

6. And actually ....

I wouldnt spend 260 Billion per year subsiding hiring: but use a decent portion to pay for universal health care, and college tuitions, and child care ..

There is a balance that works to society's advantage: ... demand-side IS the rising ocean that lifts all boats ....

[K-W]

7. along with forcing corporations to fufill thier duties to society

stopping outsourcing, forcing them to pay a living wage, forcing them to reinvest in america.

[K-W]

4. God forbid we find obvious solutions to our problems.

We could put people directly to work, or use the money to train people to do work that is in demand, or another way that actually creates jobs. Instead we cut taxes for the wealthy so that they can stockpile even more wealth.

Well, I guess it will bring us to a depression faster, im beginning to think thats the only way we are going to see liberal reforms again.

[lapfog_1]

8. If only

"Instead? .... that 2.6 Trillion dollars is being spent: on shiny
yachts .... and pricey European cars ... on marble foyers and
gilded balasters ..."

If only that were true. At least the tax cut would re-enter the
economy and provide work (yacht building) for some.

But I'm afraid that's not what's happening. The tax savings
for the rich is going into cash reserves (which would be OK, since
more money in savings means more money to lend, hence lower
interest rates EXCEPT that the feds are borrowing more money than
that, heating up inflation and interest rates), and it's going
into stock portfolios (and that would be OK, except it's not
enough to push the stocks up and cause a general rally nor does
the extra investment cause corporations to hire more employees),
and, dare I say it, foreign investments. You know, all those
companies that are growing like weeds (one, an Indian outsourcing
company, is floating the biggest IPO ever)... that's the growth
market that needs capital, because their business is booming.
So that's where the tax cuts went. It is being used to help
create jobs that used to be here.

Thanks George.

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. The only problem with this being...

that it's nothing more than a short-term solution. Our consumer economy is not going to last much longer; economic growth is due to hit a brick wall within probably a decade. Global crude petroleum production is at or near peak; it's soon to slide into terminal decline. Our economy is built on oil, as an energy source and raw material, and once there's not enough of it to supply demand, let alone to fuel growth, things become very bleak indeed.

That $2.6 trillion you're talking about would've been far better invested in developing long-term sustainable alternatives to oil, but it's almost too late even for that. What's coming within the next few decades is going to make the Great Depression look like a minor blip on the scale of human suffering, and neither politics nor economics has the answer. To put it succinctly, we're fucked.

[cosmicvortex20]

10. A small problem...

I think the argument is that money spent from the government sector is generally spent in a less efficient manner then private side spending. I think noone here would question the wisdom of the 800 dollar toilet seats, public schools, or DMV efficiency.

The government can spend money less efficiently because its easier for them to obtain, as they dont have to produce an effective product. Most their products are based on enforced monopolies (military, post offices, fire depts, etc...).

Sure, government can create busywork for these people, but beware... all government interference causes economic dislocations that can (and usually do) have unforseen consequences.

Example --> http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1593

[Trajan]

11. I think this argument a red herring ....

This ignores the GREAT benefits society has gained from programs that did NOT waste money ... to say that NO government program is worthy because, once, someone charged $ 600 for a toilet seat ...

Should we cancel all public funding of schooling, because someone charged $600 for a toilet seat ???? ...

Should we cut off all food stamps, because someone charged $600 for a toilet seat ???? ...

Should we stop ALL support of small business through grants and loans, because someone charged $600 for a toilet seat ???? ...

Methinks you are proposing a strict, libertarian viewpoint, whereas government should NEVER 'interfere' in the public marketplace: I say Bull .... Leaving the Marketplace to it's own wiles usually results in severe dislocation, recession AND depression, as well as monopolistic an anti-competitive dealings that naturally occur in the unfettered market place ....

You will NOT find support for a laissez faire system here in DU, except from those, like you, who are obviously libertarian ....

A small percentage, I can assure you ...

[Trajan]

12. Hmmmmm .....

Just found this post ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x10930

Interesting .....

[Strelnikov_]

13. Sounds Like Somebody Has Been Sampling The Reichberry Kool-Aid Again

Let us remember that the 800 dollar toilet seat was provided by the hyper-efficient private sector, under contract to the DOD. Patriotic, huh? Just like the $26 lunches being provided in Iraq.

(credit to the DU'er who coined the term Reichberry)