01-09-2017, 12:36 AM
(12-15-2016, 06:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(12-15-2016, 12:20 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(12-14-2016, 03:01 PM)playwrite Wrote:(12-08-2016, 11:01 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(12-08-2016, 02:07 PM)David Horn Wrote: So your idea is this. The taxpayers subsidize employers and/or give them dispensation to reduce benefits in return for hiring people they wouldn't hire unless they needed them. I assume this is an end run around the ACA plus tax cuts for all. I don't see it working, and, if it does, being anywhere near as effective as direct spending.
No, it's demand side stimulus that subsidizes employers, not supply side stimulus.
Consumers create demand both directly and indirectly (business spend to better meet consumer demand).
By far, most consumers are employees, not employers.
You've really got twisted up somewhere along the way. Go back, start again, and stay as far away from the Zero Hedge types as you possible can!
By far the biggest consumer is the federal government. If you think the government is an "employee", your definitions are seriously off base.
Most government workers are employees. They are all employees of the people. Somebody even pays the president's salary. But no doubt he's an employer too, himself. He hires and fires thousands of people. I guess Trump has had some virtual practice at that job.
It's not government employees that are buying the tanks, it's the government as an organization.
Quote:There's no doubt at all that when the Tea Party fired thousands of government workers in 2011, it slowed the recovery to a crawl. That gave Romney his slogan. This policy was deliberate on the part of the Republicans. Slow the recovery so that Obama would not be re-elected. McConnell made that specific promise.
And yet, 2011 is when the unemployment rate finally started coming down again, after going up every year under Pelosi's House leadership.