Sue,
I think you saw the same thing I watched a bit of. But the explanation that is given is so far off that I can't stop laughing.
First thing is the economist on the panel subscribe to the Keynesian theory that government has to be involved with the economy to make it work - that is a very simplistic view of it (explained a bit more in the next paragraph). It worked to a small point during the depression when we had few choices and a lot of pressure for the government to be involved fixing what they messed up.
The fundamental idea is that the government will borrow the money to fund the projects to get the economy stable during the business cycle. When times are good, they pay the debt down with the revenue created by the taxes they imposed on the system but when times are bad, they borrow to stabilize the economy through programs that "stimulate" the economy - one program is construction projects, like roads D*ms and so on. The cycle continues in hopes that the more activity from the economy in the private sector will produce more tax revenue and hence pay down the debt.
WHAT it didn't take in account was the expansion of the social programs like Social Security which in itself would have been alright if left alone. Back in the early 60's Johnson needed something and with the tax rate being cut, he was convinced that ending poverty as we knew it was the right step, which gave us Medicare. He used the revenue projections for 1967 to justify the move to spend so much money they had at the time but by 1970, Social Security and the Great Society programs were bankrupt. Medicare killed the country, not Social Security but because Social Security has more programs where money is used, it has to be examined and changed drastically.
The second thing is that left or right, liberal or conservative, Barry or Bush, it doesn't frickn' matter because all political power that we have is seated in the big arena fight ring to fight to stay in power and the Keynesian economics that they hold so close to their hearts keeps them in power - it is a rather sick way of politics in our country. The funniest group in the political arena are the fiscal conservatives who wants to cut spending but than refuses to entertain the idea of eliminating social security and Medicare. They want to compromise while not forcing the issue of actual cuts. Everything proposed from them are band-aid approaches to the problem.
The third thing and very important is WE ARE NOT BROKE. What we have is a confidence problem tied with a spending problem. We should demand as citizens a cut across the board of 10% this year with no spending increases (which by the way is an automatic thing with our federal budget and has to be stopped) and again another 10% next year - no exceptions except military spending for soldiers. Everything, I MEAN everything should get a cut of 10%. The real investors in our country, the people, do not have confidence in the dollar and this is reflected by the inflated price of gold and the low interest rate on the fed's loans to the banks. Our treasuries, the vehicle that funds our budget, is giving 3% while the fed loans out money at .5% - it is backwards.
The fourth thing is many, including Williams, know what it takes and he among a few verbally express it. BUT on the other hand, within the community of economist, they won't go against the grain in their profession because of a fear of being an outcast. I spoken to a few and they say "off the record" a completely different thing than they publish. I trust their opinion because they have yet to be wrong.
Fifth, our government needs to cut spending first. Job growth can't be done with government involvement or "investments" into the economy but just the opposite, the less government, the more jobs. Case in point is the auto companies, the two domestic based companies got bailed out, but the jobs were reduced and no compromise was met with either the price of the products or the quality of the product which was two big problems. Instead a natural disaster affected their competition and they gained market share. It wasn't the government's involvement but outside forces that saved GM and Chrysler. Without government intervention, the job loses would have been the same regardless what the government and unions said because the assets and product lines had more value than the company as a whole.
Sixth, read this carefully;
BIG BUSINESS DOES NOT CREATE JOBS.
SMALL BUSINESS CREATES JOBS.
A fundamental mistake has been all the while that our country runs on GM and Chrysler, and their suppliers which is so far from the truth, it has to be repeated.
ON TOP of all of this, the corporations like say Pfizer, pay no FEDERAL taxes on their profits, even though they pay state taxes, the federal taxes are passed on to the consumer. So a small business would have an advantage if there is no federal taxes they need to worry about and this equates into jobs.
I hope that clears it up for you.
