How do you become eligible for government jobs?

Would you agree that tax cuts don't necessarily create Jobs since the Wealthy can just spend the money they ge?

• Would you agree that tax cuts don't necessarily create Jobs since the Wealthy can just spend the money they get from tax cuts on consumption for themselves or their family or friends or they can save the money in the banks ? By the end of the 80s, it had become clear that the rich were not investing their liberated tax dollars on "good" forms of investment, like jobs and productive tools and technology. Instead, the money went towards consumption, the good life, and economically meaningless investments like antiques and sport cars. The lack of investment in the national interest became so obvious that Democrats in congress actually proposed guidelines to encourage it. During the 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton proposed a massive infusion of public investment into the nation's aging infrastructure to compensate for the failure of the private sector to do so. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-capgainsspur.htm Thom Hartmann: But it seemed, just common sense. I remember back in the ‘80s, I owned a business, International Wholesale Travel in Atlanta, Georgia. That business has, since we sold it done over 200 billion dollars inbusiness. And there was a year when we were doing really, really well and I could either write a big check to myself or not. And I decided not to, because I didn’t want to pay the increased taxes. I put it back into the business. How can cutting taxes on rich people, on high income people, do anything other than encourage them to take the money out of their companies, out of their businesses, and buy fancy paintings or yachts or put it in Swiss bank accounts? How conceivably could that help the economy? http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2010/1 ... jobsreally The major problem with this economic theory is that it doesn't work as effectively as its proponents suggest. A few economists may still cling to the trickle down economics theory, but many more agree that, in fact, trickle down economics hurts the lower classes, and it hurts the government. By reducing the tax burden for the wealthiest individual, the government cheats itself out of a very profitable wedge of tax revenue, meaning that this revenue cannot be invested directly in the citizens of the nation. Without that revenue, the government may go into debt to pay for basic services, thereby creating a serious problem for future generations. The issue with trickle down economics is that it relies on actions by individuals which will benefit a whole, and most individuals are not that altruistic. In fact, many wealthy individuals and corporations are understandably interested in protecting their wealth, and when their taxes are cut, they may choose not to reinvest that money, meaning that no funds “trickle down” to people in lower socioeconomic classes. The tax burden on the middle class may also increase as the government struggles to keep tax revenues high enough to fund itself. Trickle down economics tends to be promoted by conservative politicians who would like to see less government. However, moderates and conservatives have suggested that theories like trickle down economics are ultimately a disservice to the government and the citizens. By collecting reasonable tax revenues, a government can provide the benefits which are supposedly offered by trickle down economics, as demonstrated under politicians like President Roosevelt, who invested heavily in American infrastructure with government funds in the 1930s to foster recovery from the Great Depression. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-trickle ... nomics.htm

• Answer:

  The fact that a good chunk of Americans have even bought into rich people's ridiculous argument that perpetual tax cuts for the wealthy leads to more jobs just shows how moronic a lot of Americans are. If you took this argument to its logical conclusion, if rich people weren't taxed at all, every American would have a job. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!