BoatShoes;944522 wrote:Well your sarcasm aside, let's suppose you're unemployed. I believe you're in housing or a contractor of some kind? businesses and banks are sitting on cash and consumers are saddled with debt. In a recent wall street journal survey 65% of economists said that lack of demand for goods and services and NOT government policy is the reason for a lack of hiring
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303661904576452181063763332.html
Thus, a person with $1million on hand, already has the cash to spend for most of the goods and services he desires, and if he puts it in a business or a bank, the money isn't invested or lent or spent on goods and services because there are so many others unemployed or strapped with debt.
So, the government can borrow at incredibly low rates and hire you, a person who's skills and talent are being wasted right now to say, build a great wall of america to prevent illegals from getting in. This will allow you to have a paycheck which you can in turn spend on other goods and services. Obama's proposal to raise taxes on millionaires to account for a loss in revenue coming from a payroll tax cut, can have a similar affect because it leaves more disposable income in the hands of middle and lower income workers while not taking money out of the economy that will likely be spent on goods an services thereby having a lesser impact on gdp.
There are many flaws in your prose:
1. The 1% do not store their money in bank vaults. They don't visit it on Mondays at lunchtime and toss in another million dollars on their way out the door. Their money is invested in businesses, charities, loans, etc. The $3 trillion "sitting on balance sheets" is not literally sitting anywhere. To confiscate it is to harm the economy in so many other ways as it deducts it from what the 1% are using it to accomplish.
2. Let's say it is just sitting in a vault in lower Manhattan. Taking $450,000,000,000 out of the vault, taking the government cut of 1/3 (probably higher, but it suffices for this point) out, and then giving the remaining $300,000,000,000 to the poor huddled masses, unions, Solyndra-ites, ACORN groups, and other agitator/activists is only a temporary solution. Let's say they spend it all, increase demand for 6 months, factories pop-up, production increases and then when the money runs out...WHAT THEN??? I know the answer. It will be to do it all again over and over and over and... When does it end? For a concrete example, do you remember this exact same scenario with the "Cash for Clunkers" boondoggle? What happened to car sales when the program was over? What happened to the supply of cars for mechanics to work on...did they add jobs or were jobs lost as the supply of cars for them to fix decreased?
3. My predictions, and many others, about inflation are indeed coming true. You don't read about it from the federal government because the pansies removed food and energy costs from their public inflation gauges. They can't report food costs are up over 15% for the year because that would cause fear and panic. Energy costs have increased greatly from 1-20-2009, but no mention of it from the Obama Administration. Hhmmm...can't imagine why they'd like to keep this hush-hush, can you? :rolleyes:
In the end, your solution was tried to a much greater extent with the Obama Porkulus Bill of February 2009 and the Omnibus Spending Bill later in the Spring of 2009 (about $300,000,000,000 in pork projects Barry blamed on Bush, but signed it with his own pen). It failed beyond all expectations that were given in the spring of 2009. Now...you want to repeat failure because...well..umm...ahem...cough...it wasn't spent right the first time. By definition, this administration's economic solutions are insane and those that believe in its failed policies need to lay off the Kool Aid.
