Yes, I do agree that we need to do something; and without sounding trite, I think the thing "we" need to be doing (the "we" here being the government) is to get the heck out of the way (to quote - of course, John Galt).
That sounds an awful lot like doing nothing to me.
And, by the way, I've read Ayn Rand too...her solutions won't work in the real world, you realize that, right? I mean really, pretty words aside, Howard Roarke was absolutely and undeniably guilty of malicious destruction of private property for heaven's sake!
First off, it's not helpful to merely repeat the slogans of a political party because for one, they're artfully spun to disguise the truth and two - they're wrong. Language like "cutting taxes for the rich" doesn't get us anywhere for the simple reason that it is nothing more than a party slogan and disingenuous at best.
But it does sum up the entirety of the Republican economic plan. They've offered no other ideas, and have voted down every single suggestion beyond that one.
The federal government also imposes (in seeming exponential growth) all manner of mandates and regulations upon private citizens and businesses that, apart and distinct from taxes, cost those entities increasingly enormous sums with which to comply - energy regulations, safety regulations, "green" regulations, environmental regulations, labor regulations, food regulations, health regulations, and etc. and etc. - ad nauseum.
And for good reason. History, and current events, clearly shows that, left to their own devices and without any form of oversight, the private sector will do
anything and everything it can in pursuit of profit, with no regard whatsoever for lives lost or damage to the environment. This fact has been proven, indisputably, time and time again, every time a laissez-faire government resurfaces.
For example, Obamacare has already forced businesses into some cases severe cost-cutting measures in preparation for compliance with what will be the single-most expensive and economy-killing legislation our government has ever passed. It's happening right now - and in concert with all the other regulations is having a devasting effect on our economy - which is in large part the WHY those with money aren't hiring, WHY they aren't expanding, WHY they don't have more orders coming in.
I dispute that, mostly because the decline in American jobs started long before Obama even came into office.
But I will agree the Health Care reform act is woefully inadequate to the problems it only incrementally tries to fix. I blame that on the basis of the plan, which came from a Republican response to much more radical plan Clinton proposed in the 1990s.
It's also why I believe we need something more like single payer in place. If you want to take these costs out of the private sector, there's no better way to do that!
People are scared stiff of what's to come next - and understandably so.
I don't see why. Obama has proven there is no ideal he stands for that he won't cave on or compromise about given Republican pressure. The payroll tax break deal was the only clear win the Obama administration has had, and look at how much opposition that one got!
It's nothing more than a short-term fix.
At least it's something, and that's considerably more than I've heard anyone else suggest.
But in all seriousness - the question you should be asking is why the government isn't ALREADY doing those needed repairs to the infrastructure?
Tax cuts over the past ten years or so, I'd say.
We've been paying hundreds of millions in tax dollars on gasoline alone - which monies are [ostensibly] for that purpose alone. WHERE HAS IT GONE?
Mostly right back to the oil companies, who pay zero taxes and get billions in subsidies. There was an attempt by Democrats to end that, a weak one albeit, but it was quashed by the Republicans and no one's even tried to suggest it again since.
That raises the other problem with taxes. Taxes (money received from citizens) is too easily spent on "other" things.
But think about it for a moment - how is taking money from people (taxes) and then returning a portion of it back to them in any a "stimulus?"
Because it puts money back into the economy. Unemployment, for example, is the
most stimulating thing the government can do to the economy: it puts money in the hands of people who not only will spend it (thus stimulating the economy) but have to spend it. Giving tax breaks to rich folks who don't need to spend it doesn't stimulate anything, because they tend to keep it and not spend it.
If I take $100 from you and then give you back $5, $10, $15 to "stimulate" the economy while I keep $85, $90, $95 of money that once belonged to you - how is that "stimulating" anything?
Because that $100 is already gone, even before you see your paycheck. You never had it to begin with.
Well, we barely did anything, if anything at all that really needed to be done - is the first answer. So it's disingenuous of those who dreamed up the "we did that, and it didn't work" mantra to suggest we did anything of the sort. Again, it's a far more complex thing than just easing the tax burden a little here or there on a few here or there for purely political purposes.
You still haven't said...what should we be doing?
-- A2SG, since Reagan, the government has been having a deregulating party and that hasn't exactly created an economic utopia, so, what's next?
.. It'll be free slurpee day @ 7-11 on 7-11 
