You do realize you will look like a fool if you actually consider his entire agenda to be job killing now? I can think of at least three off the top of my head which have directly promoted jobs. Me thinks you are generalizing without thinking.
"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu
if jobs creation were pelosi/obama's goal, they would have devoted a portion of the 787B stimulus to a 2-year halving of payroll taxes
that woulda exploded employment
instead, they put killer payroll taxes in obamacare
they coulda invested in energy production insteada punishment via cap and trade
for instance---offshore oil
the leasing of the fields promises revenues to states great enough potentially even to balance my state's budget, CA's
tens of thousands of great jobs, high pay, very secure, super productive
instead, pelosi/obama spent millions on tunnels for turtles, snow machines for wisconsin, empty airports for jack murtha
I am not so sure decreasing the payroll tax would have much effect. I was looking at recent economic reports the other day, and labor costs have actually gone down recently. Obviously there has been no explotion of jobs created because of this.if jobs creation were pelosi/obama's goal, they would have devoted a portion of the 787B stimulus to a 2-year halving of payroll taxes
that woulda exploded employment
To me it seems companies are not hiring/laying off workers because they cannot sell their products rather than workers costing to much.
had the chamber of commerce or nfib been invited to obama's little meeting, i'm pretty sure they'd disagree with you
(which is precisely why they weren't summoned)
there's little doubt that dollar for dollar cutting payroll taxes would have a far greater impact on jobs growth than the construction of turtle tunnels
increased employment must inevitably upsurge that consumer demand you're focusing on
finally, there should be little dispute that the HIKING of payroll taxes via pelosicare, the levies laid on small business and targeted industries, the impounds placed on the production of energy, and more, are inimical to that magical improvement in employment the president claims he aims for
As demonstrated by the Bush tax cuts (which is Keynesian in nature), when you have an indebted society such as ours, a high percentage of tax cuts tend to be saved. Couple this with the marginal propensity to consume domestic goods being very close to 50%, and the multiplier that results is not optimal in relative to opportunity costs.
The logic behind government spending on infrastructure is the efficiency gained from the existence of the new infrastructure along with the multiplier effect (both product and income approach).
During inflationary recessions, tax cuts are the effective approach (where as spending is a misallocation of opportunity costs in this scenario).
There is no such thing as a silver bullet. Multiple mechanisms have to be considered.
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
"Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911