How does saving moeny create jobs?  Because you save your money in banks.

Not pillowcases.

Banks need to lend money to make money.

Heres how it works.

Wealthy get tax cuts, government goes into debt to pay for tax cuts, wealthy use tax money to buy bonds.

Anyway the banks are awash with money, they just aren't lending it out. Unemployment benefits are actually the most effective forms of stimulus, it has been estimated that 1.6M Americans are in work because of unemployment benefits being paid out.

Yeah, unfortunitly the government has GREATLY increased the benefits of banks holding on to money.

We paid out money to stop a credit freeze... only so the government could offer the banks more money to cause credit freeze.

Why people don't realize tax cuts need to come with spending cuts i'll never know. 

Unemployment benefits, right now, are the best economic stimulus because the unemployed plug that money right back into the economy just to live. I know because I have family on unemployment.

As for tax cuts to benefit the "investor class" it can work many ways. These investors could end up plugging the tax cut money into bonds, which yield dividends but do nothing to create jobs, they invest the money into high rate of return overseas companies who create jobs in places like India and Brazil, they invest the money into a mutual fund who spends half of it paying the salaries of their financial advisors who manage the mutual fund, they invest the money into a traditional blue chip or tech stock creating job opportunities in the company (or paying for a costly marketing campaign), or they use the money to create a new business, hire more employees, create more branches, and on.

Another key reason why unemployment was so low during the Bush 2 era was because we had well over half the people who would be unemployed today fighting in 2 wars (Iraq War and the Afghanistan War) overseas. Funny how people forget how low the standards were for enlisting during the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.

Unemployment would be in the 6s and 7s if we did not send unemployable folks to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Except... everyone plugs there money right back into the economy more or less.  You pretty much can't take your money OUT of the economy unless you don't use a bank.

It's less effective when the poor do it then the rich, because it has to filter through first.

Before it can really create jobs it has to filter it's way back up to the rich and to companies, who then create jobs or put it in the bank which creates jobs.

Vs just giving it to the rich in the first place, which creates jobs faster.

The whole "bonds(which the government needs people to buy), outsourcing" etc... is meaningless, since the jobs aren't created till those same people get the money anyway.

If your argueing tax cuts for the rich don't work, you are argueing unemployment doesn't work.

Besides though, what Squillium meant about unemployment being the best stimulus was that literally that many people are employed to deal with handing out the benefits.  It was a joke.

Well, the government does employ people, just not me so I am not too fond of their salary and cadillac pension.

What you fail to mention is that the rich have an equal chance of investing the tax cut and stuffing it into a trust fund, Swiss or Cayman Islands bank, or just saving it. It is just not a simple give tax cut to rich = 100 percent chance of investment and job creation. If this was the case, then why is China leading on green technology compared to the US and others? Why was there no 2nd Silicon Valley in the 2000s?

Me thinks the wealthy who got the tax cuts during the Bush 2 era sent it overseas and should be taken out publicly, stripped naked, poured head to toe with hot tar, and have a bucket of feathers dumped over their heads. Traitors.

The reason why we have this debate on tax cuts is because it is not simple. Left leaning folks, such as myself, would argue that the poor and middle class should get the tax cut because we don't have as many money shelters as the wealthy, thus the money is funneled back into the economy faster. Conversely, more right leaning folks argue that it is the wealthy who have the means to create jobs, thusforth they should get the tax cut first.

We are not at philosophical odds. I understand the more wealthy can create jobs faster than your up and coming Bill Gates 2 who is dreaming up a plan to take over the world in his parent's garage. Where we differ is who should get it first and how much of the cut should be distributed amongst all the classes.

That means you are basically argueing that the poor and middle class now should benefit to the detrimite of all future generations... and very likely, current generation a few years into the future including those same poor and middle class people.

Me, i'll take being able to buy a bunch of things in the future, vs a few things in the present.

A typical George W. Bush supporter lives in the southern states and is a regular church attendee. Mormon, Hill Song, 7th day Adventists and Evangelical churches form the core beliefs of southern conservative. Bush is a born again Christian Evangelist.

Texas is a conservative state of the US that still practices the death penalty. Only a handful of the 50 states of the US have the death Penalty. 

Lowering taxes is a Conservative Libertarian view. The consequences whether it would be a good thing at the time was not carefully considered by the George W. Bush admin. Growing deficits tax cuts to lower unemployment rates.

Terrible shame the size of the government expanded under every single government over the last 40 years regardless of Republican or Democrat in the White House. George W. Bush admin. was Big Conservative government. 

Tax cuts are good so long as they do not blow out the deficit and the State/nation can afford it. A balanced Budget situation is ideal for any government. 

Money goes from one person to another, but if the person who sells the stock isn't a start up company, or would hire people with the money, it doesn't create a job. If the value the stock is sold at is less than purchased for, the person took a loss on the sale.  One can try to argue that the person may spend the money, but the money is the same as was in the economy before, so it really didn't do much.  One can say if the price went up due to the sale, then more wealth was generated.  However, if you take a bubble situation, where too much money is chasing too few goods (in this case, stocks) then all you do is have an inflationary pattern related to a given product. 

What has to happen to create jobs is that a business, or more accurately a business sector, begins to serve in an area (with goods and/or services) in an area that is currently lacking, and there is a need for more labor.  When this happens, people become employed, and begin to consume at higher levels, driving other parts of the economy.  Or, they can also invest somewhere to, and help to create jobs there.  And if the cycle happens right, then you get sustained economic growth.  But, if you have labor that doesn't have sufficient training (or lacks the right work ethic), lack of protection of property rights (either through crime, or structure to document ownership properly), markets lack sufficient wealth to acquire the new goods and/or services, other inputs to make the new goods and/or service possible, and other factors, you won't get economic growth. and job creation.  So, it is entirely possible that totally hollowing out money going to an area can cause a chain of events to happen that contract the economy in an area, and cause it to close down.  Mess with the economy, just like you mess with an ecosystem, and you can kill it.  This can happen if an area loses government money, for example.

Renewing the Bush tax cuts as is or changing them to mainly benefit the poor and middle class is a far less problem for future generations than entitltements and public employee compensation.

Individuals in the summer of 2001 were not arguing against the Bush tax cuts and future generations. It is odd how it is being dragged up now.

I think if we are talking about government programs and deficits hurting future generations, then we should include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and public employee compensation and benefits because they are structural, longer lasting and have more of an impact than some 5 to 10 year tax cut.

Entitlements are far more costly for future generations than immediate economic policy. NAFTA and all free trade agreements excluded because NAFTA and all other similar free trade agreements from every single 1st world, Western country has done more to erode economic opportunities than a tax cut or tax raise.

Yet, I don't want to get off topic, but I will say this:

Every single public sector manager and/or employee earning over $100k/year should have their pension converted into a 401k. Those making less than $100k and/or not management should have the option for the traditional pension or 401k. Reason being, the little guy working for the government should not be shat on by the vicissitudes of politics taking the blame for their higher ups. Those in management and/or making over 100k can easily contribute 15 to 25 percent of their yearly salary to a 401k.

This is a start.