Oh jeez.... what's even more depressing is...

Unemployment going down has NOTHING to do with people going to work. It went down from 10.1% to 9.3% because people gave up looking for jobs.

The jobs added actually aren't even keeping up with population growth...

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/07/06/hard-facts-america-economic-recovery/

There is and it's been spoken of many times in this thread.  Leave entrepreneurs alone and things will work themselves out.

I've recently built my own company so I don't have to worry about every being laid off again but with regulations, taxes and such the way they are, I can't hire any workers so I'm handling every single spect of the business on my own.   And that's on top of running a non-profit media network (we don't display any ads) on the side. 

We are thkind of people that made America great to begin with (entrepreneurs) but our biggest hurdle isn't competition, it isn't stagnating markets, it isn't disinterst in product or service....it's the government doing ever single thing it can to make it all absolutely not worth doing.

In a functioning capitalist economy with high levels of personal and economic freedom and low levels of corruption, every individual is in control of a portion of the economy and depending on how good of a steward they're of this piece of the market will determine their outcome. Factors outside of an individual's control (like luck) can give a person substantial wealth, but if they're a poor manager of this wealth they will soon lose it; which is why so many lottery winners, athletes, entertainers, and people who receive large inheritances declare bankruptcy after receiving enough money to cover a luxurious lifestyle for a lifetime.

Or to put it another way, rational factors not luck is what the economy is based upon ... While I would agree that some of these rational factors may not be entirely fair, and more work needs to be done to improve equality of opportunity, the free market is the most efficient and fairest system we have

I like the way you think bro.

It does seem as though government's priority is flipped on who should be overregulated and who shouldn't be. The rich can only be effectively taxed through a restoration of the Capital Gains Tax to something approaching a fair level, while incentive should be given to the startups and entreprenuers, loopholes should be shut down for companies like GE who somehow end up with net refunds, despite being the largest revenue drawers

You shouldn't need to seek incentivization of small start-ups from a governmental level, or discouraging the wealthy from creating more startups. Both people have equally important abilities in terms of creating businesses and jobs.

Rather, the government should seek to ensure there is a level playing field that has low regulations, does not benefit one type of business or one kind of person over the other. Certainly shut down all loopholes that would allow a businesses to have an advantage over another that wasn't created by itself through work and innovation.

A level playing field, low or non-existent corporate taxes, and minimal regulations would be enough of an incentive to create and sustain new jobs. Capital Gains taxes may not be the best way to go (and what the heck is a 'fair level' exactly?). I'd prefer if there was a simple flat tax and if you sold something significant that would be under a capital gains, you simply get taxed at the flat tax level (e.g. 20-25%).

Still, underemployment is high as well. 

If anything i'd say this is more a problem of the stimulus shrinking private demand.

Which when you think about it, is a lot more logical then the stimulus stimulating demand.

"We're going to spend this money to fix the economy".

Do you

A) Feel better and buy stuff in the still broken economy in hopes there will be no problems before it's fixed.

B) Wait until the economy is fixed, then when all the signs point to it not fixing... don't spend money on wants.

I think the case is B.  Everyday people have way more information now then they did back when Keysnian economics were created.

Part of it is psychological, to be certain. Stricter terms on dispensation of stimulus money would start (e.g. companies that receive money have to either plow it back into investment in the company or spend it on sub-VP level employees, and absolutely cannot just take that, make fat CEO cash bonuses, and continue laying people off)

The only way trickle-down theory can ever come close to working is if the rich are forced to act responsibly. Some sort of universal salary cap could help there, forcing them at least to get a certain proportion of income from investment if they want to make more than that

While I'm not going to argue for trickle down economics at the moment, progressive taxation systems and subsidies to low income earners tend to act as a disincentive to paying employees "fair" wages ...

To understand, just consider that to increase a person's real income (di) by a certain value (x) you will need to compensate for the higher taxes you will pay (t) and the reduction in subsidies (s) ... This leaves us with an equation di=x-(t+s) ... The more subsidies you introduce, and the more pronounced your progressive tax system is, the larger the cost is on a business to increase the standard of living of their employee by the same amount.

Yeah USA needs a job growth of 200.000-300.000 jobs a months on average ofcourse to atleast stabilize the 'real unemployed number'

Real unemployment number is around 17%

And at the same time still no measure for the debt:

As of June 29, 2011, the Total Public Debt Outstanding of the United States of America was $14.46 trillion and was approximately 98.6% of calendar year 2010's annual gross domestic product (GDP) of $14.66 trillion.^[2][3][4] Using 2010 figures, the total debt (96.3% of GDP) ranked 12th highest against other nations