http://www.ibtimes.com/tax-cuts-rich-dont-lead-us-economic-growth-income-inequality-study-790024 http://conceptualmath.org/philo/taxgrowth http://www.theatlantic.com/business...omic-growth-a-new-65-year-study-finds/262438/ Show me clear objective data on how cutting taxes and reducing government spending actually helps? Because other than partisan drivel I have a hard time finding it. You also seem to forget that our top tax rate, capital gains tax rate, and corporate tax rate is the lowest it's ever been in the history of taxation, so why is our economy so weak?
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3 This graph even goes so far as to ignore spending by the government in stimulus, showing only privately generated GDP.
http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp Just so you don't try and claim the books are cooked by ignoring those who gave up. http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/05/news/economy/jobs-hiring/ Article states 70% of employers now hiring in December 2014.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 The above link puts some light on the unemployment figures.
This doesn't discount anything i said. Participation rate for all people of working age went from a high of 65.9 in 2005 to 62.7 in last months survey. U-6, which counts discouraged workers and workers working part time for economic reasons, went from 9.2% to 10.9% during the exact same timeframe. A whole 1.7% change.Your labor force participation rate went down by 3.2%. Are you expecting 80-100% participation rate? because the majority of those in the rate who aren't participating are either focusing on something else like school, or retired/disabled and have no intention of working. regardless, we will not experience a true recovery until unemployment dips to 4.5% or lower, pushing up wage and house prices. Ever since the 80's minus one part of a year out of the 90s tech boom we have had a hard time even maintaining a 5.5% unemployment rate, if you look back all the way to the 50s, it's rather common for it to be even as low as 2, 3, and 4%.
It helps to look at ALL the facts, and there are many more than just what you and I have presented. Ideally the unemployment figures should tell us how many people who are able bodied of working age, not disabled or retired, who are in need of employment to provide all or at least some of their basic needs. In response to the thread topic, growth should be the result of public spending of money earned by the persons spending and less by government raising taxes and borrowing in order to redistribute money to those who are unemployed or underemployed.
That's what u6 does. Tax money doesn't have to go towards subsidizing unemployed or unemployable people. But even things like food stamps generate an 80% profit once that one dollar circulates through the economy, it becomes $1.80. We have a weak demand side, so nobody wants to invest. The only way to prop up the demand side is to increase the size of the middle class. This can be done a multitude of ways, through better education, an unemployment office running jobs training programs that hire directly out into the field etc. But none of it is free.
