Economic Disaster Approaching: Both sides have it wrong.

Jobs is right.

First, it is agreed that the number priority of all legislative jurisdictions throughout the land, has to be keeping their respective constituents gainfully employed or maybe better put, gainfully incomed with meaningful occupations unique to each of every individual as they themselves see fit and are capable of. Secondly, it is true that no matter what legislations are enacted, there will always be those who get too much for too little actual or real product/service output by those individuals. Thirdly, most Americans will dedicate their time, their unique talents, faithfully to receive fair compensation for the work that they have done during the time periods they are actively on duty for the institution(s) they perform their services to. In other words, the vast majority of Americans will do what is expected of them, so long as they get a fair and reasonable 'shake'. Fair days work for fair days pay.

The government is actually the only who can garantee this, absolutely, so long as it's written into it's laws. Our government, after all, is supposed to be forever, isn't it? That is, of course, if it isn't crushed by unforseen forces, beyond the governments control.

(To be continued, below) Fiat Currentcy, the 'sweat-equity' part of our currency. What it takes to earn a dollar. What is the difference between being paid out of the US Treasury vs being paid out of private accounts. (Note that I'm developing an idea here compatable with the author's well put essay, above)

I am a retired government worker who put one heck of a lot of what could have been discretionary spending in my 401K. In fact, I put the maximum in for many decades.

So what do I desire now? Not a new house, my present house is wonderful, even fabulous because I am deeply into DIY and own most every specialty tool available AND I USE THEM REGULARLY.

I desire an RV because I updated my house with an RV parking spot/blackwater drain station and because wife and I wore out two previous RV's criss crossing USA and Canada. I am awaiting only the secondary market to give a high end premium model one away to me like I want.

I desire a C-7 Corvette. Why? Damfino. I usually cruise at 55 mph but I like for impatient younger people to know I could put the hammer down and and vanish out of their sight in a puff of burnt rubber if I really wanted to. My price point is 40K for used 430 hp with six speed paddle shifter, which is nearly within reach nowadays. What a wonderful country!

I could have sworn that Obama's plan consisted of a number of ideas to create jobs. The revenue part was thrown in to satisfy the blood thirst of Republicans (including, of course, Tea Party Republicans.) It was not created to specifically increase revenue, although creating jobs will most certainly do that. I don't really understand where you got that bizarre idea.

I guess you are unfamiliar with the economic concept of a growth spur. Of course these things are temporary. We need things that start job growth growing. That's the whole idea. If these ideas work, then a year or two down the line they're not needed anymore.

The point of the article is that it (incorrectly) states that the Obama Plan and hence the Democrats' plan is merely to raise revenue. Nothing you list in your response does that and nothing could be further from the truth. These are the things Conservatives/Republicans love: tax cuts. So what are they complaining about?