It's all theory based. In theory, the rich will hire people.

In reality, business can not care about the workers - it's not that they
don't or are bad for not caring, but in the end, workers are a cost
against the bottom line.

Democrats, on the other hand, while being open to business and
private charity, won't stand by as people starve to death on the
streets, in effort to prove or disprove a theory.

Knut, I think that have nots on the honor system is as problematic as the have's on the honor system.

Regulate, baby, regulate!!

Democrats don't put faith in others, they just get it done.

Yet another effort to score political points when it's not a Red/Blue issue... But Democrats DO put their faith in others, Mike. They put their faith in taxpayers not rising up and saying no more. They put their faith in a legion of government workers to administer their programs effectively. And they put their faith in the downtrodden being suitably grateful come election time.

Can we push the Red/Blue stuff aside, because it's really not helpful.

Perhaps we should decide on what we consider to be rich. I know the rule of thumb is "anyone with more money than me", but I'm thinking of those whose net worth is in the millions of dollars. I don't consider the small businessman whose gross revenues are in the $250,000 range as "rich", because that gross gets knocked down pretty fast.

I know a chef who has a restaurant in town. (The guy is world-class, a two-time gold medalist at the International Culinary Olympics. If you're up in Redding, dinner's on me, and you're in for a real treat.) He's got 70 employees and this is a multi-million dollar enterprise. But, once the expenses are out of the way, he's lucky if he clears $100,000 for himself. That's pretty good pay, albeit earned with a lot of headaches. I wouldn't consider him rich.

So, in my paradigm, the rich are the controlling interests who facilitate the election of other rich men and women to pursue legislation that is in their interest. The rich are those who sit on the corporate boards, who cross-pollinate between a range of companies,  Whose business entities are large enough and sophisticated enough to have attorneys and accountants work the tax code loopholes (kindly legislated by their elected kin) so they pay nothing to the state.

I don't see them as evil. Merely enabled.

Yeah, they hire people, but my point is that they do it begrudgingly, that it's a cost they would do away with if they could, either by automating jobs, cutting pay, doubling work, moving jobs overseas,etc, and that it's not good policy to hinge your economic plan on the hopes that they hire people and pay them a living wage.

What do you propose as an alternative in a free-market economy? Or are you proposing an alternative to the free-market economy?

Mike, the key difference I see is innovation and essential work. There's the old cliche about blacksmiths and buggy whips missed out on being protected industries, but progress does (and should) phase out many jobs. No more telephone operators or telegraph clerks, true. But now we've got network specialists and web site designers.

Some jobs SHOULD be automated. The more automation we can get for dangerous jobs like mining, the better. If we can make a car on an assembly line cheaper and better through a machine, we should. If internet banking and ATMs cost tellers jobs, so be it. The economic gain to the country and the quality of life for all of us is greatly enriched.

I want people to have good, productive jobs that contribute to the overall wealth of the nation and the betterment of society. Jobs that create new wealth, rather than redistribute the existing wealth.

Consumers drive that mentality Mike. If people can get an item made in a third world county for a tenth of the cost that it is made domestically they probably will. The companies in North America, to compete, have to cut costs somewhere. Is it right or fair, I don't think so but it is a reallity.

I was right about you a few posts back - you're just
playing games.

Done with you.

Try again.

And one thing I haven't seen mentioned as a contributor to this (projected) surplus is the huge effort by Clinton to eliminate government waste.

The Reinventing Government initiative was really a bipartisan effort, and founded a cottage publishing industry in the early-to-mid 1990s. Al Gore in particular was one of the very early proponents. Not much of it got implemented at the Federal level, though.

Edited to add: It's been a few years since I read David Osborne and Ted Gaebler, but their Reinventing Government still should have some worthwhile advice for those who've never encountered it. Published back in 1993, this book begs for a sequel, particularly to see how (if) those various initiatives have worked out over the last two decades.