It is so simple that even Larry Summers might be able to get his mind around it. Why don't we get out of Afghanistan/Iraq/Libya, stop bailing out rich people's casinos and actually tax everyone like they were consumers of government services (yes! Even those new corporate people!)....and drop the money that is saved from black helicopters (they could even contract it out to someone) over POOR PEOPLE'S HOUSES.
Shock. And. Awe, baby!
I know that this sounds wild, but just stay with me here. Poor people don't have any money. Even most self proclaimed citizens of the "middle class" don't seem to have much to spare these days. That is why we have a demand crisis. That is why no one is buying anything. In a consumer economy, which is largely supported by consumers, this seems important.
So, if someone from (say) Harvard were to run the numbers, I imagine that they would find that poor people, and many in the "middle classes", would buy stuff and procure services if they only had the money to do so. Were we to, say, give sixteen trillion dollars to poor people so that they could buy stuff and procure services, that would have the effect of increasing tax revenue across the board and increase the number of jobs available to those who do not presently have them due to the increased demand caused thereby. Here is another idea, pay them a living wage! That way all of the new jobs created by this money drop could be spread even further through the consumer economy. The all important "deficit" so cherished by our bettors (sp?) would be a thing of history!
If someone from (say) Harvard were to run the numbers, they might just find that they will not get the kind of bang for the buck out of giving rich people more money, because truly rich people just tend to invest it. It just sits there. Gaining interest. Giving them more money to invest in offshoring businesses and to whinge about how unfairly they are treated. I'm sure that no one has noticed the pain and suffering of Paris Hilton at Wal Mart, because she just sends her servants out to suffer for her. But as job creation goes, that really does not have the same effect as a poor person getting the washing machine they bought second hand fixed. Or the lawn mower. Or the roof. Or going back to school. Or get their appendix taken out. Etc., etc., etc. One can only hire so many people to go shop at Wal Mart for you, but millions of poor people could hire even more millions of people! The numbers don't lie.
Now, I know that such an idea is going to be panned as socialism. I get that! I really do! But I am forced to wonder how much worse the degree of socialism engendered could possibly be, or how much more cost effective it will be for entire neighborhoods to collectively hire XE to patrol their own "hoods" for a fee just to keep the poor at bay because sales tax receipts are insufficient for the provision of what was formerly considered a basic social service; law enforcement. Do they really want old people dying in their ditches and spoiling the aromatic effect of the rose beds because health care is simply unavailable to them? What of all of the easily avoidable diseases generated by less than regular pickup of said corpses; are they not subject to them as well? Who is going to pick them up? Where are they going to put them? Maybe someone who could do something might give a thought to these esoteric potential externalized costs before they start to show up?
Just a lot of word salad and a thought for whomever might be listening to this particular part of the idiot fringe of the Democratic Party these days. Admittedly there won't be many seeing as how we are not represented in any meaningful way, but I thought I would use the right to free expression while we still have it.
If you don't use it, you tend to lose it.