I'd rather have the government hire someone as a last resort for 40K per year than give a $100,000 tax cut to someone else and have the person who needs that 40K go begging for a job. Kind of rough, but if you look at the proposal that Bush put out in the 2000 election, giving a 500 Billion Dollar Tax Cut in order to "create 5 million jobs", that's what he was saying. If I need capital to start a business, I don't go to a rich friend, I go to a bank. (I don't have any rich friends, and don't really want any.) If my business idea has merit and if I can sell the idea that I would be able to earn money from it, the bank gives me a loan that I have to pay back. But even more important than that, I don't need financial capital to start a business, I just need demand for my product or service. Without that demand, I'll stay working for someone else.
If it were true that giving tax breaks and more financial capital to people at the top of the income ladder created more jobs, then wouldn't it also follow that giving ALL of our financial capital to THE richest person in the world would create the MOST jobs? That's what I call failed logic.
It IS true that by giving more money to people who will spend most of their income increases demand for products and services. It does NOT follow that giving all of our financial capital to everyone equally would create paradise. But at least people would be able to eat, live in a house, go to a doctor and send their kids to good schools.
The Brookings Institute is here: http://www.brookings.edu/
The Cato Institute is here: http://www.cato.org/
Conservative Economics, also called "Supply Side" economics, has failed. It failed in the 1920's and created the Great Depression. It failed in 1981 and created the Recession of the early '80's, but Congress didn't have the guts to reverse the tax cuts. Those policies started being reversed in 1993, but the 1994 election (thanks to the broadcasts and illusions cast by people from the CATO Institute and other groups like them) stopped it. Now we might have another chance to fix the mess, put regulation back to work trying to protect our country against fraud and abuse. But I would expect that Congress still won't have the guts to restore the top marginal tax rates to what they should be. If we don't do that, then the fraud and abuse will be coming from the people with the most finanical capital, able to buy and sell elected offices.
If "supply side" were true, then retailers would want to maximize inventory so they have whatever their customers want to buy. Retailers instead try to keep inventory to a minimum, because inventory is a cost, and unsold inventory is a loss. Would you rather have a few people who can afford multi-million dollar homes, or a LOT of people who can afford homes that they can be proud of?
The role of government is to establish and maintain a foundation for the private sector to build on. Without that foundation, everything falls apart. Physical, financial, social and legal foundations are what make our country as great as it is. Selling off that infrastructure in bits and pieces so that private corporations can make money off selling services for higher prices than should be charged for basic needs like water, electricity and other elements of the commons is the best way to destroy that foundation. That's what we've seen happen over the last 8 years, and for the 20 years before that.