ruveyn wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
Indeed, it is far easier for any president to just wait for it to happen than to enforce it and get even more blame even though it would actually fix the unemployment issue.
--
Regarding the economy as a whole, only way to fix US economy in a short term is to start a war.
And yeah, that's the sort of thing that is very popular in the US, so I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if a new war starts this month.
WW2 is what ended the Great Depression. You might be on to something.
ruveyn
Except that we're already
at war, and have been at war continuously for the past eight years, and the Bush Administration's reckless spending on Iraq and Afghanistan is one of the primary reasons the U.S. went from having a Clinton-era surplus to a massive deficit. While the defense contractors might be happy about another war, it's unlikely to stimulate the economy to the degree that WWII did because the U.S. no longer has the industrial structure it had in the late 1930s. Many of those manufacturing jobs have been outsourced, to places like Taiwan, Russia, and Italy. Much of the outsourcing occurred under Bush.
Besides which, polls consistently show that after eight years, the majority of American people are weary of war. After the unpopularity Bush brought upon himself by dragging the U.S. to war with Iraq on false pretenses, any future war the U.S. might undertake at this point would have to be firmly justifiable as self-defense, or else it would be an act of political suicide.
I believe that the best way to expand employment now is exactly what Master_Pendant said: start hiring people to work on our infrastructure. It's been neglected now for several decades, as evidenced by the Minneapolis bridge collapse a few years ago, and there are plenty of projects to be repaired or built that would not only stimulate American industry, but would also serve the American people in the long run. And those are jobs that, for the most part, cannot be outsourced.