Spend a trillion in infrastructure? I can't presume to know what the number is, but I do know that cutting doesn't stimulate; it's not working now and it never has. It's simple Keynesian economics.

Don't necessarily think of a work crew swinging picks and shovels a la the WPA of the 1930s when you think infrastructure. Let's include:
§ technology,
§ simplified tax code and business regulation.
§ reliable communication and power grids,
§ market stability,
§ etc.

The experts can handle the implementation details; but some heavy duty pump priming is necessary; it has always worked. Once we're over the hump or more aptly out of the hole, we can tackle budget deficits and the national debt.

In high tax or low tax times, businesses manage and create jobs. Business is stymied when forced to navigate unknown waters. We are in a period of comparatively low tax rates, and the economy is a mess; so, lower tax rates is not likely to be a stimulus.

Join the TEA Party? Not likely. I have a fundamental disagreement with what they stand for. In a perfect world, government might not be necessary. We don't live in a perfect world; taxes and regulation are necessary. In the end of the 19th century taxes were for the most part non-existent and unbridled capitalism made the periodic wrenching upheaval of financial panics a way of life. Moreover, the TEA party wants government "off our backs" except when it comes to their social agenda at which time, it is meet and just for government to dictate. They can't have it both ways.

Dear Constitutional Libertarian;

I hesitated to include that phrase in my introduction, and did so only to indicate only that I have more free time on my hands than I normally would. My concern was that to open that window would obfuscate fundamental issues, and that fear has been realized by your comment/reply as it appears from my entire introductory statement, you gravitated to it; so I will answer your question but not in specifics as it applies to my case. For the record, what I characterize as inaction is not the cause, certainly, of my own unemployment. I lost my position due to the vagaries of the market, and the onus remains upon me to find a new position and it rests on my shoulders alone.

As a rule however, it is the responsibility of government to provide an environment: economic, policy, and infra-structurally that engenders growth and provides business with a reasonably sound arena within which to operate. It has not done that. Wall St. is doing well, but Wall St. is not Main St. Sometimes the pump needs priming. Our congress has not in my opinion done anything to improve the dismal economic conditions within which we find ourselves; in fact, I maintain that the economy has improved [as little as it has] despite the inaction of the congress. Culpable too, our president appears unable to do what is necessary through personal engagement with members of the congress to move it as successful past presidents have. [From history, L.B.J.comes to mind. Whether or not one agrees with his politics, he certainly knew how to get what he wanted out of the legislature.] In fairness to Mr. Obama, he appears stymied by ideologues who are in general unwilling to compromise; notwithstanding the recent Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Patty Murray budget agreement which might be a nascent opening up to the reality of political compromise which Washington is so bereft of late. Likewise, Mr. Obama is dealing with an opposition members of which on the day of his first inauguration discussed over a steak dinner how to make the president fail rather than put the benefit of the nation above partisan politics. If you disagree with my fundamental premise, read no further, we have nothing to discuss; if you are willing to consider an alternative to or a moderation of strict constitutional libertarianism whatever that might be for you, we have something to discuss.

The economy has limped along for 5 years. A casual observation of past down turns and subsequent recoveries will show that in its behavior business demands that government prime the pump now and again. What I see now might best be described as a line of swimmers standing at pool's edge each eying one another to see who will jump into the pool first; hesitating because they do not know how close the bottom of that pool might be. Moreover, we have never cut our way out of deficits which seems to me, anyway, to be at the core of the House's, at best, inaction or, at worst obstruction; but we have in fact have grown our way out of deficits, most recently in the 1990s. It seems to me the congress remains focused on an ideologically inspired position with which in principle I do not necessarily disagree; but I think it a discussion that might better be left for fatter times rather then rely on tried and true, Keynesian if you will, levers to stoke the boiler of our economy.

In my own search, I do not see mid-level or entry level [neither of which would describe me,] positions offered save for the occasional internship but instead consistently see senior or master level positions offered. When three or more qualified applicants vie for a position; too many people will walk away from that contest in second, third, or worse place.

Finally, to answer your other question, I am a he.

I joined this forum because I hoped to find an unbiased daily digest of political opinion. Currently unemployed in large part I believe because of a less than aggressive economic stimulation from Washington; I have more than enough time in breaks from my job hunt to read and contribute to this forum. Alas, so far, except for one contributor, this forum appears to be one for those who, many of whom appear functionally illiterate, are in need an arena to perpetuate falsehoods in the hope that doing so frequently enough will make them true. Preaching to their choir [or as one contributor I stumbled across put it "they're"; hence my functionally illiterate assessment] might give the poster some comfort does not further a constructive exchange of ideas, and the political discourse but contributes to its stagnancy. In fact, I ruminated for some time, watching on the side line, before registering so that I could make a post for that very reason, but nevertheless I jump into the fray; a lamb, perhaps, among wolves.

A life long Democrat and progressive, but never an ideologue; I long for the days when the conservative point of view was voiced by lettered gentlemen exemplified by William F. Buckley, Jr. instead of today's exemplars: Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh [neither of whom qualify as lettered or gentlemen] and the hoard of others of their ilk. For the record, the neo-cons have necessitated I track further to the left than I might historically have had on one position or another solely to achieve balance.

You can expect me to vent my spleen now and again. You can expect me to question your views rather than launch a broad-side challenge to them, and you can expect me to drop a bomb in your midst now and again solely to stir up the pot and get people to think. Know that I want a polite debate on the issues, but you can expect to be called to account when whatever it is you post while it may pass posting rules criteria doesn't pass the scrutiny of reality. To paraphrase the late Sen. Moynihan, we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.