The Fallacy of 10,000 Teaching Jobs to Stimulate the Private Sector

The Obama team has sought to create public sector jobs-such  as the recent Obama comments that 10,000 government jobs for teachers could have been paid for with more public debt if the Republicans had approved.

I think the entire Obama economic reconstruction package was largely no more than borrowing money to create more government jobs and for kickbacks to favorite contractors. In my opinion the President is clueless on private sector functions.

In reading the book 'what is religion' by Paul Tillich I found a section describing how the socialist sector tries to take over the religious theonomy of a nation and replace its formal personnel with its own. In my opinion the misguided democratic party is working generally toward that end. The old and better democrat party died after Tip O'Neal left the office of Speaker.

Consider that the Democrat Party actually signed off on all the tax cuts since Reagan. Wasn't it the Democrat Party that was the majority during Reagan's first term when the tax cuts went through? Wasn't it the Democrat Party that signed off on the Bush tax cuts and all Iraq supplemental budgets that Bush II put forward? The Democrat Party is just concerned with making homosexual advances and in creating a corporatist state unifying government with business.

Hence they support global networks of power in business that can eventually be transitioned into neo-socialist corporate organizations. Needless to say free enterprise will perish outside of the corporate and government networks of power-its quite a wrong direction to take.

The money multiplier factor in government jobs is less than in the private sector. Those 10,000 teachers will not export some of their 'product' abroad. The Reagan administration used direct government spending to finance a 500 ship navy, and that tradition of government spending with military purchases (that Reagan didn't use generally) can sometimes stimulate an economy along with more deficit spending and temporary tax cuts. It is necessary to halt deficit spending though, and to increase the tax base sufficiently to balance the budget and eliminate excessive public debt and interest payments.

One might recall or read about how much Presidential administrations worried about improving the economic state of the nation in the 1960's through 1980s unlike the Obama administration that seems to just be interested in increasing public debt with the belief that the private sector will repair itself.

The housing market for instance coupled with illegal alien cheap labor in that sector is a built in attractor of flimsy investing schemes, over-production and the antinomy of carefully planned, tight economic growth in the technology sector with full employment and rising wages. The housing market has its own phenomenal growth patterns in the modern era especially from global mortgage and derivatives investors that make the economy of the U.S.A. something of a dysfunctional joke.

In the 1960s the national economy was still largely an American-controlled phenomenon. When it overheated or had recession it could naturally and with adroit guidance recover and resume in its resource-rich environment. Today though perhaps 40% of more of the economy is not controlled by just U.S. factors making corrections something like driving a car with very lose and unresponsive steering. It is tough to get the car to go where one aims it if one has the temerity to try to guide the vehicle as the President seemingly does not.

Public education in the U.S.A. should better serve private sector economic stimulation if parents were given vouchers for quality approved private schools. Competition in private schools to deliver better education for more profit ought to result in smarter students better ready for the free market. Private educators should find less expensive ways to deliver better education than public schools today that seek more and more spending for union teachers performing poorly.

If students had a nook instead of a text book that could save a lot of money. Students could also take their nook home and perhaps have a speech reader so they could listen to lessons with headphones if they live in a noisy ghetto. If all students had a nook then there would be far less reason for bulliss to steal there valuable piece of hardware.

With nooks students could work on their homework around the clock and save on back injuries from heavy rucksacks. It might also be possible to disaggregate students into smaller group units with nooks and g.p.s. tracking. The possibilities are endless for improving student performance with more private and less public education. The President is simply wrong on his collectivist approach to education.