I simply want to say that I wholeheartedly agree with you Mr. Thomas. I agree that the solutions are really quite simple and timeless. Obama and his minions just don't want to do what is the right thing. They don't want to just get out of the way. Each day the liberals in Washington amaze me with their stupidity!

I don't think Obama, liberals, and Congress are that stupid - 1)they are in total control, 2)are destroying the world's most powerful nation and economy, and 3) have 300 million people at their beck and call. And 4)they have also totally neutered the world's most powerful army with PC and rules of engagement. I would say they are quite cunning and powerful. They have managed to enslave 300 million formerly free people practically overnight, 10 months or less with only one puppet master - George Soros.

Since the principles described so well in this article are easy to understand and have worked well since our nation's founding, it's pretty obvious that Obama's agenda is clearly one of advancing socialism over our capitalist system. Yet, socialism will not help more people to a better quality of life for the very reasons described here.

It will do the opposite, and take away our freedoms to boot.

Many years back there was a series on television about the occupants of the White House. It started with a president or two before Wilson. When Hoover was leaving the White House to escort FDR to the Inaugaral parade, Mrs. Hoover was heard to say to her husband that FDR will get credit for the ideas that Hoover has put forward. And it has moved on down the line to Obama. He is going to get credit for some of the programs that George W. Bush put forward. It will go on and on through the years. What a joke it all is. That branch of government know as the Congress but better known to us as organized crime is truly ruinning(oops)running this country. And those puppets we elect as our leaders just stand up there and grin. And none could grin as well as our worst president elected to the office. And that was none other than James Earl Carter. He who called "W" the worse. What a pair of gonads.

I agree with the basic premise that tax cuts will stimulate the economy. But I strongly disagree with this: "The way to create jobs is to allow businesses to make sufficient profits so they can afford to hire more workers and manufacture more widgets."

Business hiring is not related to profits; it rises or falls based solely on the demand for their goods.

If taxes on my business were cut today, I would not add a single job. But if demand for my products and services rises, I'll hire - with or without tax cuts.

The effective way to jump start the economy with a tax cut would be reducing individual taxes. More spending by consumers is the only way to increase employment.

This is true even for employment in the 'B2B' sector. When my customers buy more, I'll spend more with the local printer, the equipment manufacturers, etc. But without consumer spending, I have no need to make those purchases.

Tom is correct in stating that cutting individual taxes will help the economy, but somehow overlooks the benefits of cutting taxes on business. When a business has more profits, it can spend more on product or market development in hopes of increasing sales, it may invest in more efficient means of production, it may give pay raises to employees, it may invest in other enterprises (by acquisition or investment instrument purchase), or it may give larger dividends to stockholders. Whatever choice is made puts more real spending power in somebody's hands as the fruit of the productive labor of the business.

I didn't overlook those factors. But I'm a pragmatist (and an entrepreneur with an MBA). So I'll explain why I consider an individual tax cut more important than the factors coming solely from a cut on business taxes:

1. If I am more profitable, I have more for R&D, and R&D does create jobs. But profits (or external sources of financing) are a limiting factor on how much I can invest, not a requirement to spend it. My investment decisions are based on the opportunities I see. Simply having more cash does not guarantee more R&D investment; R&D for my business is a gamble I take, and I only take it when I like the odds. This year I've liked the odds, and I have created jobs. Whether I do so next year or two years from now depends more on what I see happening in my market than how much cash I have on hand.

2. Investing in more efficient means of production is always an option. But the goal of more efficient production is the reduction of labor cost per unit - and if all other factors remain the same, that means fewer jobs.

3. Wages are tied to the marketplace for labor, not a company's profits. On average, I pay more than my competitors to attract and retain the best talent. If they don't step up their labor spending, I have no need to - I'll be able to retain my workers without additional expense.

4. Investment by acquisition in general eliminates jobs. If I buy a competitor, I don't need their duplication of my existing structures for accounting, IT, etc.

5. Investment by purchasing instruments merely transfers funds from one entity to another. The party receiving the money may create jobs with it, or not - and purchasing financial instruments is also open to any individual with disposable cash: individuals can buy stocks and bonds too, if they have more money. Unless this investment is supported by real growth, it only leads to inflation in securities pricing (because more dollars are chasing the same offerings). We need actual spending to increase employment. And as an aside, buying stocks is not investing in a company's capacity - unless it's an IPO, the company will see none of your cash.

6. Payment of dividends puts more cash in the hands of individuals - it's identical in that respect to a reduction of individual taxes. In order to stimulate spending, you'll get more bang for the buck by giving that money to the individuals who spend a higher percentage of the marginal dollars received. Give a shareholder money, and they'll spend some - give the average individual the same amount, and they'll spend more.

Shrinking the level of government to reduce all taxes will spur the economy. But my point is simple: growing the economy comes from growing spending on goods and services, so if we have to choose only one tax to reduce we'll get the most bang for the buck by lowering individual taxes.

The issues are complex, and I should also recognize a fairly serious downside in reducing individual taxes: a large (and growing) segment of the voters get a lot more than they give now, and lowering individual taxes exacerbates the disparity in who's shouldering the cost of government. As long as our politicians continue to increase the size of government to curry votes through "giveaways" the long term outlook is not good - if the majority keeps getting something for nothing, our resources will continue to shift into federal hands.

In my view, the surest way out of this mess is to a) reduce income taxes so spending gets moving, b) reduce the size of government - the laid-off government employees will be able to find opportunities created in a private sector driven by demand, c) reduce the deficit to a level sustainable by lower federal income, and then d) reduce taxes on the production of goods and services - corporate taxes, tariffs etc.

The logic behind those priorities is pretty straightforward: ultimately, all taxes are paid by individuals - if my business taxes rise, so will my prices. As long as taxes remain a necessary evil, the collection costs will be lower when businesses are taxed, rather than directly taxing individuals.