@ Liberals The general argument that the President should try to do something effective has merit. However, just as important is understanding what, exactly, is likely to be effective given the existing goals of people and the resistance that will result from policies that contradict their goals. People do not want the government to spend money to create jobs, so while it is "brave and foolish" to continue advocating such, a more flexible approach both by the President and by other concerned parties is more likely to achieve a reduction of unemployment. The largest battleship ever constructed, the Japanese battleship Yamato, was given as much fuel as the local port commanders could provide instead of just enough for a one-way voyage as ordered, but this did not prevent it from being destroyed in combat or heavy criticism about better uses for that precious fuel under the blockade. @ Conservatives Narayana Kocherlakota, one of the dissenters on the Fed's statement about future interest rate expectations, assumed in his modeling of unemployment that prices and the shape of the demand curve have no effect on unemployment: Labor Markets and Monetary Policy - The Region - Publications & Papers | The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis This assumption is at the base of claims that unemployment can fix itself without government intervention if people just agree to work for less. This would be a reasonable claim to make if markets were "competitive". But no one but Apple is allowed to sell the iPods made by Foxconn, which leads to a demand curve where businesses have no reason to reduce prices when labour costs fall, because reducing prices would not increase revenues. When businesses have no incentive to hire more because of "low consumer demand", the only way to have full employment is for people to work less. Why economists are wrong - Pastebin.com Mr Jared Bernstein said, "House Rs will likely block most of the above ... lets make sure everyone in this country knows exactly whos standing between the 20+ million un- and underemployed Americans, and their jobs, paychecks, and living standards." Think this through to the logical conclusion. On one hand you have an unemployed worker, who has lost their self-esteem. On the other hand you have an employed worker angry that the government is spending "their" tax money in ways that seem to benefit only Wall Street and fin. inst. Do you really expect the unemployed worker to want the government to spend more, so their neighbor who is employed has to pay higher taxes (or suffer inflation on their savings/fixed income)? How exactly does this cause people to feel any less like a "manipulative leech" as someone I know put it? The alternative, once again, is for the employed worker to be 'taxed' (where the taxes go to their employer, not the government) only if they refuse to reduce their working hours to allow the unemployed worker a job and an income. One-Step Plan to Eliminating Unemployment - Pastebin.com There is already a strong undercurrent of opinion among the general public that people need to consume less, not more: The Consumption Economy Is DyingLet it Die - Michael Mandel - Business - The Atlantic So "aggregate demand", and the economy are only likely to get worse if people do not agree to conserve work.