Taxes remove the excess income of the rich and give it to the voting poor, through a fair and organized bureaucracy. The rich oppose this action by selfishly and spitefully decreasing employment. Government responds by increasing grants and spending, to boost employment. The government incurs a deficit while it discovers the “knack” for creating the jobs that the rich are hiding.

The Political Dictionary

it should have been:
Why my business has ceased

Sorry.
tom

That’s why they are NOT creating jobs, rather they are shedding jobs.

They just don’t want to believe it’s their fault that “good payin’, blue collar, everyman” jobs are disappearing. And they don’t want the guilt of recognzing that the editors who write this drivel for six-figured salaries, are the very overpaid executives they rant about.

If they want leadership on jobs, then go find the small business owner who’s putting in 18 hr/day trying to get his company in the black so he can pay off that 2nd mortgage.

Or none of the above, since all three of these will actually destroy opportunities for employment.

“Or surprise us.”

Actually considering fewer regulations and taxes? Would the resulting boom in investment and employment “surprise” you?

Coyoteblog has a post that describes his circumstance as a private operator of state parks here:
Coyote Blog:love story

tom

It really is odd that so many think [real] jobs are so easily created.

This would also be an issue in a completely socialist economy. Even with total government control of the economy, there is a distinction between jobs that produce useful goods/services and those that don’t. From what we’ve see of Obama/Reid/Pelosi, we can be pretty sure that their version of a command economy would be devoted to paying off favored groups and implementing fashionable theories. The “back-yard blast furnaces” of Maoist China would probably look economically rational by comparison.