Less Spending = Less Jobs

As the argument goes, when businesses and consumers both stop spending, the government must spend to keep the wheels turning.

Economist Krugman always has some no-nonsense guidance:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/opinion/the-fatal-distraction.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general

WSJ (part of the Fox clan) is known for their agenda driven reporting:
"...in May 2009 The Wall Street Journal declared that the “bond vigilantes” were “returning with a vengeance,” telling readers that the Obama administration’s “epic spending spree” would send interest rates soaring. The interest rate when that editorial was published was 3.7 percent. As of Friday, as I’ve already mentioned, it was only 2 percent."

"State and local governments, in particular, faced with the loss of federal aid, have been sharply cutting many programs and have been laying off a lot of workers, mostly schoolteachers."

"O.K., I know what the usual suspects will say — namely, that fears of regulation and higher taxes are holding businesses back. But this is just a right-wing fantasy. Multiple surveys have shown that lack of demand — a lack that is being exacerbated by government cutbacks — is the overwhelming problem businesses face, with regulation and taxes barely even in the picture."

"...we should have a lot of job-creating spending on the part of the federal government, largely in the form of much-needed spending to repair and upgrade the nation’s infrastructure. Oh, and we need more aid to state and local governments, so that they can stop laying off schoolteachers."