In theory instead of giving the wealthy huge tax cuts in hope they will hire and expand their business....(rest in details)

Sounds good to me!

Sounds good to me too, and then we can be sure they do indeed hire and expand instead of just saying so.

And then they fire the new employees anyway.
Rule of Acquisition #1:
“Once you have their money, never give it back.”

If the goal was to actually expand the economy you would give the cash to poor people that will shoot that cash into circulation right away.

Supply does not create demand. And if you make shit just to make shit you should be fired.

But Trumpo won’t get the Koch brothers and others with big bucks lending him (giving) him money like Kennedy’s son at Deutsche Bank.

Maybe the government can pay the wages for new employees instead of a tax break.

Collectivise all businesses.

There’s no need for bosses and owners, nor to incentivise them with tax breaks for anything.

It is the old question of trickle down vs trickle up economics. Trickle down is now being applied on a grand scale in the U.S. We will see how successful it is.

Your idea won’t work, because the businesses will cry that they don’t have the money to hire in the first place (which may or may not be true). So it’s a non-starter. They’re not going to hire people they can’t afford to pay, and the US government – here: Congress – is notoriously bad at keeping its obligations.

So this sounds like a decent idea, but it won’t work.

@Kropotkin ‘s idea is a crock. We all see how successful collectivization and socialism worked in the Soviet Union and numerous other countries around the world.

I find many elements of socialism appealing. At least compared to most forms of government. I like the idea of trying to make all citizens’ lives as best as possible.

China is in the process of lifting millions out of poverty. It’s far from perfect, but I like the concept…