Jobs and Their Creation

This site was created on the behalf of the unemployed, and for those, who currently are neither working nor looking for work, but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. It’s also, for those persons employed part time for economic reasons, who want and are available for full-time work in President Donald Trump’s economy, but have had to settle for a part-time schedule, across this great nation. This site advocates for the underemployed, and those who are struggling, each and every day, to live some semblance of the lifestyle, they had prior to these Economic Downturns.

James Davis, who created this long-term stimulus and economic growth plan and proposal did it and, advances it, so the plan’s realization will relieve the anxiety of his countrymen, countrywomen, our sons and our daughters caught, in these economic downward spirals. Mr. Davis is a graduate of Florida A. and M. University. He was the recipient of two scholarships, which financed his education. They are the Florida Governor Haydon Burns’ and FAMU’s first Martin Luther King Scholarships. James is an advocate, convicted, and convinced of “the positive results,” which can be realized, if this long-term Deficit Neutral Job Creation and Economic Growth Plan and Proposal is actualized. He wants you, (yes, you), and every single person coming to this site to become an advocate, like himself. Did I say, “the proposal is Deficit Neutral,” meaning it will produce “surplus revenues,” which will result in “new taxable revenues streams for city, state, and federal governments to spend.“

In the course of human events, such as these horrific Economic Downturns, we the people have an obligation to step forth, when our political representatives fail us, and demand our government, which was created by us, fulfill its obligation to us, of promoting our general welfare. We should do this willingly, with “good will in our hearts,” being fierce advocators “of ourselves,” and our countrymen, countrywomen, of our sons, and daughters who are hurting economically due to no fault of their own.

We did not cause these Economic Downturns; We are victims of them.  JOIN US NOW, purchase the book for the reduced price of $9.99, and together Create Jobs and Grow the U.S. Economy.

FREE market Capitalism works every time! 

This is how Grok AI on X answered or replied to Mr. Davis’s following question regarding the 10%, $25,000 Boomer Consumer Tax Cut. These comments and question are unedited. First the question, then Grok’s reply:

“This is logical, isn’t it what Davis has proposed? Trump gave the top 10%-20% a $3.4 trillion tax cut and the result has been a loss of 133,000 Jobs in February, and 23,000 Jobs lost in July. The bottom 70%-80%, perhaps as many (as) 62 million consumers, spending their tax cut on products and services should produce Jobs.“

Grok AI on X stated the following on Tuesday August 25, 2026, at around approximately 6:18 pm:

Yes, the core logic is sound in standard Keynesian/demand-side economics, though the specific job-loss figures need adjustment and the real-world results depend on many factors. Davis’s proposal targets large one-time payments (around $25k) primarily to retiring Baby Boomers in the bottom 70–80% of consumers. Those households have a higher marginal propensity to consume they tend to spend a larger share of extra income on goods and services rather than save or invest it in financial assets. That extra spending raises demand for products and services, which in turn can support or create jobs in retail, services, manufacturing, construction, etc.

By contrast, tax cuts weighted toward the top 10–20% (as with much of the 2017 TCJA and the 2025 extension/“One Big Beautiful Bill” package that CBO scored at roughly $3.4 trillion in added deficits over a decade) flow more into saving, stock buybacks, real estate, or capital investments. The short-run consumption multiplier is typically smaller; any job effects are more indirect and longer-term via investment and productivity.

On the recent job numbers

• July 2026 nonfarm payrolls fell by about 23,000 (matching the figure you cited). Private-sector employment was positive, while government (especially state/local) accounted for most of the decline.
• February 2026 showed a clear loss. Initial reports put it near –92,000; some later or revised series show larger declines (around –156,000 in certain trackers). The 133,000 figure is in the ballpark of the weaker readings but is not the most commonly cited initial number. Multiple factors were noted at the time (weather, a large health-care strike, trade policy uncertainty, energy-price spikes related to Middle East developments, and ongoing government employment reductions).
• Job losses in a given month or two cannot be attributed solely to a tax package that was enacted months earlier; labor-market data are noisy and influenced by many simultaneous forces. Why the logic can still hold Empirical experience with broad consumer stimulus (e.g., the 2020 CARES Act checks and enhanced benefits) showed rapid rebounds in spending and employment when demand was the binding constraint. Directing resources to groups that spend rather than save raises the near-term multiplier relative to upper-income tax cuts. Davis’s plan is framed as a temporary, targeted demand boost intended to support job creation while claiming to be roughly deficit-neutral over time through higher economic activity and revenues—an optimistic but internally consistent claim if the multipliers materialize as hoped.Caveats that keep it from being automatic:
  • If the economy is already near capacity or facing supply constraints (energy, labor shortages in certain sectors, tariffs), extra demand can raise prices more than employment.
• One-time payments to a specific cohort (retiring Boomers) produce a temporary pulse rather than sustained growth.
  • Financing and distribution details matter; large transfers still increase the deficit in the near term. Other policies (monetary, trade, immigration, regulation) can dominate the labor-market outcome.
• In short, shifting stimulus toward higher-MPC consumers is a coherent way to try to generate more immediate jobs per dollar than top-weighted tax cuts. Whether Davis’s exact design would deliver the projected results is an empirical question that depends on timing, size, offsets, and the broader policy environment. The recent soft payroll prints illustrate a labor market that could in principle respond to stronger consumer demand, but they do not by themselves prove causation from the 2025 tax law.