1. Government spends more than it makes
2. Government does not spend efficiently or effectively.
3. When did the purpose of government suddenly become "create jobs"?

I didn't read that any where in the constitution, and during the creation of the country, the wisdom was simple, people are responsible to help the government. JFK was probably the last politician to say it out loud when he said "Ask not what your country can do for you, Ask what you can do for your country". That wasn't a job interview question folks.

President Kennedy then ended the speech with "My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man", he didn't say "free ride for man" did he?

Second, are you a socialist? The wealthy need more taxes? Already, our tax system is inequitable. A fair share is by definition a percentage. If the rich paid 20% of their income to taxes and the working class paid 20% of their income to taxes, that is by definition fair. The working class making $100,000 paying $20,000 is less than but proportionally equivalent to the $1,000,000 earners paying $200,000. Proportionality is inherently fair.

Already, the rich are taxed a higher percentage, which is simply wrong. As if their earning more gives us a right to take a higher percentage of their money because "they won't miss it as much". That is patently inequitable – and don't accuse me of self-serving bias, because I speak as working class making below both examples.

Fair does matter, because we are a moral country. Of course, we get away with taxing the rich a higher proportion because the government that steals from Paul to pay John can always count on the support of John.

Now, to move away from fair to practical. When we deplete the meritocracy that makes us so great, we alienate those who the markets have determined create incredible value (the highest earners who earn what you probably consider obscene or ridiculously high earners). Remember – they worked hard for that money, and free markets determined what they do is of such high value. If we steal from their earnings, we deplete the meritocracy, which hurts their feeling that they will get to make as much as they work towards in this land of opportunity. In this global economy, such people will take their earnings (read: value) elsewhere if we take advantage of them like you propose.

It is absurd to even entertain the thought of Conan O'Brien buying anyone a cell phone.

(plural of Conan O'Brien is Conan O'Briens, not Conan O'Brien's)

However, one thing I would be careful about is comparing government spending regardless of circumstance. Government spending during an economic expansion can lead to a crowding-out effect. Government spending during an economic contraction can actually lead to a crowding-in effect.

And, of course, there is always the most basic economic formula to remember.

GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)
GDP = Consumption + Investments + Government Spending + Trade Deficit (Exports – Imports)

So during an economic expansion, consumption (consumer spending on household goods and services) increases and investment (business spending on capital goods and services) increases. That being the case, an increased government spending can lead to more inefficient spending than the market would normally dictate.

Now, the economy starts contracting. C & I are obviously going to go down. We can sit by idly and watch as GDP goes down or we can increase government spending to stabilize the economy.

It's the bathtub effect — and an effort to smooth it.