President Barack Obama signed his $787 billion recovery package into law on Tuesday with a statement that it would “set our economy on a firmer foundation.” His press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said Obama has not ruled out a second stimulus package.
The president said he would not pretend “that today marks the end of our economic problems.”
“Nor does it constitute all of what we have to do to turn our economy around,” Obama said at the signing ceremony in the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. “But today does mark the beginning of the end, the beginning of what we need to do to create jobs for Americans scrambling in the way of playoffs.”
Was seeing the AFA News report (go [url=http://www.onenewsnow.com/talk/Default.aspx?loc=newsupdate ]here[/url]) and they mentioned two amazing facts:
The average family will get about $1.10 per day for the next year or two but it will add over a $9,400 in added debt.
If one takes the estimated number of jobs and the cost of the “stimulus” package, one calculates that the cost per job created is…wait for it…$220,000. Is that insane or what?
I guess we are going to indebt our way out of debt!
Well, now Mr. Obama and the Democrat majorities is House and Senate fully and unquestionalbly own the proposed ‘solution.’ But, I have to just ask, if #1 is correct, and I have no reason not to accept his figures, who did the cost/benefit analysis on this incredibly irresponsible and non-stimulative legislation? And did anyone look at it?
Today the stock market did its own continuing cost/benefit analysis and found for yet another day that the legislation stinks.
“MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.”
[comment deleted at commenter’s request]
[deleted as it refers to now-deleted comment #4, and is off-topic]
#5, whether or not I find myself misguided, according to page 4 of [url=http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/84xx/doc8497/07-30-WarCosts_Testimony.pdf]this PDF[/url] from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office:
[blockquote]”The President’s [George W. Bush’s] budget proposal for 2008 includes a request for another $137 billion for military operations, $5 billion for indigenous security forces, and $3 billion for diplomatic operations and foreign aid. If the requested amounts are appropriated, [b]the total amount of funding provided since 2001 for all operations in the war on terrorism would reach $747 billion[/b]. The Department of Defense has stated that its request is preliminary and that it may request additional funds during that year.”[/blockquote]
Not too far off from the cost of the stimulus package—and the stimulus package won’t cause untold civilian deaths on the other side of the planet.
——
[[i]Note from elves: it was tempting to delete this as off-topic once we’d deleted comments #4 and #5. However, I decided to let it stand as it does deal with spending amounts and could be seen as a fair comparison of spending priorities of two different administrations. But further discussion of Bush administration military policy and spending WILL be ruled off-topic. –elfgirl[/i]]
#6, does the military operations figure include only the extra cost of operations in Iraq? I think it includes also the underlying ordinary cost of maintaining the armed forces, which we pay anyhow.
——
[i]see note on #6. Further discussion of Iraq spending will be considered off-topic.[/i]
And note the ominous reference to another bill in the future, in addition to TARP II and the “regular” spending bills, which still lie ahead. These people are spending money we don’t have like water. We can all expect to pay the price in a sluggish economic recovery and inflation.
[comment deleted at commenter’s request]
[comment deleted at commenter’s request. Thanks, Br. Michael, for understanding and for your apology.]