"President Barack Obama’s economic forecasts for long-term growth are too optimistic, many economists warn, a miscalculation that would mean budget deficits will be much higher than the administration is now acknowledging." - The Politico
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24899.html
At this point, I think it's safe to say that we have yet to bottom out on the economic decline. In fact, as this article indicates, many economists believe we are far from it. When the Stimulus Bill ($787,000,000,000) was being touted by the Obama Administration, the POTUS claimed that national unemployment would not rise above 8%. Yet, less than six months later, he contradicted his previous statement (surprise, surprise) by saying that unemployment would hit 10% by year's end. -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QffRCDimg2E
Well, here we are in mid-July and national unemployment is at 9.5% with no signs of slowing down. How's that change working out in your area? As far as I know, not one non-government job has been created with Stimulus money and a decent portion of the money can't even be accounted for. So let's have some fun with math, shall we? As of today, the number of citizens employed is approximately 140,196,000. The amount of tax-payer dollars used for Stimulus funding was $787,000,000,000. So, since the people paying taxes are the people with jobs, let's take the Stimulus funds and divide them between the 140,196,000 tax-payers. This would equal approximately $5,613.57 PER PERSON. Now you tell me, what would be more beneficial to a slumping economy, allowing the tax-payer to keep an average of $5,614 annually or forcing them to fork that money over so that the federal government can decide what to do with it? They totally dropped the ball on the first round, which we are now seeing, and the administration is seriously considering a second Stimulus Bill. What is the real motive behind all of this? I think this is all part of a much bigger picture.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24899.html
At this point, I think it's safe to say that we have yet to bottom out on the economic decline. In fact, as this article indicates, many economists believe we are far from it. When the Stimulus Bill ($787,000,000,000) was being touted by the Obama Administration, the POTUS claimed that national unemployment would not rise above 8%. Yet, less than six months later, he contradicted his previous statement (surprise, surprise) by saying that unemployment would hit 10% by year's end. -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QffRCDimg2E
Well, here we are in mid-July and national unemployment is at 9.5% with no signs of slowing down. How's that change working out in your area? As far as I know, not one non-government job has been created with Stimulus money and a decent portion of the money can't even be accounted for. So let's have some fun with math, shall we? As of today, the number of citizens employed is approximately 140,196,000. The amount of tax-payer dollars used for Stimulus funding was $787,000,000,000. So, since the people paying taxes are the people with jobs, let's take the Stimulus funds and divide them between the 140,196,000 tax-payers. This would equal approximately $5,613.57 PER PERSON. Now you tell me, what would be more beneficial to a slumping economy, allowing the tax-payer to keep an average of $5,614 annually or forcing them to fork that money over so that the federal government can decide what to do with it? They totally dropped the ball on the first round, which we are now seeing, and the administration is seriously considering a second Stimulus Bill. What is the real motive behind all of this? I think this is all part of a much bigger picture.
No comments:
Post a Comment