The Obama 800 billion dollar Stimulus Scam

[Toddsterpatriot]

The average tax paid by US corporations is around 5%. That is actual tax paid, not the fairy tale tax rate.

I think that well over half of our fortune 500 companies paid no tax at all. Many got subsidies.

Should we give them all subsidies? Their taxes are so low that is the next logical step.

The average tax paid by US corporations is around 5%. That is actual tax paid, not the fairy tale tax rate.

According to the US Census Bureau, in 2010, corporate profits were about $1.625 trillion. They paid taxes of $417 billion. That's almost 26%. That is actual tax paid, not the fairy tale number you made up.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0791.pdf

I don't know what you are talking about but I am talking large corporations, multinationals.

To be fair I confused tax rate with taxes as a percent of GDP. To be equally frank your figure of 26% is wildly off the mark also. It is an unfortunate fact that small businesses pay a much higher tax rate than the large corporations.

Checking my stats I come to the following: 30 Fortune 500 companies paid more to lobby congress than they paid in taxes.

"The “Dirty Thirty” companies all told made $163.7 billion in profits while paying zero dollars in federal income taxes and collecting a total of $10.6 billion in various tax rebates. Meanwhile, they collectively spent $475.7 million in lobbying expenses for the three year period."

"As it stands now, the actual tax rate corporations pay, called the "effective" tax rate, is at 12.1 percent of profits, the lowest level it's been since 1972, Think Progress reports. Likewise, tax revenue as a percentage of gross domestic product is at lows not seen since the 1940s, according to CTJ."

"A total 280 profitable Fortune 500 companies collectively paid an effective federal income tax rate of 18.5 percent, about half of the statutory 35 percent corporate tax rate, while receiving $223 billion in tax subsidies."

So we have an "effective" tax rate of somewhere between 12 and 18%. Personally I would venture it is closer to 12 than 18.

The "Fortune 500" companies are not the only ones who know how to avoid taxes.

I would give you links but there are too many and they are easily found by even the most
inept of web surfers.

To be equally frank your figure of 26% is wildly off the mark also.

It's not my figure, that's the US Census Bureau figure for the entire economy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You mean tax cuts made by Democrats don't help the economy.




Loophole is in the eye of the beholder. Its a meaningless word, as meaningless as "earmark"

You mean tax cuts made by Democrats don't help the economy.

I mean short term, economically inefficient targeted tax cuts don't help the economy.
Whether they're passed by a Democrat or a Republican.

So, if, for example, someone gets extra money from being able to depreciate 50% or 100% in the first year - that extra money doesn't do them any good, right?

That example would be more useful than most of the "stimulus" tax cuts I've seen.
They should make that permanent.

 

[freedombecki]

Outsourcing billions of taxpayer dollars through stimulus spending « Wintery Knight

The So-Called Stimulus Bill

So where exactly does $800,000,000,000 go? Surely some of that must have found its way back into the pockets of the people who are responsible for paying it – the American citizen. .

Whether the Obama administration intended for the stimulus to be a job-creating measure or an "investment" in pet projects and constituencies, this much is clear: For every $278,000 in taxpayer-funded stimulus money that the administration spent as of the July report, only one job was added or saved. And that's according to an estimate from Obama's own economists. And it has gotten worse from there.

Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus spending law–the $787 billion American Recovery and Reivnestment Act–gave millions of federal dollars to foreign companies or funded domestic companies that built factories in foreign countries or bought foreign products.

What a guy, screw over the American citizen,you work hard for your money and he gives it all away to forgein countries..

View attachment 20243

This money will go wherever Obama makes a call to the Treasury and has it routed to one of Nancy Pelosi's relatives. She's already screwed the American people out of her two billion dollars' worth.

Can you imagine somebody 70 years old, still trying to screw the American people out of billions more than before? What a grasping, greedy, grubbing little ingrate she has been--decades of stealing your money, she's wealthy as sin, but she hasn't had enough of the taking game, she's got to get more for her kids who want to blow through the money like drunk sailors on leave for the weekend with green businesses that have those 100% government guarantees.

The cheater who knows how to get what she wants and more and more and endlessly more.

I think she should be required to give every nickle back of her recent two billion in grabs for the Pelosis. That's the people's money, not Nancy Pelosi's money. Will somebody please get that through her avaricious little skull?

I'm sick of Nancy Pelosi looking on the people's money and putting billions of it in her purse each year. It's just wrong to do that.

Any proof of anything. Or just more opinion based on where you normally keep your head?

Sorry you have been in the dark about Nancy Pelosi, her relatives, and all the taxpayer money that she routes their way:

Nancy Pelosi's brother-in-law given $737 million of taxpayer money to build giant solar plant in middle of desert (aka Crescent Dunes)

and

The Real Solyndra Scandal is Cronyism ($535 million of taxpayer money to guarantee Solyndra success in the market. Surely you heard about Solyndra's dismissal of all their 1100 employees less than 2 years after they were given the half-billion after Obama made a special call to the Treasury demanding payment "right now" to Solyndra a couple of years back?)

Treasury Watchdog Says Solyndra Loan was Rushed

March 17, 2009 - March 19, 2009 Treasury Review Rushed: Quick deal for Obama supporter Solyndra

Solyndra, Solar-Panel Maker in California Seeks Bankruptcy

August 31, 2011: Solyndra's downward spin comes as no surprise

Idiotic mainstream media doesn't remember this any more, less than a year later. It is an egregious and blatantly evil deal pushed hard by Obama.

LA Times: Obama's tie to Solyndra (picture of Obama at solyndra's offices for a photo op)

There were a trillion dollars in the mix of these "stimulus appropriation" deals benefitting Democrat supporters, mainly. Wake up, America. The Democrats are covering this up faster than you know with obfuscations, rewrites, etc. Don't be fooled.

 

[Rshermr]

This money will go wherever Obama makes a call to the Treasury and has it routed to one of Nancy Pelosi's relatives. She's already screwed the American people out of her two billion dollars' worth.

Can you imagine somebody 70 years old, still trying to screw the American people out of billions more than before? What a grasping, greedy, grubbing little ingrate she has been--decades of stealing your money, she's wealthy as sin, but she hasn't had enough of the taking game, she's got to get more for her kids who want to blow through the money like drunk sailors on leave for the weekend with green businesses that have those 100% government guarantees.

The cheater who knows how to get what she wants and more and more and endlessly more.

I think she should be required to give every nickle back of her recent two billion in grabs for the Pelosis. That's the people's money, not Nancy Pelosi's money. Will somebody please get that through her avaricious little skull?

I'm sick of Nancy Pelosi looking on the people's money and putting billions of it in her purse each year. It's just wrong to do that.

Any proof of anything. Or just more opinion based on where you normally keep your head?

Sorry you have been in the dark about Nancy Pelosi, her relatives, and all the taxpayer money that she routes their way:

Nancy Pelosi's brother-in-law given $737 million of taxpayer money to build giant solar plant in middle of desert (aka Crescent Dunes)
Hit job by two well know con dogma guys, in a well known con web site. Kind of conservative mental masturbation.
and

The Real Solyndra Scandal is Cronyism ($535 million of taxpayer money to guarantee Solyndra success in the market. Surely you heard about Solyndra's dismissal of all their 1100 employees less than 2 years after they were given the half-billion after Obama made a special call to the Treasury demanding payment "right now" to Solyndra a couple of years back?)

Treasury Watchdog Says Solyndra Loan was Rushed

March 17, 2009 - March 19, 2009 Treasury Review Rushed: Quick deal for Obama supporter Solyndra

Solyndra, Solar-Panel Maker in California Seeks Bankruptcy

August 31, 2011: Solyndra's downward spin comes as no surprise

Idiotic mainstream media doesn't remember this any more, less than a year later. It is an egregious and blatantly evil deal pushed hard by Obama.

LA Times: Obama's tie to Solyndra (picture of Obama at solyndra's offices for a photo op)

There were a trillion dollars in the mix of these "stimulus appropriation" deals benefitting Democrat supporters, mainly. Wake up, America. The Democrats are covering this up faster than you know with obfuscations, rewrites, etc. Don't be fooled.

Do you ever, ever look at impartial web sites and impartial authors. Or do you simply prefer staying in the conservative nut case world? Let me see, maybe I should send you some information from move on. But actually, i will not. I prefer to maintain my integrity..

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You mean tax cuts made by Democrats don't help the economy.

I mean short term, economically inefficient targeted tax cuts don't help the economy.
Whether they're passed by a Democrat or a Republican.

So, if, for example, someone gets extra money from being able to depreciate 50% or 100% in the first year - that extra money doesn't do them any good, right?

That example would be more useful than most of the "stimulus" tax cuts I've seen.

Such as?

They should make that permanent.

May as well just get rid of the distinction between capital expenses and operating expenses entirely then - of course, then businesses would just lock their profits up in capital assets they aren't actually using just to avoid taxation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, if, for example, someone gets extra money from being able to depreciate 50% or 100% in the first year - that extra money doesn't do them any good, right?

That example would be more useful than most of the "stimulus" tax cuts I've seen.

Such as?

They should make that permanent.

May as well just get rid of the distinction between capital expenses and operating expenses entirely then - of course, then businesses would just lock their profits up in capital assets they aren't actually using just to avoid taxation.

Such as?

Such as Obama's $8/week reduction in withholding.
Cash for clunkers.
First time home buyers credit.
$250 check for Soc Sec, Veterans and SSI recipients.

I could get more examples......

May as well just get rid of the distinction between capital expenses and operating expenses entirely then

May as well.

then businesses would just lock their profits up in capital assets they aren't actually using just to avoid taxation.

You can tax them when they sell the equipment.

 

[freedombecki]

Any proof of anything. Or just more opinion based on where you normally keep your head?

Sorry you have been in the dark about Nancy Pelosi, her relatives, and all the taxpayer money that she routes their way:

Nancy Pelosi's brother-in-law given $737 million of taxpayer money to build giant solar plant in middle of desert (aka Crescent Dunes)
Hit job by two well know con dogma guys, in a well known con web site. Kind of conservative mental masturbation.
and

The Real Solyndra Scandal is Cronyism ($535 million of taxpayer money to guarantee Solyndra success in the market. Surely you heard about Solyndra's dismissal of all their 1100 employees less than 2 years after they were given the half-billion after Obama made a special call to the Treasury demanding payment "right now" to Solyndra a couple of years back?)

Treasury Watchdog Says Solyndra Loan was Rushed

March 17, 2009 - March 19, 2009 Treasury Review Rushed: Quick deal for Obama supporter Solyndra

Solyndra, Solar-Panel Maker in California Seeks Bankruptcy

August 31, 2011: Solyndra's downward spin comes as no surprise

Idiotic mainstream media doesn't remember this any more, less than a year later. It is an egregious and blatantly evil deal pushed hard by Obama.

LA Times: Obama's tie to Solyndra (picture of Obama at solyndra's offices for a photo op)

There were a trillion dollars in the mix of these "stimulus appropriation" deals benefitting Democrat supporters, mainly. Wake up, America. The Democrats are covering this up faster than you know with obfuscations, rewrites, etc. Don't be fooled.

Do you ever, ever look at impartial web sites and impartial authors. Or do you simply prefer staying in the conservative nut case world? Let me see, maybe I should send you some information from move on. But actually, i will not. I prefer to maintain my integrity..

My sources were:
1. Daily Mail, UK - I am aware of no partisanship in a foreign country. Article in archives from September, 2011.
2. American economist, dated September, 2011 - I am aware of no partisanship from American economists, who are a nonprofit organization, not a political PAC.
3. The Hill - I have seen them follow facts, not party and am aware of no partisanship from The Hill
4. Politico - After reading today's Headlines page, I cannot determine any bias of any kind on political news and am aware of no partisanship from Politico. Actually, I thought they sounded a little to the left in their soft critique, but not everybody sees things the way I do.
5. Bloomberg - no favoritism evident to me, so I am aware of no partisanship from that source.
6. Bizjournals of Silicone Valley - Again, a left coast news source, I have no knowledge of partisanship, however, from Bizjournals.

Which one of those is to your understanding biased?

I think this is a story that is painting a different picture of someone who has her finger in every money pie and has pulled out a plum on every finger of her hand.

What you're looking at is criminal activity. It's against the federal law for a Congressman to participate in nepotism and accepting financial rewards for self or family in the course of dealing with the people's money.

I did not consult World Net Daily, Fox News, or any of the other sources sensitive lefties hate since a story often comes down to them from there in which they just don't care to inspect the data.

It's difficult to find neutral news, but I am a cautious poster when debating the left. The post from the LA Times, which usually reports a lot of leftist-slanted news is somewhat excoriating of this horrible issue.

Even extreme left news sources do not like government graft, left or right.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

then businesses would just lock their profits up in capital assets they aren't actually using just to avoid taxation.

of course the best way to stimulate the economy is to eliminate business taxes altogether since they are passed on to customers like any cost. Then, there would be no incentive to take profits and jobs offshore or to do things for purposes of tax evasion or avoidance. Business could concentrate on business, not liberal taxes.

The only reason we have business taxes is to pander to the pure ignorance of liberals.

 

[Rshermr]

then businesses would just lock their profits up in capital assets they aren't actually using just to avoid taxation.

of course the best way to stimulate the economy is to eliminate business taxes altogether since they are passed on to customers like any cost. Then, there would be no incentive to take profits and jobs offshore or to do things for purposes of tax evasion or avoidance. Business could concentrate on business, not liberal taxes.

The only reason we have business taxes is to pander to the pure ignorance of liberals.

Right. Just let businesses use the roads, use the water, get get poliace protection, get military protection. But let the middle class pay the taxes. That seems fair to a con.
Great idea. When do I get to stop paying taxes, ed, me boy.
You are a true tea party dogma slinger. I thing repubs should try this idea. It would go over like a fart in church. So of course they will not try it. Because elections still count, and opinion still matters. And your opinion, ed me boy, is just plain stupid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

then businesses would just lock their profits up in capital assets they aren't actually using just to avoid taxation.

of course the best way to stimulate the economy is to eliminate business taxes altogether since they are passed on to customers like any cost. Then, there would be no incentive to take profits and jobs offshore or to do things for purposes of tax evasion or avoidance. Business could concentrate on business, not liberal taxes.

The only reason we have business taxes is to pander to the pure ignorance of liberals.

Right. Just let businesses use the roads, use the water, get get poliace protection, get military protection. But let the middle class pay the taxes. That seems fair to a con.
Great idea. When do I get to stop paying taxes, ed, me boy.
You are a true tea party dogma slinger. I thing repubs should try this idea. It would go over like a fart in church. So of course they will not try it. Because elections still count, and opinion still matters. And your opinion, ed me boy, is just plain stupid.

Right. Just let businesses use the roads, use the water, get get poliace protection, get military protection. But let the middle class pay the taxes.

The middle class guy who gets a job probably won't mind so much.
Or you could raise the rates and cause further unemployment.
That'll show those bastards who own a business.
Stick it to the man!!!

 

[rdean]

Well, actually, almost half were tax cuts.

 

[Rshermr]

of course the best way to stimulate the economy is to eliminate business taxes altogether since they are passed on to customers like any cost. Then, there would be no incentive to take profits and jobs offshore or to do things for purposes of tax evasion or avoidance. Business could concentrate on business, not liberal taxes.

The only reason we have business taxes is to pander to the pure ignorance of liberals.

Right. Just let businesses use the roads, use the water, get get poliace protection, get military protection. But let the middle class pay the taxes. That seems fair to a con.
Great idea. When do I get to stop paying taxes, ed, me boy.
You are a true tea party dogma slinger. I thing repubs should try this idea. It would go over like a fart in church. So of course they will not try it. Because elections still count, and opinion still matters. And your opinion, ed me boy, is just plain stupid.

Right. Just let businesses use the roads, use the water, get get poliace protection, get military protection. But let the middle class pay the taxes.

The middle class guy who gets a job probably won't mind so much.
Or you could raise the rates and cause further unemployment.
That'll show those bastards who own a business.
Stick it to the man!!!

Wasn't that dem proposal to increase MARGINAL taxes above $250K by about 3%?
Brings the tax rate above $250K to Clinton era rates, when the economy was great, right?

Wasn't the plan to raise revenue for stimulus spending for things like infrastructure, to increase employment? Just like Reagan, when his tax DECREASE and resultant spending cuts took the unemployment rate to near 11%, used stimulus spending to bring it back down.
"That'll show those bastards who own a business. Stick it to the man!!!" says Todster.
Really, todster, a whole 3%??

But Todster and the cons can not show when an income tax increase and resulting stimulus spending ever hurt the economy, as they continually say.

 

[Stephanie]

Any proof of anything. Or just more opinion based on where you normally keep your head?

Sorry you have been in the dark about Nancy Pelosi, her relatives, and all the taxpayer money that she routes their way:

Nancy Pelosi's brother-in-law given $737 million of taxpayer money to build giant solar plant in middle of desert (aka Crescent Dunes)
Hit job by two well know con dogma guys, in a well known con web site. Kind of conservative mental masturbation.
and

The Real Solyndra Scandal is Cronyism ($535 million of taxpayer money to guarantee Solyndra success in the market. Surely you heard about Solyndra's dismissal of all their 1100 employees less than 2 years after they were given the half-billion after Obama made a special call to the Treasury demanding payment "right now" to Solyndra a couple of years back?)

Treasury Watchdog Says Solyndra Loan was Rushed

March 17, 2009 - March 19, 2009 Treasury Review Rushed: Quick deal for Obama supporter Solyndra

Solyndra, Solar-Panel Maker in California Seeks Bankruptcy

August 31, 2011: Solyndra's downward spin comes as no surprise

Idiotic mainstream media doesn't remember this any more, less than a year later. It is an egregious and blatantly evil deal pushed hard by Obama.

LA Times: Obama's tie to Solyndra (picture of Obama at solyndra's offices for a photo op)

There were a trillion dollars in the mix of these "stimulus appropriation" deals benefitting Democrat supporters, mainly. Wake up, America. The Democrats are covering this up faster than you know with obfuscations, rewrites, etc. Don't be fooled.

Do you ever, ever look at impartial web sites and impartial authors. Or do you simply prefer staying in the conservative nut case world? Let me see, maybe I should send you some information from move on. But actually, i will not. I prefer to maintain my integrity..

LOL, so now the LAslimes, Politico and Bloomberg are conservative nut case sites?
be quiet if you don't know what the topic is about

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Right. Just let businesses use the roads, use the water, get get poliace protection, get military protection. But let the middle class pay the taxes. That seems fair to a con.
Great idea. When do I get to stop paying taxes, ed, me boy.
You are a true tea party dogma slinger. I thing repubs should try this idea. It would go over like a fart in church. So of course they will not try it. Because elections still count, and opinion still matters. And your opinion, ed me boy, is just plain stupid.

Right. Just let businesses use the roads, use the water, get get poliace protection, get military protection. But let the middle class pay the taxes.

The middle class guy who gets a job probably won't mind so much.
Or you could raise the rates and cause further unemployment.
That'll show those bastards who own a business.
Stick it to the man!!!

Wasn't that dem proposal to increase MARGINAL taxes above $250K by about 3%?
Brings the tax rate above $250K to Clinton era rates, when the economy was great, right?

Wasn't the plan to raise revenue for stimulus spending for things like infrastructure, to increase employment? Just like Reagan, when his tax DECREASE and resultant spending cuts took the unemployment rate to near 11%, used stimulus spending to bring it back down.
"That'll show those bastards who own a business. Stick it to the man!!!" says Todster.
Really, todster, a whole 3%??

But Todster and the cons can not show when an income tax increase and resulting stimulus spending ever hurt the economy, as they continually say.

Brings the tax rate above $250K to Clinton era rates, when the economy was great, right?

The Clinton economy was great because rates were higher? LOL!

Just like Reagan, when his tax DECREASE and resultant spending cuts took the unemployment rate to near 11%

What spending was cut under Reagan?

Really, todster, a whole 3%??

When you already have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, every increase is a great idea, right?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Right. Just let businesses use the roads, use the water, get get poliace protection, get military protection. But let the middle class pay the taxes.

The middle class guy who gets a job probably won't mind so much.
Or you could raise the rates and cause further unemployment.
That'll show those bastards who own a business.
Stick it to the man!!!

Wasn't that dem proposal to increase MARGINAL taxes above $250K by about 3%?
Brings the tax rate above $250K to Clinton era rates, when the economy was great, right?

Wasn't the plan to raise revenue for stimulus spending for things like infrastructure, to increase employment? Just like Reagan, when his tax DECREASE and resultant spending cuts took the unemployment rate to near 11%, used stimulus spending to bring it back down.
"That'll show those bastards who own a business. Stick it to the man!!!" says Todster.
Really, todster, a whole 3%??

But Todster and the cons can not show when an income tax increase and resulting stimulus spending ever hurt the economy, as they continually say.

Brings the tax rate above $250K to Clinton era rates, when the economy was great, right?

The Clinton economy was great because rates were higher? LOL!

That's not what Rshermr said.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wasn't that dem proposal to increase MARGINAL taxes above $250K by about 3%?
Brings the tax rate above $250K to Clinton era rates, when the economy was great, right?

Wasn't the plan to raise revenue for stimulus spending for things like infrastructure, to increase employment? Just like Reagan, when his tax DECREASE and resultant spending cuts took the unemployment rate to near 11%, used stimulus spending to bring it back down.
"That'll show those bastards who own a business. Stick it to the man!!!" says Todster.
Really, todster, a whole 3%??

But Todster and the cons can not show when an income tax increase and resulting stimulus spending ever hurt the economy, as they continually say.

Brings the tax rate above $250K to Clinton era rates, when the economy was great, right?

The Clinton economy was great because rates were higher? LOL!

That's not what Rshermr said.

He doesn't think higher rates help the economy?
That's a relief, becaused I'd feel bad mocking him with his brain injury and all.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Brings the tax rate above $250K to Clinton era rates, when the economy was great, right?

The Clinton economy was great because rates were higher? LOL!

That's not what Rshermr said.

He doesn't think higher rates help the economy?
That's a relief, becaused I'd feel bad mocking him with his brain injury and all.

He didn't say he did.

 

[Rozman]

Outsourcing billions of taxpayer dollars through stimulus spending « Wintery Knight

The So-Called Stimulus Bill

So where exactly does $800,000,000,000 go? Surely some of that must have found its way back into the pockets of the people who are responsible for paying it – the American citizen. .

Whether the Obama administration intended for the stimulus to be a job-creating measure or an "investment" in pet projects and constituencies, this much is clear: For every $278,000 in taxpayer-funded stimulus money that the administration spent as of the July report, only one job was added or saved. And that's according to an estimate from Obama's own economists. And it has gotten worse from there.

Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus spending law–the $787 billion American Recovery and Reivnestment Act–gave millions of federal dollars to foreign companies or funded domestic companies that built factories in foreign countries or bought foreign products.

What a guy, screw over the American citizen,you work hard for your money and he gives it all away to foreign countries..

View attachment 20243

For every $278,000 in taxpayer-funded stimulus money that the administration spent as of the July report, only one job was added or saved.

But "The Obama" said anywhere from 1 job to 4 million (they just have no idea how many)
jobs were saved and the Stimulus was a huge success..Well anything that Obama does is a huge success right?

 

[onecut39]

Well 41% of it came in the form of TAX BREAKS, Lad.

Perhaps you need to do some research before you spout off, eh?

No honest economist will any longer argue that tax breaks are a stimulus. It is getting increasingly difficult to find one that will say they pay for themselves........ever.

Just think, in 12 years we have had two tax cuts and a "pebate" under Bush.
then we got the 332 billion in stimulus tax cuts. Then we got the payroll tax cuts.

What's it got us? Where are those JOBS?

How long di we go on buying the fairy tale?

 

[Rshermr]

Outsourcing billions of taxpayer dollars through stimulus spending « Wintery Knight

The So-Called Stimulus Bill

So where exactly does $800,000,000,000 go? Surely some of that must have found its way back into the pockets of the people who are responsible for paying it – the American citizen. .

Whether the Obama administration intended for the stimulus to be a job-creating measure or an "investment" in pet projects and constituencies, this much is clear: For every $278,000 in taxpayer-funded stimulus money that the administration spent as of the July report, only one job was added or saved. And that's according to an estimate from Obama's own economists. And it has gotten worse from there.

Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus spending law–the $787 billion American Recovery and Reivnestment Act–gave millions of federal dollars to foreign companies or funded domestic companies that built factories in foreign countries or bought foreign products.

What a guy, screw over the American citizen,you work hard for your money and he gives it all away to foreign countries..

View attachment 20243

For every $278,000 in taxpayer-funded stimulus money that the administration spent as of the July report, only one job was added or saved.

But "The Obama" said anywhere from 1 job to 4 million (they just have no idea how many)
jobs were saved and the Stimulus was a huge success..Well anything that Obama does is a huge success right?

Actually, it was not what obama said. Those were the numbers from the CBO.
Repubs have been saying all sorts of nasty stuff about the stimulus. Almost all of this right wing stuff does NOT match up with the
CBO analysis over time. So why use prejudiced sources? Why not keep it real.

In its latest quarterly assessment of the act, the CBO said the stimulus lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 and 1.8 percentage points during the quarter ending in June and increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million.
The CBO said the act also increased the nation's gross domestic product by between 1.7 percent and 4.5 percent in the second quarter, indicating that the stimulus may have been the primary source of growth in the U.S. economy. The Commerce Department estimates that GDP grew 2.4 percent in the second quarter
Political Economy - CBO says stimulus may have added 3.3 million jobs
This analysis is a year or so old, and the numbers get better over time as more is stimulus is spent on new projects and completion of older ones.

Cost is something close to $570B in stimulus money, and $235B om tax cuts. That is based on statements that about 30% of the stimulus was job cuts.