Why the AJA is a bad idea

[Quantum Windbag]

It seems the numbers do not add up, even if we actually accept the numbers the White House is giving us. Obama wants us to spend 3% of our GDP to create a 2% uptick in the GDP. For the math challenged out there (I am thinking of you rdean) that means we will experience a net drain on our economy.

Can anyone explain how making things worse makes them better?

At a White House press conference on Thursday, President Barack Obama said the legislation he has proposed to create jobs could "grow the economy as much as 2 percent." However, the White House estimates that the plan itself will cost $447 billion -- or 2.97 percent of the 2011 GDP of $15.012 trillion that is currently projected by the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis. (See chart: GDP Chart from BEA.xls.) The president also said at the press conference that his plan could create "as many as 1.9 million" jobs. If that is true, based on the plan's estimated $447 billion cost, those jobs would cost an average of $235,263 to create.

Obama Says Jobs Plan Can Grow GDP as 'Much as 2%'--But WH Estimates It Will Cost 3% | CNSnews.com

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I asked the Libs on this board several times why Bush spending money was bad but Obama spending it twice as fast was good. As I recall the consensus was" well golly gee dummy, Bush spent it over seas, Obama is spending it in Country"