The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.

In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.

All sides agree on these incriminating numbers — and now they also appear to agree on this important point: The economy would now be generating job growth at a faster rate if the Democrats hadn’t passed the “stimulus.”

Excuse me? You mean the Republicans have to allow serious cuts in spending. The President has already offered multiple spending cuts, the Republicans have refused them.

Cantor and the Tea Party idiots are the ones preventing anything from being voted upon. Boehner doesn't have the votes in his caucus to pass anything, even with the Dems on his side, because he's held hostage by Cantor and the Tea Party types.

A clean debt ceiling raise needs to be passed with the one-sentence bill it always has been in the past, as it was passed 7 times by these guys in the Bush administration, and before that.

We are paying the net debt back. We don't need to cut future spending to continue do so. Future spending is a separate thing unassociated with the debt ceiling. It certainly needs to be reined in.

The debt ceiling limit is a minor housekeeping accounting procedure that allows cash flow to pay our bills. It is not a reference "ceiling" for future spending when budgets are prepared.

As I said, it's apparent that you didn't watch it. Or else, your understanding of verbal discussion is as inventive as your reading comprehension.

You can watch it on CSpan.org.

Similar to an individual checking account used to pay household bills and expenses.

If that individual has maxed out his own credit cards/borrowing against his 401K/IRA and is now receiving credit based on his children's future earnings and borrowing money he'll never pay back from his wealthier neighbors. :zz:

As I said, I'm quite happy with Obama. Obama 2012.

No. The debt ceiling is nothing at all like a checking account. Nor is it a credit card.

It must be very easy for you to comment on the issues of the day, while knowing nothing at all about them.

as I said I watched it live. It was sickening the first time and does not warrant a second viewing.

Good for you. The majority of the country thankfully is not.

And thankfully the rest of the country isn't as naive as you.

you and maybe 4 others

Looks like $86 million others for Obama
$18 million for Romney
$4.2 million for Pawlenty
$2.5 million for Cain (alot of that from himself)
$1.4 million for Palin, who, it has been revealed today, spent PAC money on her "personal vacation" bus tour

Better not let him know that. He'll have it spent/wasted by dinner tonight.

So which package do you like better: Obama's $4 trillion in cuts, or the $2 trillion in cuts?

As I said, you are naive. Increased taxes are increased taxes not cuts. Savings reaped by consolidating medicare and Obamacare are fiction. That leaves $700 billion in non-discretionary spending and $400 billion further cuts in defense. So the $4 trillion is in reality $1.1 trillion and over 12 years. That's less than a paltry $100 billion a year. Which do you think I like better? :zz:

It's pretty clear that you didn't actually watch the press conference, and your knowlege of public policy is not much more than a Sarah Palin-like word soup.

if there's a 'sucker born everyday' you were born over a 3-day holiday.

Dell said, "Obama made it very clear today he is not into cutting anything".
"I did [watch the press conference] that's how I know instead of proposing cuts he gave excuses why we can't."

Except that within the first three minutes, Obama called for cuts to the discretionary budget, defense spending, and alterations to Medicare, for a 10-year plan of savings.

then why was the house version of the appropriations bill, which is higher than fiscal '11, 9 billion LESS than obama's request?? how is he in favor of cutting, if his was higher then theirs, which is almost 3% higher than last years?? that doesn't make sense.
but then, if you're happy with someone who is trying to put the kibosh on something he is supposedly in favor of (dadt) then i guess he doesn't have to make any sense at all where you're concerned.
as for spending elsewhere, one of his first moves was to increase budgets across the board in government agencies.

the lesser of two evils is still evil.

Zig, the only possible thing in the entire world that Obama can do to make Riot dislike him is put an (R) next to his name.