Stimulus to create 5000 jobs
Great news! The President is announcing today the “winners” of his “we need to expand broadband in America” program. Remember, this plan was part of the Stimulus Package passed last year. And, the winners are…
You’ll have to go to this link to find out, but I will tell you that should you live in Connecticut, Rhode Island or Florida, for that matter, you’re out of luck. You’ll just have to make do with what you have. However, should you live in Massachusetts, you will receive $45.4 million to install 1300 miles of fiber optic cables in the western part of the state. This is most certainly a bargain…it will only cost you about $3500 per mile.
The total amount the President will spend for these projects is only $795 million. Of course, that’s $795 million we don’t have and will need to borrow from China, or any other country that might still be willing to loan us money.
But, look at the bright side…Obama claims this spending will create 5000 jobs. And that translates into… $160,000 per job, most of which are temporary.
Gee, couldn’t we find some cheaper, more long lasting jobs to create?
10 Comments
The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.
You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.
The site is not broken.
LOL! My scumbag politicians are more corrupt than your scumbag politicians!
Seriously, this is just another example of the president's economic ignorance. Or corruption. Or both.
This is like the Big Dig on a national scale! Oh, anyone google "Obama+reparations" lately? Barry'd better sign up for Reputation Defender before folks realize that the USA is becoming Zimbabwe! But of course, he could just declare an emergency and shut the whole internet down. I can not believe the libs worried that Bush was going to read their emails and listen to their phone calls; and now they want to sit on Barry's lap while he reads their medical records and decides whether their care is viable- you may just need a mid-life abortion of some sort
Money to help Americans, put them to work?
Disgusting-we could add $45 million to the $33.5 billion they are funding for Afghanistan and Iraq!
Why help the struggling citizens in our country?
There is no money. We're "borrowing" it by the billions and billions on a weekly basis from future generations. Why not just print $45 billion instead of $45 million? Why not? Really, why not?
Why not just just write a law that everyone of working age is guaranteed a job that pays $100,000. Better yet, make that $150,000 as a hedge against inflation?
Economics is math … it's not some sort of art … and it has caught up to us. Some see it, some refuse.
Economics is math? That's a new one on me. There is math in economics, but economists are not mathematicians.
And politicians with no background in economics are no economists, even though they play them on the TV in press conferences and speeches.
Economics is driven by human nature, and it has been proven over and over again that communists, socialists, Marxists and even community organizers don't know, or refuse to recognize human nature.
Yes, a significant portion of economics involves a great deal of math. I never said economists are mathematicians. A significant part of physics is math, but a physicist is not a mathematician. My point is economic activity like the laws of supply and demand can be predicted by math, and politicians are perfectly willing to ignore that information to do what "feels right" and gets them the most votes today, ignoring the future consequences.
Interesting, neither Dimsdale nor I share your view. I don't agree w/ the first part of your last paragraph, but then what does a physicist/mathematician know? But you are right on the second part of your last paragraph.
Well, I wouldn't say I disagree that much: there is more statistics in economics than outright formulations. Stats is math!
Here's a thought: according to the economics of the "stimulus" program, it is supposed to provide/create/save jobs. According to the economics (to be kind) of Pelosi, unemployment checks are as good as a job.
Now here in Massachusetts, the loyal trolls of the left are dutifully filling the letters to the editor section of the Boston Globe with complaints about how Scott Brown's "partisanship" is "letting down" the people of MA by refusing to allow yet another tax on big banks to pay for the unemployment extension (among other things).
But according to the economic "logic" of the left, shouldn't the stimulus money fund the good paying unemployment jobs?