The New York Times Claims Predicting the Effectiveness of Obama's Stimulus as Difficult: It's Really Not

The New York Times writes the effectiveness of Obama's pork stimulus plan will be difficult to predict. Really, what's so hard to predict--bigger government, a faster rising national debt, and little stimulus? Obviously the mainstream liberal media hope they can dance around the lack of stimulus in the plan. Here's the reality that they won't tell you.

David M. Herszenhorn writes Americans will notices $12-$13 more in their weekly checks from the Obama tax cut. Gee, I think I'll look in possibly budgeting that new car now (sarcasm since it doesn't usually jump off your computer monitor.) Dear Leader loves us and wants to have $12 or $13 more of our hard work. Thank you Dear Leader.

What a joke! You call this a tax cut to stimulate the economy? I can go to Walmart and buy the mega pack of toilet paper now or add a few ears of overpriced corn, thanks to the government using food as fuel. No one is going to consider providing real stimulus to the economy because they have $12 more to spend. When gas prices start to rise in the middle of March, people won’t notice the $12 extra. Use your head Herzenhorn! You prove the press has no critical thinking skills.

Here's the kicker, while most Americans go off to work to save the economy, which is the real key to turning the economy around, Obama rewards those who don't. (This isn't an attack on those who recently lost their jobs.) People who collect unemployment receive $25 more a week. What an insult for people who go to work. You get more government stimulus if you don't go to work. Who is more likely to spend money to turn the economy around? People who are comfortable their jobs are safe, or those spending the minimal amount of money to survive? I feel like Bill Engvall--there's your sign.

For those who nurse welfare, they receive even more. They receive $79 more in food stamps. Once again the workingman gets screwed. Do you understand this union members, or do I need to spell it out to you that Obama isn't workingman friendly as you insist?

It breaks down to this. Those who work will see an average of $48 to $52 a month to spark the economy. If you don't work, you will receive $100 more a month in unemployment benefits. If you qualify for food stamps, you will get $79 more a month. I guess it pays in Obama's world not to go to work.

If any of these stupid Democrats who voted for Obama's pork stimulus understood anything about stimulating economy, they would have made deeper tax cuts and not force this country deeper into debt with more government. Surely Nancy Pelosi understands her grandchildren and her great grandchildren will hate her for the mess we leave them to pay. If the Democrats wanted to stimulate the economy, they would free us from the many taxes that restrict the economy and take money out of the private sector which is responsible for production. Really Herszenhorn, this isn't hard to predict.