You buy the liberal rhetoric so prove that the recession Obama inherited was worse than the one Reagan inherited? I never see anything from you other than the opinions of others and yours. I counter with actual verifiable data that yo uignore.
The chart begins with September and October with about 400,000 jobs lost each month (how many new demands for unemployment are there each month after three years of "Hope and Change"?).
Then we have the election of our first Marxist president. Hope for the future is crushed. He says he is the change he has been waiting for. And the number of jobs lost jumps for just under 400,000 jobs lost to around 600,000 jobs lost (some web sites report as many as 750,000 jobs lost). The job losses stay in that range from November when the one term Marxist president Obama is elected until he uses taxpayer money to fund public sector union jobs in the 50, or is it 57, states.
We can fix this error the American people made in 2012 if the 53% who pay the federal taxes vote in numbers greater than the 47% who do not pay the federal income tax.
And aren't construction jobs for thousands of people a good thing? Wouldn't that get the economy moving better than throwing tax dollars at artificial jobs, or hiring more government employees?
The Cost Of Obama's Stimulus Plan: $312,500 Per Job (Vote) Created Or Saved (And Guess Who Is Paying It) | ZeroHedge
Construction jobs are real jobs for a real project that will greatly benefit the American people over the long term.
You made the false claim that this project would only create "a couple of hundred jobs" and naturally didn't submit a link to support this canard. People like yourself should always submit links to support any statement they make.
There has to be a revolution in the US education system, and soon.
And, no, while I believe in education, it really will not fix all problems. I know how much many want a silver bullet, the fact is business works on a very simple premise. If there are buyers, business will come.
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.