Originally Posted by Eddie_T
What could anyone possibly have against temporary job creation at $200,000 per pop in taxpayer funds. We can do it again when they run out, and again, and . . .
When you consider that a good chunk of those jobs are infrastructure investment and construction projects that need to be conducted periodically, your argument falls a little flat. Not only *can* we do these again and again, we *must* do these again and again. Scheduling this sort of essential work to help smooth out economic cycles makes a hell of a lot of sense.
A good chunk of the "costs" are of the type that teabaggers don't consider costs. Most are tax incentives to business owners who choose to hire and/or raise the pay and benefits of their employees. They could achieve the same results just be raising the tax rate, but this method is a little more palatable to the average person who conflates high tax rates with high tax payments.