162. I Don't Get It I Guess

IF the consumer would have money to spend, he would be spending it and the economy would would be flourishing adding jobs like crazy to keep up with the demand. So, if I start an energize-your-home program like the Cash-for-Clunkers and highlighted in this article, would I have more money to spend? Let's play along -- throw me the ball stupid -- and say we all realize if we can save maybe 30% on energy-saving projects in our home, we would jump on it. Does that mean the installing company would have to hire more people to accommodate the now "so-high demand" that he would hire bodies permanently? Not! If I were running a construction company, I would fit these projects in using current people's slack time -- you know, when you see 6 city government people standing around watching one person work (we have all see this). All contractors building houses always have a few hours slack time to multi-task small projects, like blowing more insulation into an attic, or caulking windows, or ordering and replacing windows. Scheduling smooths out the installations WITHOUT additional people. So, where am I wrong and Obama right? Where do you see new permanent jobs from this idea? Also, do the poor without a house or renters benefit? I bet those rich dudes who want to build a cabin on the ski slopes would love this! Once again, Obama the spread-the-wealth leader wants to spread it again to the ones who can already afford it. However, the puppets in Congress will throw out some remarkable spin for their leader. Please O, keep quiet and out of my business! Try to focus on the right thing to do with the climate-change debate -- hint: what do the people think. I'm sure it is meaningless to even suggest that when you are trying to BUY your way into the hearts of the Experienced world leaders who are simply leading you, and therefore America, by your nose every step of the way for THEIR benefit. Talk about empty heads!