• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stimulus Money 2:1 to Dem Districts

obvious Child said:
Are you trying to make Republicans look incredibly stupid and intolerant?
Click to expand...

Stupid and intolerant of what?This intolerant accusation always gets thrown around when no arguement can be made.
 
obvious Child said:
How about the annoying one of that the federal government gave the money to states with relatively few strings attached as to what they could do with the money? Just because the state spent it in one district doesn't mean that the Federal government gave them the money to do just that. As much as lunatics here like to argue that the Stimulus is micromanaged from Washington, it's not. Amusingly, the same people bash Obama on waste because no one is watching! Hello, Mcfly, anyone home upstairs? States have significantly more control over how the money gets spent then most people realize. And Washington does not control state legislatures.

I think you failed to notice how Prof stated he didn't look at other factors. Disturbingly, there is an increasing number of users here who think like that. They want an answer to be true so they ignore everything else.
Click to expand...

I find it kind of hard to believe that a spending bill 1500 pages long doesn't go very deep into detail as to what the spending will be on.
 
Dav said:
I find it kind of hard to believe that a spending bill 1500 pages long doesn't go very deep into detail as to what the spending will be on.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but a sizable portion of the bill was on tax cuts (why this constantly gets ignored is probably due to partisan views). Did lots of the money go to pet projects? Of course. But lots of it also was somewhat generalized. Many states sent in clarifying letters to Washington asking if they could use the money for certain activities. More then a few states used federal funding to fund their normal operations and to fill the gaps in their regular budgets. Basically, the took their state money out, filled the hole with Federal and then took the state money to fill in the gaps. My state did that. Also remember that sizable portions of that bill were on oversight rather then how states were to spend the money. And I suspect a fair number of pages were dedicated towards what corporations can apply Bush style bonus depreciation too, dictating what they could buy, what time table, how long of a useful life and other such related matters.

That highly suggests to me that there wasn't a whole lot of guidance other then things you can't do.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
Perhaps, but a sizable portion of the bill was on tax cuts (why this constantly gets ignored is probably due to partisan views).
Click to expand...

I have wondered about this. People complain that tax cuts would be a better answer, but there where tax cuts. People complain that there should be tax cuts, and that damn Obama and his deficit. People complain about that partisan Obama, despite including the tax cuts to be bipartisan.
 
Think about it logically

Dems are elected primarily in urban centers, republicans control the rural areas and heartland. If you look at population density, democrats control the most dense population areas, whereas republicans are in control in less dense areas.

Chicago obviously needs more money that hicksville does. Chicago has more roads, schools, hospitals, employees, etc.
 
First of all I must generally agree the the stimulus packages has been largely ineffectual so I am definitely not arguing for it just yet.... However, I do remember more than a few republican governors refusing stimulus money and there are actually lawsuits in some states regarding such refusal.


Cant say this definitely makes op for the 2:1 ratio but its probably worth mentioning


p.s. I tried to find a consolidated list of all the Governors that have refused stimulus money but was un able to find anything more than just a conglomeration of individual article re: specific governors.... If you would like me to post them I will but a simple Google search for 'Governor refuse stimulus money' produces adequate results
 
obvious Child said:
Perhaps, but a sizable portion of the bill was on tax cuts (why this constantly gets ignored is probably due to partisan views).
Click to expand...
No,they get ignored because nobody noticed any difference on their paychecks.
 
Redress said:
People complain that tax cuts would be a better answer, but there where tax cuts.
Click to expand...

They would've been a better answer provided they were deeper.
 
oh, it's corrupt, alright, stimulus money going two to one where the influence lives instead of where less lucky localities could really use it

but that's not the point---corruption

no, the meaning of this story, in its largest context, is---THE STIMULUS DIDN'T WORK

how could it, constructed as it was, ie, so politically

"no correlation between economic indicators and stimulus spending"

THAT's the point

TARP, it appears, employed similar methodologies---with identical results

TARP was farmed out to high-finance friends, and the president himself is banging his oblivious head against bank walls, bawling, "WHERE'S THE LENDING?"

CBC News - World - Obama tells banks to boost lending

Banks with political ties got bailouts, study shows | Reuters

the stimulus FAILED, tarp FAILED

deal with it
 
Strucky said:
They would've been a better answer provided they were deeper.
Click to expand...

How much where they, 2, 3 hundred billion in tax cuts? You want more, but you also complain about the deficit, so which is it, which is important?
 
The Prof said:
oh, it's corrupt, alright, stimulus money going two to one where the influence lives instead of where less lucky localities could really use it

but that's not the point---corruption

no, the meaning of this story, in its largest context, is---THE STIMULUS DIDN'T WORK

how could it, constructed as it was, ie, so politically

"no correlation between economic indicators and stimulus spending"

THAT's the point

TARP, it appears, employed similar methodologies---with identical results

TARP was farmed out to high-finance friends, and the president himself is banging his oblivious head against bank walls, bawling, "WHERE'S THE LENDING?"

CBC News - World - Obama tells banks to boost lending

Banks with political ties got bailouts, study shows | Reuters

the stimulus FAILED, tarp FAILED

deal with it
Click to expand...

You have yet to prove your point(or speak in english). When you have the reasons for why the bailout money went where it is, then you might be able to make a point, right now you are just bitching and throwing a fit because you want to believe that it's all corrupt.
 
you don't read well

corruption is not THE point

the failure of stimulus to stimulate IS (the point)

your argument is with mercatus

george mason speaks perfect king's english:

"no correlation between economic indicators and stimulus spending"

"no statistical correlation between the amount of money a district received and its income or unemployment rate"

"far more stimulus money went to higher income areas than lower income areas"

it is what it is

sorry
 
Redress said:
How much where they, 2, 3 hundred billion in tax cuts? You want more, but you also complain about the deficit, so which is it, which is important?
Click to expand...

Did you notice the difference in your paycheck?
 
Redress said:
How much where they, 2, 3 hundred billion in tax cuts? You want more, but you also complain about the deficit, so which is it, which is important?
Click to expand...

I would'nt of included most of that other spending....Just meaningful tax cuts.
 
Strucky said:
Did you notice the difference in your paycheck?
Click to expand...

Let's look at the tax cuts. Source: Grindstone Financial: Tax Cut Stimulus Details

* Millions of workers can expect to see about $13 extra in their weekly paychecks, starting around June, from a new $400 tax credit to be doled out through the rest of the year. Dual income households would get up to $800. In 2010, the credit would be about $7.70 a week, if it is spread over the entire year.


* The $1,000 child tax credit would be extended to more low-income families that don't make enough money to pay income taxes, and poor families with three or more children will get an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit.

* Middle-income and wealthy taxpayers will be spared from paying the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was designed 40 years ago to make sure wealthy taxpayers pay at least some tax, but was never indexed for inflation. Congress fixes it each year, usually in the fall.


* First-time homebuyers who purchase their homes before Dec. 1 would be eligible for an $8,000 tax credit, and people who buy new cars before the end of the year can write off the sales taxes.


* Homeowners who add energy-efficient windows, furnaces and air conditioners can get a tax credit to cover 30 percent of the costs, up to a total of $1,500.

* College students — or their parents — are eligible for tax credits of up to $2,500 to help pay tuition and related expenses in 2009 and 2010.


* Finally, those receiving unemployment benefits this year wouldn't pay any federal income taxes on the first $2,400 they receive.

Not every one got big tax cuts(though 800 dollars for a married couple is not horrible), but many could get huge tax cuts. Have kids in college and buy a home and promptly add energy efficient windows and you are golden. Note that those tax cuts where designed in part to work two fold, both helping taxpayers, and stimulating certain industries(well, the construction industry) and the home buyer tax credit I understand has been effective.
 
not good enough

because the massive measure of stimulus not targeted to a few tinkly tax cuts went, once more, to areas of wealth and influence instead of "lower income areas"

indeed, "far more" stimulus went there, SAYS MERCATUS, than to places indicated by "income or unemployment rate"

this is WHY the stimulus FAILED

sorry

clunkers, caulkers and 13 dollars a week---LOL!

why, why don't we all just send some kids to college, buy a new house, and WEATHERIZE!

LOL!

golden!
 
why not weatherize, then?

be golden!
 
Redress said:
I am unemployed(again),
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear that....Hopefully things will look better in the near future.


and so I get one of those tax cuts that most do not.
Click to expand...

I did not notice any difference in my paycheck....$13 a week does absolutely nothing for my situation.
 
Eh, 13 a month is still close to 500 dollars over the year. it's not huge, but it is real.

Thank you for the well wishes, and merry christmas and stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom