Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on December 18, 2009, 09:24:53 AM
-
Democratic Districts Won Twice as Much Stimulus as GOP Districts, Study Shows
FOX ^
Posted on Friday, December 18, 2009 11:25:15 AM by Sub-Driver
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ _________________
Democratic Districts Won Twice as Much Stimulus as GOP Districts, Study Shows
Democratic districts have received nearly twice as much stimulus money as Republican districts and the cash has been awarded without regard to how badly an area was suffering from job losses, according to a new study.
The Mercatus Center at George Mason University reviewed the distribution of $157 billion in stimulus dollars based on publicly available reports and found that there was "no statistical correlation" between the amount of money a district got and its income or unemployment rate.
Rather, the study found that Democratic congressional districts received 1.89 times more money than GOP districts. The average award for Democratic districts was $439 million, while the average award for Republican ones was $232 million.
On average, Democratic districts also got 152 awards, while Republican ones got 94.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ______
Another albatross that will hang over the RAT party as this thing fails, flops, flounders, and is completely fraudulent in every respect.
-
I wouldn't read too much into that 333. A lot of GOP areas didn't want stimulus money. Remember the South Carolina/Texas debacle. Democratic states would have been more open to stimulus funds, whereas GOP candidates that were opposed publicly couldn't take large amounts of it, then turn around and say they were against it. Simple politics here really.
-
I wouldn't read too much into that 333. A lot of GOP areas didn't want stimulus money. Remember the South Carolina/Texas debacle. Democratic states would have been more open to stimulus funds, whereas GOP candidates that were opposed publicly couldn't take large amounts of it, then turn around and say they were against it. Simple politics here really.
But everyone has to pay for this equally.
-
But everyone has to pay for this equally.
just like every other fucking thing that the federal govt pays for.
I wouldn't be suprised to look at the details and see the democratic districts had more need for the money, more viable projects etc..
-
just like every other fucking thing that the federal govt pays for.
I wouldn't be suprised to look at the details and see the democratic districts had more need for the money, more viable projects etc..
The ones that are putting millions back to work as was promised?
Oh thats right Straw . . . . . . . . . .
-
But everyone has to pay for this equally.
Yes but your representative has to put forth the request for stimulus money. This would be a big story if republican areas were being DENIED funds and dem areas weren't. But as it stands i think it's pretty logical to believe dems wanted the stimulus more than Repubs and repubs have somewhat shunned it so in 2010 they can claim fiscal responsibility.
-
The ones that are putting millions back to work as was promised?
Oh thats right Straw . . . . . . . . . .
Do you ever bother getting any details about anything before you fly off on your preconceived CT's?
-
Do you ever bother getting any details about anything before you fly off on your preconceived CT's?
The 17% real UE is a CT now?
-
The 17% real UE is a CT now?
I thought your CT on this thread was that Obama was personally directing mor $$$'s toward Dems than Repubs
-
I thought your CT on this thread was that Obama was personally directing mor $$$'s toward Dems than Repubs
Rahm is doing that. obama is too busy claiming prizes he did not earn. ;D
-
Rahm is doing that. obama is too busy claiming prizes he did not earn. ;D
so Rahm is personally guiding the stimulus money toward Democratic Districts?
-
so Rahm is personally guiding the stimulus money toward Democratic Districts?
No, he is helping fuel a civil war in the dem party by pushing what i said from day freaking 1 was an insane health care bill.
As far as the Stim Bill goes, its probably someone like van jones, anita dunn, or some other marxist/maoist/etc sdoing that.
-
No, he is helping fuel a civil war in the dem party by pushing what i said from day freaking 1 was an insane health care bill.
As far as the Stim Bill goes, its probably someone like van jones, anita dunn, or some other marxist/maoist/etc sdoing that.
I just asked you if Obama was personally directing the Stim $'s toward Dems and you said NO that Rahm was doing it.
Now you say he's not doing it because he's too busy helping fuel a civil war?
3333 - serious question - WTF is wrong with you?
-
I just asked you if Obama was personally directing the Stim $'s toward Dems and you said NO that Rahm was doing it.
Now you say he's not doing it because he's too busy helping fuel a civil war?
3333 - serious question - WTF is wrong with you?
This whole Stim Bill was crafted before the election by left wing fringe groups. obama is not directing the money himself, he is too busy embarassing himself daily on the TV.
As far as Rahm goes - he is another leftist millionaire leech selling the country down the river.
-
This whole Stim Bill was crafted before the election by left wing fringe groups. obama is not directing the money himself, he is too busy embarassing himself daily on the TV.
As far as Rahm goes - he is another leftist millionaire leech selling the country down the river.
This is the first time I'm hearing about left wing fringe groups "crafting" the stim package
Please give us all the secret details to which only you seem to know
which left wing fringe groups? Can you provide some details?
Did those same groups put in all the tax cuts too?
-
This is the first time I'm hearing about left wing fringe groups "crafting" the stim package
Please give us all the secret details to which only you seem to know
which left wing fringe groups? Can you provide some details?
Did those same groups put in all the tax cuts too?
I posted on it a long time ago.
of course you didnt realize it.
-
I posted on it a long time ago.
of course you didnt realize it.
I don't spend my life on GetBig
post it again
for all I know whatever you posted was completely bogus (like most of your shit)
-
-
333 - you don't actually expect me to watch anything Glenn Beck says
If you've got some proof find me a source that is not a certified idiot.
that's the least you can do
-
333 - you don't actually expect me to watch anything Glenn Beck says
If you've got some proof find me a source that is not a certified idiot.
that's the least you can do
I have the info tucked away.
BTW - the WH never disputed his account.
-
I have the info tucked away.
BTW - the WH never disputed his account.
spill it here
BTW -whatever Beck said do you think the WH is going to spend any time "disputing" Beck
come on man, you know that's a completely lame argument
If Beck had some proof that the Stim Bill was crafted by left wing fringe groups then you'd have no problem finding a legitimate news source
-
spill it here
BTW -whatever Beck said do you think the WH is going to spend any time "disputing" Beck
come on man, you know that's a completely lame argument
If Beck had some proof that the Stim Bill was crafted by left wing fringe groups then you'd have no problem finding a legitimate news source
Bro - do you think a 2000 page bill gets written in two weeks?
-
I have a problem with this. These are federal tax dollars disproportionally going to democratic areas irrespective of unemployment/economic concerns according to the study (see whole article). To me, the best explanation of this is that democratic representatives were allowed more pork projects for their districts in the stimulus bill.
What happened to eliminating pork projects, I see the new defense spending bill passed this week is full of them too. Nice change...
-
Democratic Districts Won Twice as Much Stimulus as GOP Districts, Study Shows
Democratic districts have received nearly twice as much stimulus money as Republican districts and the cash has been awarded without regard to how badly an area was suffering from job losses, according to a new study.
The Mercatus Center at George Mason University reviewed the distribution of $157 billion in stimulus dollars based on publicly available reports and found that there was "no statistical correlation" between the amount of money a district got and its income or unemployment rate.
"You would think, right, that if the administration believes in its theory that government money can create jobs, they would spend a lot of money in districts that have high unemployment," study co-author Veronique de Rugy said. "We found absolutely no relationship. It just kind of shows that the money is spent kind of randomly."
Rather, the study found that Democratic congressional districts received 1.89 times more money than GOP districts. The average award for Democratic districts was $439 million, while the average award for Republican ones was $232 million.
On average, Democratic districts also got 152 awards, while Republican ones got 94.
The data is sure to fuel skepticism about the $787 billion stimulus bill passed in February that only garnered three Republican votes. While the administration claims it has created 640,000 jobs, critics point to the still-soaring 10 percent unemployment rate in arguing that the stimulus has had a nominal effect.
Oddly, the Mercatus study found far more stimulus money went to higher-income areas than lower-income areas.
"We found no correlation between economic indicators and stimulus funding. Preliminary results find no effect of unemployment, median income, or mean income on stimulus funds allocation," the report said
-
Shoot - the entire thing was a farce from day 1.
-
I have a problem with this. These are federal tax dollars disproportionally going to democratic areas irrespective of unemployment/economic concerns according to the study (see whole article). To me, the best explanation of this is that democratic representatives were allowed more pork projects for their districts in the stimulus bill.
What happened to eliminating pork projects, I see the new defense spending bill passed this week is full of them too. Nice change...
You had a problem with the stimulus itself. This does nothing but beat a dead horse for you guys. We all know the dems supported the stimulus at a higher rate than repubs. All this points out is that. It's a NON Issue. But please post some more about how you don't like the stimulus we haven't heard enough of that already. ::)
If you had something new and substantial like proof gop areas were being denied for the same projects dem areas were getting then we'd have a story. as it stands it's more divisive politics and bullsh*t on the same issue we all know where you stand on.
-
You had a problem with the stimulus itself. This does nothing but beat a dead horse for you guys. We all know the dems supported the stimulus at a higher rate than repubs. All this points out is that. It's a NON Issue. But please post some more about how you don't like the stimulus we haven't heard enough of that already. ::)
If you had something new and substantial like proof gop areas were being denied for the same projects dem areas were getting then we'd have a story. as it stands it's more divisive politics and bullsh*t on the same issue we all know where you stand on.
-
You had a problem with the stimulus itself. This does nothing but beat a dead horse for you guys. We all know the dems supported the stimulus at a higher rate than repubs. All this points out is that. It's a NON Issue. But please post some more about how you don't like the stimulus we haven't heard enough of that already. ::)
If you had something new and substantial like proof gop areas were being denied for the same projects dem areas were getting then we'd have a story. as it stands it's more divisive politics and bullsh*t on the same issue we all know where you stand on.
uuugggh,, this disaster of a bill is almost the same cost as the Iraq war. You guys railed about that for years. By my estimation, i can complain about this for about 5 more. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Absolutely kc, I'd rather hear scientists debate the issue, not political puppets. Gore disgusts me, he has politicized this issue, profited, and helped turn it into a circus.
The main problem I see at Copenhagen is smaller countries are using the conference as a soundboard to criticize and try to garnish money from the economically productive countries. That and there are a whole bunch of extremists there that are making this a circus.
I don't blame China either, I wouldn't want to give billions to help developing countries develop green technology and help their economies or have some international body regulating your industry. What we probably need is something like a G20 group to get together and have a reasonable agreement about cutting overall emissions...and a thorough review of the science of man made CO2 causing climate change.
-
Absolutely kc, I'd rather hear scientists debate the issue, not political puppets. Gore disgusts me, he has politicized this issue, profited, and helped turn it into a circus.
The main problem I see at Copenhagen is smaller countries are using the conference as a soundboard to criticize and try to garnish money from the economically productive countries. That and there are a whole bunch of extremists there that are making this a circus.
I don't blame China either, I wouldn't want to give billions to help developing countries develop green technology and help their economies or have some international body regulating your industry. What we probably need is something like a G20 group to get together and have a reasonable agreement about cutting overall emissions...and a thorough review of the science of man made CO2 causing climate change.
Oil-for-food anyone?
-
It goes farther than that kc. The problem is that federal funds are taken from everyone (not a particular region) and should be distributed fairly. We shouldn't see a 2:1 area discrepancy, that sets off a yellow flag for sure.
If local democrats want to give more of their tax money for local stimulus, fine...but we shouldn't see (or accept) federal funds disproportionally going to democratic areas. It means pork for democratic areas got into the bill.
-
Bro - do you think a 2000 page bill gets written in two weeks?
how does that statement in any way support your claim that the bill was "crafted by left wing fringe groups?
-
It goes farther than that kc. The problem is that federal funds are taken from everyone (not a particular region) and should be distributed fairly. We shouldn't see a 2:1 area discrepancy, that sets off a yellow flag for sure.
If local democrats want to give more of their tax money for local stimulus, fine...but we shouldn't see (or accept) federal funds disproportionally going to democratic areas. It means pork for democratic areas got into the bill.
If the people representing a district do not elect for funds what is the govt suppose to do? Deny other areas to make it a 1.1 balance? If an area doesn't want funds then so be it. I've already stated why it is like it is. It seems that you're just looking for anyway to hate on the stimulus bill and this adds ammunition but it's nothing 'ground breaking' or solid at all. It's just like we all thought it would be. Repubs not accepting much to prove their fiscal responsibility and dems accepting funds to prove they are helping their districts.
-
I remember republican govenors initially refusing some of the stimulus $ but I thought most actually received it in the end. If the discrepancy was directly related to republican governors refusing stimulus $, then you are correct but I don't think that is the whole reason.
I still do not like the amount of pork attached to bills in Washington, it's a bullshit system. I was hoping Obama would reduce or get rid of this and have much more transparency...but that has completely not happened. There were some things I was excited about with Obama but I have been disappointed even in most of those areas.
-
I remember republican govenors initially refusing some of the stimulus $ but I thought most actually received it in the end. If the discrepancy was directly related to republican governors refusing stimulus $, then you are correct but I don't think that is the whole reason.
I still do not like the amount of pork attached to bills in Washington, it's a bullshit system. I was hoping Obama would reduce or get rid of this and have much more transparency...but that has completely not happened. There were some things I was excited about with Obama but I have been disappointed even in most of those areas.
There is no proof of democratic areas getting more because they are democratic areas. All this highlights is they asked for more funds for projects.
You are trying to make this article say 'dems received money whilst repubs were denied money'. Of which there is zero proof. If it said - 'dems get stimulus funds for projects that were denied in gop areas' you would have a case. But please don't try to make this story into something it is not. GOP candidates are hesitant to accept stimulus funds because they want to keep the fiscally responsible tag for 2010, they don't want to be seen as saying one thing and doing another.
-
There is no proof of democratic areas getting more because they are democratic areas. All this highlights is they asked for more funds for projects.
You are trying to make this article say 'dems received money whilst repubs were denied money'. Of which there is zero proof. If it said - 'dems get stimulus funds for projects that were denied in gop areas' you would have a case. But please don't try to make this story into something it is not. GOP candidates are hesitant to accept stimulus funds because they want to keep the fiscally responsible tag for 2010, they don't want to be seen as saying one thing and doing another.
Yeah, their getting it by chance of luck. ::) ::) ::)
This thing is a massive, collosal, and tragic waste of hard earned money that we have to pay off for generations, just like the wars, that will be another nail in the coffin of this country.
-
That's the whole point of this study...democratic areas got more stimulus money likely because they were democratic, the study clearly states unemployment rates and the local economy was not a factor.
Now, if you argue that the reason why these democratic areas got more $ is because republicans leaders in republican dominated areas refused the money, that is a possibility and you'd could be right. That information could be pulled but we don't have that info.
It is very likely that the biggest reason for the democratic areas receiving more money at a 2:1 margin is because they are democratic (or the democratic leaders had more pull for funds or pork projects inserted).
-
Yeah, their getting it by chance of luck. ::) ::) ::)
This thing is a massive, collosal, and tragic waste of hard earned money that we have to pay off for generations, just like the wars, that will be another nail in the coffin of this country.
Please post the proof otherwise it's a lie.
-
Unless there is some proof that funds were distributed soley along party lines then this whole thread is a red herring.
I know it's much easier and more fun to just jump to conclusions
-
Unless there is some proof that funds were distributed soley along party lines then this whole thread is a red herring.
I know it's much easier and more fun to just jump to conclusions
Just look at where the money went you moron.
35% Teachers alone! Who does that help> the AFT
SEIU got a ton.
All sorts of garbage spending to leftists causes, etc.
Shit, you even defended the purchasing of condoms under this thing.
-
That's the whole point of this study...democratic areas got more stimulus money likely because they were democratic, the study clearly states unemployment rates and the local economy was not a factor.
Now, if you argue that the reason why these democratic areas got more $ is because republicans leaders in republican dominated areas refused the money, that is a possibility and you'd could be right. That information could be pulled but we don't have that info.
It is very likely that the biggest reason for the democratic areas receiving more money at a 2:1 margin is because they are democratic (or the democratic leaders had more pull for funds or pork projects inserted).
No it doesn't 'clearly' state that. once again the word 'likely' would mean it is not 100% true no? Just an assumption based primarily on your opposition to this bill and the dems who supported it and asked for stimulus money.
-
Just look at where the money went you moron.
35% Teachers alone! Who does that help> the AFT
SEIU got a ton.
All sorts of garbage spending to leftists causes, etc.
Shit, you even defended the purchasing of condoms under this thing.
dude - you're losing it.
nothing you just said is "proof" of anything
Why didn't you stick with your last CT that Rahm was personally directing where the money went?
-
I'll give ya that, it's not 100%. The study 'suggests' my premise by virtue of ruling out economic and unemployment differences. It's fairly well known that the party in power is allowed more pork. Hey, I think it's bullshit on both sides.
-
dude - you're losing it.
nothing you just said is "proof" of anything
Why didn't you stick with your last CT that Rahm was personally directing where the money went?
I told you, and like the aerticle I just posted, he is too busy bullying people around like a little bitch that he is.
-
This study published a conclusion and not a reason
people on this site are just making assumptions about the reason.
The study only reviewed 157 billion out of 787 billion in funds
That represents 20% of the total funds.
How do we know those figures won't change as the rest of the funds are disbursed?
Does anyone here even know the # of Rebublican to Democratic Districts? (the party who won the last election might give you some clue)
Again - the study said nothing about how or why but many here seem to have no problem filling in that gap with pure assumption