Democrat Districts Won Twice as Much Stimulus as GOP Districts

[kcballer]

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.  

[kcballer]

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. 

[Soul Crusher]

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.         

[shootfighter1]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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? 

[shootfighter1]

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.

[Straw Man]

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?

[kcballer]

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.  

[shootfighter1]

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.

[kcballer]

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.     

[Soul Crusher]

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.

 

[shootfighter1]

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).

[kcballer]

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.  

[Straw Man]

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

[Soul Crusher]

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.   

[kcballer]

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.

[Straw Man]

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?

[shootfighter1]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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. 

 

[Straw Man]

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