The Stimulus Tracker

[1979Shocker]

The stimulus tracker

See where the stimulus money is going for each state.

[kcshocker11]

Nice thanks

[ISASO]

Seriously? 5,756 job impact for repairing a water line at an Air Force base? Isn't that the total population of the State of South Dakota?

I guess no one should be surprised that MSNBC propaganda regurgitation channel would hop on this news.

[WuDrWu]

Ohio, in a state of total job despair and almost 12 million population, 3.6B. DC, population 600,000, 7B.

Yep, these are the best and the brightest.


No pork there.



If you support the stimulus, you are an idiot.

[WuDrWu]

60,300,000 Federal Taxpayer Dollars for 400 (I rounded up to the nearest, and already over-inflated job number provided, hundred).


Or about $150,000 Federal Taxpayer Dollars for each job, that will last not more than 1 or 2 years at the most.....and then where will the money come from?

[RoyalShock]

Nearly $1B for a pipeline under a highway? $10M would be pushing it. Fraud and abuse on a massive scale.

The building of a 23-mile section of K-61 between McPherson and the Reno Co. line (4-lane) is only $64M.

[ISASO]

An Obama Administration official stated a couple of weeks ago that we've seen nearly all the benefits of the stimulus package and there would be no measurable impact going forward.

At the time only 15% of the total had been spent.
They wasted 90% of the 15%.

Unemployment still rising, topping 10%.

Government-run healthcare anyone?

[kcshocker11]

Im sure there is some fraud. You guys act like its all fraud, what a joke! Unemployment is rising yes, but how much would it be without stimulus! 8)

[ISASO]

The point is, letting government run these types of things is incredibly wasteful. The taxpayers end up paying $150,000 to finance a contracter making $9 per hour for a year, maybe.

Where would the economy be now if every taxpayer was relieved of federal tax withholding for 3 months starting February 1, in effect giving everyone a 20-25% raise? You think that would have stimulated a thing or two?

But you know why that wasn't done?
1. A tax holiday is too simple, we need to have 1,000 page bills don't we? Doing something simple takes away politicians ability to funnel money to pork projects. It reduces their power, their control.

2. Power and Control. A tax holiday could have been written in one page and enacted immediately. There would be no opportunity to craft a vaguely-worded 1,000 page bill that could be re-interpreted later and transformed into something it should never have been.
Why else would only 15% of the stimulus money be spent? Because soon everyone will forget about it and the party in power can waste the remaining billions on crap and on paying back their political supporters.

3. Welfare. A tax holiday doesn't feed the Obama nanny state movement does it? That's another reason it wasn't done. Rewarding people who work is discrimination, isn't it? The stimulus package is social justice, right Barack Alinski?

The administration is giving Congress and themselves a blank check for the remaining 85% by telling everyone that there will be no more impact of the stimulus bill. You take that money off the table so they are no longer accountable for how it is spent.

With a tax holiday you wouldn't need Cash for Clunkers or the auto industry bailout. Consumerism would have taken care of the auto industry.

Yes, the stimulus package was nothing more than a paragraph in Obama's Declaration of Dependence. Dependence on the Government. It had ZERO to do with unemployment because he said unemployment would never top 8% if it was passed. Liar.

[WstateU]

Im sure there is some fraud. You guys act like its all fraud, what a joke! Unemployment is rising yes, but how much would it be without stimulus! 8)

6.5% ;-)

[kcshocker11]

The point is, letting government run these types of things is incredibly wasteful. The taxpayers end up paying $150,000 to finance a contracter making $9 per hour for a year, maybe.

Where would the economy be now if every taxpayer was relieved of federal tax withholding for 3 months starting February 1, in effect giving everyone a 20-25% raise? You think that would have stimulated a thing or two?

But you know why that wasn't done?
1. A tax holiday is too simple, we need to have 1,000 page bills don't we? Doing something simple takes away politicians ability to funnel money to pork projects. It reduces their power, their control.

2. Power and Control. A tax holiday could have been written in one page and enacted immediately. There would be no opportunity to craft a vaguely-worded 1,000 page bill that could be re-interpreted later and transformed into something it should never have been.
Why else would only 15% of the stimulus money be spent? Because soon everyone will forget about it and the party in power can waste the remaining billions on crap and on paying back their political supporters.

3. Welfare. A tax holiday doesn't feed the Obama nanny state movement does it? That's another reason it wasn't done. Rewarding people who work is discrimination, isn't it? The stimulus package is social justice, right Barack Alinski?

The administration is giving Congress and themselves a blank check for the remaining 85% by telling everyone that there will be no more impact of the stimulus bill. You take that money off the table so they are no longer accountable for how it is spent.

With a tax holiday you wouldn't need Cash for Clunkers or the auto industry bailout. Consumerism would have taken care of the auto industry.

Yes, the stimulus package was nothing more than a paragraph in Obama's Declaration of Dependence. Dependence on the Government. It had ZERO to do with unemployment because he said unemployment would never top 8% if it was passed. Liar.

Corp, would save or invest in better investments overseas.
People would only save it, or spend the majority of it on goods and services that they would already be using. Not very many jobs saved or created, Period, not a very good idea! 8)

Nobel prize economics winner Paul Krugman on whats happening what should be done.

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/krugman-without-more-stimulus-jobless

The effects of the stimulus will build over time — it’s still likely to create or save a total of around three million jobs — but its peak impact on the growth of G.D.P. (as opposed to its level) is already behind us. Solid growth will continue only if private spending takes up the baton as the effect of the stimulus fades. And so far there’s no sign that this is happening.

So the government needs to do much more. Unfortunately, the political prospects for further action aren’t good.

What I keep hearing from Washington is one of two arguments: either (1) the stimulus has failed, unemployment is still rising, so we shouldn’t do any more, or (2) the stimulus has succeeded, G.D.P. is growing, so we don’t need to do any more. The truth, which is that the stimulus was too little of a good thing — that it helped, but it wasn’t big enough — seems to be too complicated for an era of sound-bite politics.

But can we afford to do more? We can’t afford not to.

High unemployment doesn’t just punish the economy today; it punishes the future, too. In the face of a depressed economy, businesses have slashed investment spending — both spending on plant and equipment and “intangible” investments in such things as product development and worker training. This will hurt the economy’s potential for years to come.

Deficit hawks like to complain that today’s young people will end up having to pay higher taxes to service the debt we’re running up right now. But anyone who really cared about the prospects of young Americans would be pushing for much more job creation, since the burden of high unemployment falls disproportionately on young workers — and those who enter the work force in years of high unemployment suffer permanent career damage, never catching up with those who graduated in better times.

Even the claim that we’ll have to pay for stimulus spending now with higher taxes later is mostly wrong. Spending more on recovery will lead to a stronger economy, both now and in the future — and a stronger economy means more government revenue. Stimulus spending probably doesn’t pay for itself, but its true cost, even in a narrow fiscal sense, is only a fraction of the headline number.

8) 8) Of course I know his expertise isnt near that of Glenn Beck, Rush or some here on SN! :D 8)

[WuDrWu]

kc.......


By now I think you would have a decent idea of what Beck, Rush and the rest of "us" think of the actual talent and skills of recent Nobel prize winners.

[kcshocker11]

kc.......


By now I think you would have a decent idea of what Beck, Rush and the rest of "us" think of the actual talent and skills of recent Nobel prize winners.

Oh Doc I do, I do! :D 8)

[ISASO]

Even the claim that we’ll have to pay for stimulus spending now with higher taxes later is mostly wrong. Spending more on recovery will lead to a stronger economy, both now and in the future — and a stronger economy means more government revenue. Stimulus spending probably doesn’t pay for itself, but its true cost, even in a narrow fiscal sense, is only a fraction of the headline number.

Don't the Reagan tax cuts debunk this guy's theory? Tax cuts increase the money flow to the Treasury.

Increasing taxes to pay interest on borrowed money you spent on stimulus? There's your joke.

He said it himself - "Stimulus spending probably doesn’t pay for itself". No duh. Cash for Clunkers cost us $24,000 per vehicle. How does that make sense?

[kcshocker11]

Even the claim that we’ll have to pay for stimulus spending now with higher taxes later is mostly wrong. Spending more on recovery will lead to a stronger economy, both now and in the future — and a stronger economy means more government revenue. Stimulus spending probably doesn’t pay for itself, but its true cost, even in a narrow fiscal sense, is only a fraction of the headline number.

Don't the Reagan tax cuts debunk this guy's theory? Tax cuts increase the money flow to the Treasury.

Increasing taxes to pay interest on borrowed money you spent on stimulus? There's your joke.

He said it himself - "Stimulus spending probably doesn’t pay for itself". No duh. Cash for Clunkers cost us $24,000 per vehicle. How does that make sense?

Read again. He says costs now will only be a fraction of benefits from economic growth! Dont see any joke there. 8)