• 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

T

The Prof

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,828
Reaction score
1,808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
FOXNews.com - 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.
Click to expand...

1. The transparency.

2. LOL!

3. The post-partisan president.

4. "No correlation between economic indicators and stimulus funding."

5. As if that's any surprise.

6. The worst of the Chicago mob.

7. Pure political payback.

8. And punishment.

9. With nary an eye to stimulus, to economics, to JOBS.

10. "Far more stimulus money went to higher-income areas than lower-income areas."

11. Now, there's some change LOBBYISTS can believe in.

12. Medical insurance representatives.

13. Phrma.

14. Banks, Wall Street, autos.

15. The UAW.

16. Big bailouts, big bonuses.

17. He wants the energy industry next.

18. The secrecy, the behind-closed-doors deal making.

19. The bribes.

20. Tax hikes for FORTY NINE states.

21. You own it, President Obama, congrats.

22. Live it, love it.

The Prof
 
"far more stimulus money went to higher-income areas than lower-income areas"
 
no problem

it is kinda weird

i mean, pretending to be a stimulus, and all
 
Power has its perks ..nothing new there.
 
You are, surprise, making assumptions based on a lack of data. Without knowing the reasons, it's impossible to say if it is corruption, political favors, or some totally benign reason.
 
"no correlation between economic indicators and stimulus funding"

deal with it
 
The Prof said:
"no correlation between economic indicators and stimulus funding"

deal with it
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with what I said. Until we know the reason behind the way the money was allocated to districts, we don't know if there was corruption or not.
 
Redress said:
Has nothing to do with what I said
Click to expand...

wasn't really meant to

couldn't care

the point---no correlation between stimulus funds and economic need

instead, 2:1 relationship between blue and red districts

with heavy handouts for the already-haves

to the exclusion of the have-nots

it is what it is

the worst of business-as-usual chicago style politics

with little eye to economic STIMULUS

we see the results
 
Until more information is produced, why should I interpret this as Democratic corruption rather than Republican failure to represent their constituent's interests? One of the drawbacks of disengagement is you don't get as much. You can't blame the Democrats for getting stimulus cash none of the Republican congressmen were jockeying for.
 
Last edited:
you're kinda missing the point

it's about political payback

ie, NOT economic stimulus

we see the results
 
The Prof said:
you're kinda missing the point

it's about political payback

ie, NOT economic stimulus

we see the results
Click to expand...

The reason is important. You may not think it is important, but that would simply make you wrong. You want something to bitch about, but in making assumptions, you are making a fool of yourself(moreso than your inability to post in a standard, easy to read format makes you).
 
the REASON why the stimulus is NOT a stimulus is what matters most to you?

LOL!
 
The Prof said:
you're kinda missing the point

it's about political payback

ie, NOT economic stimulus

we see the results
Click to expand...

That isn't how it works. A certain sum of money was "produced" to be apportioned to industries in recession and then congressmen in the House of Representatives start jockeying for it, bewailing their own district's needs. There are many powers at work in the House, but the most basic one is each representative's ability to vote. When they pledge that vote, the reward is usually some representation of their constituent's interests in the bill or program being discussed. When you don't pledge that vote, you extricate yourself (and your district) from the process, and what you get is what other people decide is good enough for you, which tends not to be much when they are busy looking after their own district's needs and there is no material gain in looking after somebody else's.

It was highly unlikely there was a "plan" for the Republicans to get less, so there was no political payback going on; what happened is what we would expect given the self-interested nature of representatives in the House.
 
Last edited:
and nebraska gets free medicaid forever
 
ben nelson, the stupak of upstairs?

help yourself

stimulus money should be used to stimulate what it's trying to stimulate, as promised

hello

instead, it was distributed "without regard to how badly an area was suffering from job losses"

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

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

i guess you're not as big an admirer of the reps from the cbc?

according to the study, black districts got screwed as bad as the reds
 
The Prof said:
"no correlation between economic indicators and stimulus funding"

deal with it
Click to expand...

So you don't actually give a **** as to other reasons that could possibly be the reason?

Therefore, you have produced the conclusion you wish to be true without first looking at all of the facts and deride anyone who suggests you should look at all of the facts.

Are you trying to make Republicans look incredibly stupid and intolerant?
 
obvious Child said:
So you don't actually give a **** as to other reasons that could possibly be the reason?
Click to expand...

other reasons than "economic indicators" for determining the allocation of stimulus funds?

LOL!
 
You know, all politicians are corrupt, but Democrats have made it into an art form.

The reason they are more corrupt than Republicans, is because they can get away with it. Our media adores them, and gives them a pass most of the time... If a republican spits on the sidewalk, it's leading the 6:00 news on all three networks.
 
obvious Child said:
So you don't actually give a **** as to other reasons that could possibly be the reason?

Therefore, you have produced the conclusion you wish to be true without first looking at all of the facts and deride anyone who suggests you should look at all of the facts.

Are you trying to make Republicans look incredibly stupid and intolerant?
Click to expand...

Unless you can find something, it doesn't seem like there's any other facts to look at.

I don't know why this would strike anyone as surprising. It's not like the Republicans who voted against the bill would fight to get benefits for their district in a bill that they would oppose in the first place, or win such a fight. There was much more incentives for Democrats to get as good a deal as possible for their district than Republicans.
 
altho it was sold as economic stimulus, it wasn't crafted that way

and it certainly hasn't acted as such

if it were really a stimulus, it would have gone to places where it was most needed and would do the most good

instead, it went where the influence was

like all pork

and we can see the results
 
Dav said:
Unless you can find something, it doesn't seem like there's any other facts to look at.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom