The stimulus bill "includes help for those hardest hit by our economic crisis," President Obama promised when he signed the bill into law on Feb. 17. "As a whole, this plan will help poor and working Americans."
But FOXNews.com has analyzed data tracking how the stimulus money is being given out across the 50 states and the District of Columbia, and it has found a perverse pattern: the states hardest hit by the recession received the least money. States with higher bankruptcy, foreclosure and unemployment rates got less money. And higher income states received more.
Continued
Obama says: Don't let anyone fool you, the stimulus has done its job.
I wonder, exactly what job is that? Unemployment at 9.5% (he promised a max of 8%). Stock market is still tanked. Job losses are continuing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
My only question is: “Why didn’t the stimulus money go to create more jobs as promised: (like rebuilding or fixing bridges/roads and patching potholes. This would have put more folks on a payroll), instead of increasing funding to already socialized organizations (such as Planned Parenthood) or/and creating new socialized programs that really don’t add any new people on a payroll”? Am I being just plain naive here? I am asking just a question?
You know, I really, really, super really...liked what Mat said: “I'm Stooopid! Umbre lai! Gif me my war claims check! So I can drink bud and smoke bud”.
A lot of liberals feel entitled to financial handouts, at the taxpayer’s expense. They think that it is the government’s money that is owed or entitled to them. But the fact remains; the government has no money. It is the taxpayers that put our hard earned money into a pot , which is divvied out to those that feel or by law are entitled.
Another note. Ever go to a protest? I have gone to many, just observe for giggles. I have asked many of the protesters, “what are you protesting against”. “Change” is the usual answer. Then I ask, “change against what, and do you know what you are protesting against”? Most can’t answer that. I think they are there protesting, just because there is a protest to attend.
It seems to me that a lot of people are protesting against something, or voting for someone just for ‘change’. Even though they are clueless of the change they are voting for or protesting against. Or even the consequences of their vote.
In short, I think that this is a reason why no liberals have challenged or commented (on this blog) on our current President’s policies. They voted for him for change, but maybe just now are realizing that they themselves will too have to pay for the changes, and cant justify whom or why they voted for them or him? I don’t know? Someone please correct me if you feel I am wrong.
It kind of makes me think about a lady in Washington DC that voted for our President. She said (on national news), and I paraphrase; “now I wont have to pay for my heat or worry about my electrical bill any more”. Or, the lady who told the President “I need a car”, and the President said to her, “talk to my staff after this town meeting”. Do you think the administration ever bought her a car? Think not. And the lady that thought that she would never have to pay for heating or electrical bill again, do you think she was given a waiver? Think not. And why has the media never followed up on these two people after making such a big story out of them? Because maybe there was no a story to follow?
I’m just shooting the ‘what-ever’ that is on my mind in the moment.
Sean, glad you found this. See, this is what I was talking about earlier, that the liberals think is good. The monies are not going to who needs them, but to those who support Obama.
Ric, that is what socialism is all about, and why the liberals on this blog won't comment much on Obama. They support him and his social dreams. They want to punish those who have done something with their lives (Conservatives only. The liberals on this blog won't even help their own. They want the government to do it). Nazism is taking form those who have some success and giving it to those who will do nothing to better themselves.
Ric,
for someone that a week or so ago was so done with political debate you sure do have a lot to say politically speaking.
And yes you are being naive. Obama has stated that it would take up to two years for the stimulus funds to hopefully have the impact intended on unemployment. If it doesn't work in something near the intended time frame then fine, you're right and I'm wrong. In the interim however you and some of the others' like minded critique comes across as lock step doctrine worthy of oh say, the National Socialists.
Do you not see any of maybe the slightest contradiction in being employed in the field of Social Work and yet denouncing socialized programs?
I weary of this "liberals think they are entitled to handouts". It may come as a shock to some of you that "conservatives" take plenty of handouts themselves. From the redneck trailer dweller on welfare or disability to Wall Street and the multi billion dollar bailouts plenty of folks have their hand out.
Doug, Ric works for a private firm.
Remember that Obama said it would work right away, that is why it was passed so quickly. I remember such things as, It would keep unemployment under 8%. Do you recall the term, "shovel ready jobs". and so on. This is not any conspiracy, just liberals turning a deaf ear to what Obama wasn't to do, and lied about.
Do you remember the Roderick about how Bush lied. Look at Obama, he has lied continuously since he has been in office.
Fair enough.
Shovel ready, seems as though that could be useful around here at times.
Post a Comment