ok , i'll stick with the facts..
By Brad Heath, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Billions of dollars in federal aid delivered directly to the local level to help revive the economy have gone overwhelmingly to places that supported President Obama in last year's presidential election.
That aid — about $17 billion — is the first piece of the administration's massive stimulus package that can be tracked locally. Much of it has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation.
REPORT: Cities missing out on much needed road funds
STIMULUS FUNDS: States aren't using money as intended
"There's no politics at work when it comes to spending for the recovery," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says.
Counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration's $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, a USA TODAY analysis of government disclosure and accounting records shows. That money includes aid to repair military bases, improve public housing and help students pay for college.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Barack Obama | John McCain | United States Census Bureau
The reports show the 872 counties that supported Obama received about $69 per person, on average. The 2,234 that supported McCain received about $34.
Investigators who track the stimulus are skeptical that political considerations could be at work. The imbalance is so pronounced — and the aid so far from complete — that it would be almost inconceivable for it to be the result of political tinkering, says Adam Hughes, the director of federal fiscal policy for the non-profit OMB Watch. "Even if they wanted to, I don't think the administration has enough people in place yet to actually do that," he says.
"Most of what they're doing at this point is just stamping the checks and sending them out," Hughes says.
The stimulus package Obama signed in February includes about $499 billion in new spending, and to date, the Obama administration has allocated about $158 billion to specific projects and programs. Most of that money has gone directly to state governments, which then disperse the money to prevent school layoffs, repair roads and fund social services. That contrasts with the $17 billion that Washington distributes directly to local communities.
Including the larger chunk of money given to state governments, the aid favors states that voted for Obama, which have received about 20% more per person
Not all of the money favors places that supported Obama. About a third of the $17 billion, or $5.5 billion, in contracts that the federal government has signed for projects ranging from repaving runways to cleaning up nuclear waste has gone overwhelmingly to counties that supported McCain.
Jake Wiens, an investigator with the non-profit Project on Government Oversight, says it's too soon to draw meaningful conclusions about whether the type of aid in the stimulus favors Obama's constituents.
But, he says, "it will be important to pay close attention as the data come in to ensure that political favoritism plays no role."
The imbalance didn't start with the stimulus. From 2005 through 2007, the counties that later voted for Obama collected about 50% more government aid than those that supported McCain, according to spending reports from the U.S. Census Bureau. USA TODAY's review did not include Alaska, which does not report its election results by county.
The imbalance didn't start with the stimulus. From 2005 through 2007, the counties that later voted for Obama collected about 50% more government aid than those that supported McCain, according to spending reports from the U.S. Census Bureau. USA TODAY's review did not include Alaska, which does not report its election results by county.
howzat change workin' out for ya?
Those are interesting stats. I think that they actually show that nothing has changed. Democratic counties seem to be able to get more money than Republican counties, regardless of who is in office. I would speculate on why that that is so, but I would rather hear from those in the middle of things.
Jack
__________________
__________________
ISPA Yachtmaster Offshore Instructor
CYA Advanced Cruising Instructor As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
First guess would be that Dems are concentrated in urban areas with poor and working poor rates much higher than non-urban areas...thus they get more assistance. More infrastructure projects in cities as well...and of course, the Congress is 2/3 democratic and they control all the pork barrel spending city or not... (see Murtha Airport) .... so there's a few good reasons.
Which is not to say the Repubs don't belly up to the bar when they have control or allow their votes to be bught with pork.
I do not recall any unsubstantiated or incorrect information emanating from my keyboard. I would appreciate an example or two that I could recant.
Jack
It's not your facts as much as your conclusions! I believe THAT is where the critical thinking part comes into play!
My guess is you feel the same about conservatives!
It's not your facts as much as your conclusions! I believe THAT is where the critical thinking part comes into play!
My guess is you feel the same about conservatives!
That is my point; my conclusions are based on facts.
I like some conservatives, I admired WFB Jr. I regret that Mark Steyn's writing appears under the same banner. Even though David Frum came up with "the axis of evil," I believe he has some good insights into the present state of conservatives.
Jack
__________________
__________________
ISPA Yachtmaster Offshore Instructor
CYA Advanced Cruising Instructor As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
That is my point; my conclusions are based on facts.
We had a high tech firearms training simulator come around to the local departments on an annual basis. Just for the experience, our local judge, the prosecutor and public defender sat in an observation booth and watched when it was my turn to go through. The simulator has a situation unfolding on a large movie screen. You shoot with a replica of your own firearm that shoots some hard foam projectiles. The screen has the ability to shoot at you from two remotely operated guns. The screen also records your hits upon playback.
One of the scenes that played out was a low light traffic stop with multiple occupants. The driver got out and started arguing. Meanwhile, a back passenger door opened up and a back seat passenger started shooting. I took a hit to the leg and started shooting back and delivered fatal fire to the shooter while the driver ran to the car and sped off. When the scene was over, the instructor asked each of the witnesses "what happened?" Their answers were educational. None of the witnesses saw the passenger shooting at me. They were focused on the driver. From their perspective, I was giving verbal commands to the driver and all at once I started shooting for no reason. All four of us were presented with the same set of facts and yet we came to different conclusions.
__________________
Ray
S.V. Nikko
1983 Fraser 41
La Conner, WA
In typical liberal fashion, instead of looking at what was wrong with Sotomayer's decision, they go after the firefighter who was clearly discriminated against. Reminds me of the way msnbc and cnn treated Joe Wurzelbacher.
What would you say about a man who wrote these things back in the late 1970's as solutions to the "population bomb" he thought was coming??
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.
No...these statements/beliefs are not taken out of context...nor have they ever been repudiated by the individual.
A link to the actual page scans of the book he co-authored is below so you can read for yourself.
Who is this guy? Why he is our new science Czar under Obama. John Holdren.
I understand he believes in global warming now. Maybe government control of old people's thermostats is next...solves warming AND end of life medicare expenses. I hear freezing to death is like going to sleep. Very natural. Why would anyone want to be a burden on society anyway?
We should follow the way of the Eskimo..ooops Inuit.
Liberal fascism dates back at least as far as Oliver Wendall Holmes and the impulse towards it within the Obama administration was presaged by the comments of Michelle Obama during the campaign.
Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.
In the liberal mind, whether you're Mrs Obama or our Jackdale, you focus on controlling the definitions of things. Once you've done that, you've won ninety percent of the debate. You'll see this in everything from global warming to teen pregnancy. Most people understand the canard in global warming or climate change. Teen pregnancy as a defining phrase has become so accepted that one might be forgiven forgetting the fact that we used to call it out of wedlock birth. The former calls for a massive government program to distribute birth control, the latter definition acknowledges that no scientific solution is ever going to answer a moral and a cultural problem, ie...the problem isn't pregnancy, it's unwed mothers.
Unable or unwilling to assert any moral basis to their policies, the liberal fascist takes comfort in the science of sociology, which inevitably leads him or her to the conclusion that scientifically valid decisions must be imposed upon society for society's own good. This is government as parent with the aspect of love and nurture excised. Eugenics, sterilization, and abortion are all familiar themes in the perennially attractive fascist impulse. There is a continuum between Margaret Sanger and the John Holden's of the world. To ignore the fact that every society that has followed their impulses has resulted in one form of genocide or another is to ignore where the logical extension of their ideas has inevitably led.
It was this trend, the trend of liberal fascism, the movement that ascribed to itself the knowledge and control of the "facts" that led Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. to declare that National Review stood athwart history yelling, Stop! Mr. Buckley having passed on to his well-deserved reward, it is convenient and diplomatic for the liberal cause to praise him (while ignoring his philosophy) and to criticize his active descendants such as Mark Steyn, whom inconveniently still regard the individual man as the best arbiter of his own interests, as well as being the moral bedrock of any experiment with republican democracy.
__________________
“Scientists are people who build the Brooklyn Bridge and then buy it.” Wm. F. Buckley, Jr.
Interesting missive. You proved your point very well.
Quote:
you focus on controlling the definitions of things.
You defined "liberal fascism" to your own liking. I guess this makes you a liberal, or at best another of the liberal fascists.
The concept of "liberal fascism" itself is a crude attempt at re-definition.
Quote:
Austin W. Bramwell wrote in The American Conservative: "Not only does Goldberg misunderstand liberalism, but he refuses to see it simply as liberalism... Liberal Fascism reads less like an extended argument than as a catalogue of conservative intellectual clichés, often irrelevant to the supposed point of the book."
Quote:
Blogger and journalist David Neiwert, writing in The American Prospect, called the book "bizarro history" and "classic Newspeak." He wrote: "The title alone is enough to indicate its thoroughgoing incoherence: Of all the things we know about fascism and the traits that comprise it, one of the few things that historians will readily agree upon is its overwhelming anti-liberalism."
__________________
__________________
ISPA Yachtmaster Offshore Instructor
CYA Advanced Cruising Instructor As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
John USYacht 27 "Cora Lee"
