This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Obama Pushes Country to Edge of Bankruptcy Just to Pay Off Dems

NewsMax.Com today reports: A new study reveals that congressional districts represented by a Democrat have received significantly more money from the $787 billion stimulus bill than those with a Republican representative.

The study by Veronique de Rugy, senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center, found that on average Democratic districts got 1 1/2 times as many awards as Republican districts in the fourth quarter of 2009.

Those Democratic districts received about 2 1/2 times more stimulus dollars than Republican districts, $122 billion to $46 billion.

And Democratic districts also received larger awards on average than did Republican districts — $471 million for a Democratic district and $260 million for one represented by a Republican, de Rugy points out in an article for National Review.

But the study found no correlation between stimulus spending and unemployment.

“We should expect the government to invest more money in districts with higher unemployment rates,” de Rugy writes, but the study “suggests that unemployment is not the factor leading the awards.”

Surprisingly, the total number of jobs claimed as created or saved overall by the stimulus actually declined from the previous quarter, dropping from about 634,000 to roughly 597,000.

“To sum it up,” de Rugy notes, “it’s a lot of money for jobs that are disappearing, and the money isn’t going to high-unemployment districts, probably because politics gets in the way.”


Bushrod Gentry said...

The Stimulus Plan was meant to be a slush fund for the DNC. Notice how they refuse to let any of the unspent "stimulus" money go for their jobs bill. They insist on new spending even after they passed "paygo". Most of the "stimulus" money that has been spent is for political payoffs. You can expect to see more "stimulus" spending just before elections.

guy faulkes said...

There used to be a saying "We do not get the governmetn we pay for - Thank God!"

This is an example of what happens when we get the government we pay for. Graft and corruption.

Sarkazein said...

Truly it is a looting of the Treasury.

Anonymous said...

For the Mercatus Center report to serve as a contextually objective gauge of district-by-district stimulus bill spending, it will be necessary to show the volume and size of district-by-district, legislatively qualified requests submitted and the percentage and size of legislatively qualified requests granted.

To clarify, if conservative legislators and governors (Mark Sanford for example) chose, for political brownie points or out of a sincere sense of fiscal responsibility, to refuse to "feed from the trough," then conservative states and conservative districts would quite understandably have received fewer dollars.

Until we're shown exactly how much money was requested for exactly what types of projects in Republican districts, no truly objective or responsible conclusions can be drawn from the Mercatus Center report.

Has anyone here heard a single elected Republican claim that their qualified request has been refused funding? If so, please provide a link to a related news article.

Honest Debate said...


You are correct with your analysis but in my opinion you are looking at the trees instead of the forest.

The disparity, based on averages, is stark. I don't think you can explain away such a wide gap with statistical anomalies even if they are valid. Also, and some of my conservative friends disagree, Republicans don't spend like Democrats, never have. They are not the same or even close. Why would it be different now? It is also not unusual for the party in power to get more perks. Why would that change?

Keep in mind that the blame falls on the Legislature more than the President.

Of more interest to me is the conclusion that jobs were not produced. It didn't work despite the horrific price tag.

Here's the study and the data.

Anonymous said...

HD: One needs no statistical anomaly to explain the wide gap. It's merely a matter of Republicans refusing to apply for stimulus funds for fear of looking like they're cooperating with a Democratic Congress and Democratic President. That's EXACTLY what Mark Sanford grandstanded about until his own state GOP convinced him that he was cutting off voters' noses to spite the Democrats' faces.

There HAD to be a reason to post this thread in the first place. And given the normal tone and slant of this particular blog, it's not odd to believe that reason was to insinuate that scientific research "proves" there's some conspiracy at play in which Republican districts are being slighted through the stimulus disbursal process by a Democratic Congress. And that's simply not the case.

If elected Republicans swallowed their pride and applied for stimulus funds to channel back into their home districts, this would be a non-issue. But then our recovery might be quickened and THAT might prove horrible for Republican candidates this coming fall, wouldn't it?

Again, I ask anyone here to provide a link to any article detailing how and when a Republican was refused stimulus money for a legislatively qualified project funding request.

guy faulkes said...

Anonymous makes an interesting point when he claims that Republicans did not receive as much stimulus money because they were fiscally responsible and did not ask for or accept it. As the program has been a dismal failure everywhere the money was accepted, then there can be no doubt that the program should not have been done at all. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, Anonymous.

However I beleive that you need look no farther than Blowing Rock to find Republicans that were denied grants for stimulus money. I am not certain. If interested, you could check with the Town Manger as to the make up of the Council at the time and the grants they received, assuming you do not consider Ms. Foxx to be Republican enough.

Honest Debate said...


I agree with your premise but the Democrats are big spenders. They believe in it (Keynesian Economics). Yes, Republicans do pork favors for their own but not to this degree. They also tend to spend more when the economy is humming, Dems are spending when it's crumbling. It feeds itself and we're nearing crisis. Paying off politicians with pork has NEVER had the impact that it does now. The recession is not over and the looming entitlement debt is unsustainable.

I am sure there are many examples of Republicans denied stimulus money for a legislatively qualified project funding request. I'm sure Republicans did the same thing to Democrats. I fail to see the relevance so I'm not looking. Many of those issues happen behind closed doors anyway. We'll never know.

Anonymous said...

Actually, HD, we SHOULD be able to know. Surely, you're not going to suggest that conservative Republicans would skip the opportunity to shout from the highest mountain top that they and their deserving constituents were screwed over by the Democrats, are you?

Surely, the fair and balanced folks at FOX News would have reported that Republican legislators were being slighted in the stimulus spending process, would they not?

Even if the decision-making happens behind closed doors (which I doubt, given the highly specific filing process demanded in the stimulus legislation), there HAS TO BE at least ONE Republican Congressman who, WERE there an actual unfair process in place, would come out and scream about it.

But there isn't one.

The fact is, they'd rather watch their own local Romes burn than reach out to get a bit of money to save their own people. They're more interested in spinning the truth and gambling that a poorer America will help their chances in November than they are in helping their constituents right now.

Again, look at Mark Sanford as a glaring example.

Please, in the name of all that is true and just, prove me wrong. Please, show one single example of a conservative Congressman or governor being denied funding for a legislatively qualified project in the stimulus process.

Just one, guys. Please.

By the way, I don't want to get all huggy-kissy about this, but THIS is the exact type of exchange I enjoy and appreciate. We're actually talking about real-world situations without getting pissy or personal.

Seriously, thanks for that.

Honest Debate said...

Again Nonny, we agree. We should know but we don't. When Republicans were in power which Democrats "shout(ed) from the highest mountain top" about being denied funding for their pet projects? Are you suggesting they wouldn't? If they did I'm sure Fox would've reported it. I must have missed it.

Who knows what deals are struck and unstruck behind closed doors? I'll give you this: When Democrats are in the minority they are much better than Republicans at being the opposition party. That may be changing and I welcome it. Elections have consequences and Republicans tend to play by the rules and respect the will of the people. That's my opinion. It's harder to complain about denied funds for pork if you think spending is out of control. That dynamic exist.

You wrote: "The fact is, they'd rather watch their own local Romes burn than reach out to get a bit of money to save their own people. They're more interested in spinning the truth and gambling that a poorer America will help their chances in November than they are in helping their constituents right now."

That's where we part ways. I'm just not that cynical. Guy Faulkes said it well: "As the program has been a dismal failure everywhere the money was accepted, then there can be no doubt that the program should not have been done at all." That's the point. Did it work or not? No. I just don't buy the theory that you can spend your way out of debt. BTW, I'd have a hard time accusing any politician of purposely screwing their constituents. That's not the way to get re-elected. I say that despite Stupek's suicidal deal with the devil.

On the "huggy-kissy" thing, I agree. It's not personal at all...until someone makes it so.

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes wrote:"Anonymous makes an interesting point when he claims that Republicans did not receive as much stimulus money because they were fiscally responsible and did not ask for or accept it."

THAT is a brilliant point regarding intent by Guy Faulkes.

guy faulkes said...

Nonny, I gave you a local one. I was told Blowing Rock had Virginia Foxx ask for stimulus money. They did not get it, according to my source. As far as I know, there is nothing to link to, but you can call and ask them.

As a matter of fact, according to my source, one council woman was against asking because she did not believe in the stimulus plan but the others told her someone was going to get the money so it might as well be Blowing Rock.

This kind of reasoning is what drives up the deficit. It shows no fiscal responsibility. They apparently do not realize that this stimulus money has to be repaid by the taxpayers. It is not free.

Let me know what you find out.

guy faulkes said...

I was just wondering, why would anyone post a link about a grant they did not receive? It certainly would not help if this link was derogatory and they ever decided to make another request for a grant. I could see someone else posting a link, but not those directly involved.

This would seem to be the case with the study about the variance in how much money Republican districts got in comparison to Democrat districts. We know there was a difference, but cannot prove why a this time. We can only speculate. Both theories have their strong and weak points.

Neither changes the fact that the stimulus bill was a bad idea.

matt said...

Havn't posted for a while...but thought this is related to something I just read about what does this spending mean for us.

The people at Zerohedge have done the math....If Obama keeps his promises, the "rich" are looking at a MINIMUM of 77% tax, and may have to be upwards of 91%.

Article can be found here:

Anonymous said...

Sark: I'll certainly look forward to whatever you can find regarding the legislatively qualified funding request that you suggest Ms. Foxx submitted. If you can show exactly what project she submitted and how, why or when she was screwed over for being a Republican, I'll give up my pinball crown to you.

Until and unless anyone can provide that info, we'll all be forced to assume that neither Ms. Foxx nor ANY other Republican rep was slighted through the stimulus disbursal process, meaning the Mercatus Center Report (the reason for this specific thread) carries no significance beyond providing non-contextual opportunities for conservative jabberers to pose slanted conjecture.

guy faulkes said...

Anonymous, did you check with Blowing Rock?

Sarkazein said...

Thank you Anonymous, but I have made no such request. So you remain the pinball wizard.

Honest Debate said...

"...meaning the Mercatus Center Report (the reason for this specific thread) carries no significance..." -Nonny

He said it so it must be true. Obama has proven to be bi-partisan and very willing to work with Republicans. The fact that Democrats received twice as much money than Republicans means nothing. Obama gave Republicans everything they wanted.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, Sark. That was Guy who had failed to provide any confirmable information linking Ms. Foxx or any other elected Republican to a funding-denied, legislatively qualified project in Blowing Rock or anywhere else.

Again, had there been any type of prejudicial, anti-Republican district bias at play in the review and disbursal process, the fair and balanced folks at FOX News would have been all over it.

That is, of course, assuming FOX hasn't been co-opted by the mainstream media and its conspiratorial left-wing agenda. Have they?

guy faulkes said...

So I can assume you did not call Blowing Rock, nonnymouse? You never answered the question. Not all information is available on the net, especially if those involved try to hide it.

Again, it does not matter which justification you use for the fact Democrats were rewarded with the ill spent stimulus money. Being fiscally responsible and not accepting or asking for it as many Republicans did is to their credit. It is telling that the Democrats did ask for and accept these bribes.