How's that stimulus working for you?

[SteamWake]

Construction spending fell more than expected during the month of May, a sign the problems facing the nation's builders are far from over.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/01/construction-spending-falls-expected/?test=latestnews

[GoldenRivet]

if you send a family a stimulus check large enough to pay a couple of car payments... or large enough to sink their claws into that big screen tv they have been wanting; guess what?

thats exactly what they are going to do with it.

they are not going to go out and build a home. :doh:

every industry has booms and busts.

who knows? next year we might see lots of building.

we might also see one of the worst hurricane seasons in United States history?? :nope:

that should put some builders and contractors to work from Miami to Corpus.

[FIREWALL]

Stimulus Check !!!!:o That was my tax money in the first place !!! :arrgh!:

[AVGWarhawk]

There is no stimulus checks coming this year. As far as the OTHER stimulus where BILLIONS were injected into the system...well, I have not seen an CHANGE other than continued DOWNWARD spiral. No wait, I get an additional $7.00/week:yeah: That is an additional $364.00/year. :shifty:

[SUBMAN1]

Stimulus Check !!!!:o That was my tax money in the first place !!! :arrgh!:

Exactly.

-S

[mookiemookie]

One data point does not a trend make.

[SteamWake]

The full intent of pumpint tens of billions of dollars into the economy was to jumpstart things like home construction and construction projects in general.

I work in that industry and frankly I just dont see it.

The meager pittance of stimulus checks to familys.... working or not was just a feel good piece of bait.

There not done with us yet wait untill this climate bill passes you think industry is in a major slow down now. It will be full stop then thousands of jobs will be lost to overseas. Dont give me this tripe about 'green jobs' thats just a pie in the sky dream.

One data point indeed does not make a trend but that on top of record un-employment and dramatic slow down in my industry record deficit spending and on and on does at least to me indicate a trend.

[SUBMAN1]

The full intent of pumpint tens of billions of dollars into the economy was to jumpstart things like home construction and construction projects in general.

I work in that industry and frankly I just dont see it.

The meager pittance of stimulus checks to familys.... working or not was just a feel good piece of bait.

There not done with us yet wait untill this climate bill passes you think industry is in a major slow down now. It will be full stop then thousands of jobs will be lost to overseas. Dont give me this tripe about 'green jobs' thats just a pie in the sky dream.

Some true words man.

-S

[Monica Lewinsky]

Trillion Here, Trillion There, and these mopes just party on. GM was General Motors, new future signs say "Government Motors"?

Your GM Dealership got closed? No problem, call-up your Dummycrat rep, and walla, it gets re-opened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXyhKXUP7PM

Haven't seen a dime yet sent back that effects local government, county, or in the State.



http://learnabit.homeserver.com/lab/WeGotYourMoney.gif

[Captain Vlad]

It's helping our local schools.

[nikimcbee]

Stimulus Check !!!!:o That was my tax money in the first place !!! :arrgh!:

Thanks for the money:yeah::woot:.
I had a great time with it.:woot:
oh, wait, I never got a check. nevermind, practice drill:O:

[nikimcbee]

Exactly.

-S

I know for a fact, that subman bought a HRC mao pantssuit with his money, now they match!:yeah:

[SteamWake]

It's helping our local schools.

I heard on the radio today that a local university wont have to cut as many jobs as previously planned.

They will be able to keep 41 people that were to be laid off.

For one year :nope:

I do alot of work with the schools in this area and was really hoping to see some work come in from the stimulous money. I've seen nothing new.

So please tell me how is it helping your local schools?

Also not to sound dour or anything but how exactly does helping a local school stimulate the economy?

[AVGWarhawk]

That is just funny.................nice find ML:har:

http://learnabit.homeserver.com/lab/WeGotYourMoney.gif

[ETR3(SS)]

Hows that stimulus working for you? Well when everybody else got a reduction in their federal income tax, mine went up (due to my employer not seeing the error they were making). I lost my job because the economy blows and I can't collect unemployment. That's how the stimulus is working out for me. :nope:

So Mr. Obama, what are your plans for those of us who found that random loophole in the unemployment system that enlarged the size of our anus exponentially?

[rubenandthejets]

Here in Japan, Mr Aso kindly gave me 12,00 yen. I blew it on dinner for me and me missus.

So, yeah, the stimulus worked well for me :yep:

I hear good things about the stimulus in Australia too. The Rudd government are pointing to the much softer nosedive and relatively strong recovery after the Labor government's cash handouts.

[Zachstar]

Well the economy is SLOWLY starting to get better and people are a little more reassured.

Now I personally think that a trillion dollars spent on fusion could have fixed a WHOLE LOT MORE issues than what it did. But for slowing the gushing bleed of death it did its job.


It matters little tho if we go into round 2 because of higher gas prices. The next big decision MUST be to fund nuclear fusion and improvements to fission plants in my view.

[Sea Demon]

Well the economy is SLOWLY starting to get better and people are a little more reassured.

Now I personally think that a trillion dollars spent on fusion could have fixed a WHOLE LOT MORE issues than what it did. But for slowing the gushing bleed of death it did its job.


It matters little tho if we go into round 2 because of higher gas prices. The next big decision MUST be to fund nuclear fusion and improvements to fission plants in my view.

The economy is not exactly getting better from many angles. Stock indexes are still in the tank, the housing market is not improving, job growth is stagnant, unemployment is still rising, and consumer confidence is still going down. And budget deficits and government unfunded liabilities are going through the roof. And now Obama is breaking his promises regarding tax increases. While I'm not surprised, the door is now open on taxing health benefits, and capital gains increases. This Democrat/Socialist government is not exactly good for investor confidence. Of course Obama's voters don't seem to understand that this also means less job opportunities to boot.

And if you're looking for any growth in nuclear fusion energy projects, you voted for the wrong people. Obama and Democrats in general are blocking both oil drilling projects, and nuclear power projects of any kind. Republicans have been pushing for both for years. Democrats beholden to the environmental movement and the manufactured global warming nonsense are pretty much focused on wind, solar, and the like. Elections have consequences as many Americans are coming to realize the disaster they have voted for.

[Captain Vlad]

I do a lot of work with the schools in this area and was really hoping to see some work come in from the stimulous money. I've seen nothing new.

Well, where I'm at there's several projects in the works that have to do with stimulus money. Some that don't are also made possible by stimulus money in that, by using the federal funds for something else, they can free up cash for stuff they want or need.

It's let them keep hold of people they'd rather not let go, eased normal budget difficulties. I could keep going but it's midnight and I'm stoned on Hydrocodone.

Also not to sound dour or anything but how exactly does helping a local school stimulate the economy?

It can provide work for contractors who do the work of expanding or maintaining the school during the summer months. It can keep teachers at work when they might otherwise be looking for a new job (this is a big deal; school district north of me is one of the largest employers in the county). It can allow schools to continue with various educational programs that can improve their student's test scores...and therefore earn a higher degree of state funding, allowing them to continue operations in some cases, rather than consolidating (and removing a source of employment in their local areas).

Etc. Etc.

We're also getting some federal stimulus money to help establish a rural water system in the north part of the county. That's not a school thing, obviously, but it's something this area has needed for years.

[Aramike]

We're also getting some federal stimulus money to help establish a rural water system in the north part of the county. That's not a school thing, obviously, but it's something this area has needed for years.I think this illustrates the point. That's infrastructure - not economic stimulous.

Putting contractors to work does little to help the vast majority of people and therefore the economy.

[SteamWake]

Well the economy is SLOWLY starting to get better and people are a little more reassured.

Dont want to burst your bubble there but...




July 2 (Bloomberg) -- Employers in the U.S. cut 467,000 jobs in June, the unemployment rate (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=USURTOT%3AIND) rose and hourly earnings (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=USWETOT%3AIND) stagnated, offering little evidence the Obama administration’s stimulus package is shoring up the labor market.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ahfK709b4uds

[CastleBravo]

Well the economy is SLOWLY starting to get better and people are a little more reassured.

Now I personally think that a trillion dollars spent on fusion could have fixed a WHOLE LOT MORE issues than what it did. But for slowing the gushing bleed of death it did its job.


It matters little tho if we go into round 2 because of higher gas prices. The next big decision MUST be to fund nuclear fusion and improvements to fission plants in my view.

Unfortunately mr. Obama has all but removed that option when he approved the removal of funding from the Yucca Mountain Repository. Also part of the 'stimulus'.

[CastleBravo]

Today's disappointing jobs number is certain to trigger a serious push for a second stimulus bill. The talk was already happening. Earlier this wek, John Judis at The New Republic argued that one was needed. Also this week, Obama responded to a question about a possible second stimulus by saying it was "too soon" to know whether one would be needed, suggesting that it's certainly on the table. Of course, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was in favor of a second stimulus before the ink even dried on the first one

[SteamWake]

Today's disappointing jobs number is certain to trigger a serious push for a second stimulus bill.

Yes of course that makes perfect sense :doh:

[Captain Vlad]

I think this illustrates the point. That's infrastructure - not economic stimulous.

Putting contractors to work does little to help the vast majority of people and therefore the economy.

Except that, if you were aware of the situation in the northern part of this county, you'd know that not having that water infrastructure is a major hindrance to the economic development up there. There's been more than one firm interested to building in that area (which would, you know, create jobs), but, without the infrastructure to support them, they quickly rule it out.

Stuff like that is major for rural areas, and though it's not a quick-fix it can help local economies immensely.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Except that, if you were aware of the situation in the northern part of this county, you'd know that not having that water infrastructure is a major hindrance to the economic development up there. There's been more than one firm interested to building in that area (which would, you know, create jobs), but, without the infrastructure to support them, they quickly rule it out.

Stuff like that is major for rural areas, and though it's not a quick-fix it can help local economies immensely.

Unfortunately, the government is notoriously lacking in judgement when it comes to the "if you build it, they will come" idea.
A better alternative would be to relax the labyrinthine licensure, tax, environmental, and legal requirements that accompany any new real-estate development.
There's no reason why companies wishing to exploit whatever resources or other business potential they find can't develop infrastructure on their own until the community becomes sizeable enough to decide whether it wants a public infrastructure. Giving them a break in the early phases of development will free up a lot of capital and time (and therefore more capital) to do things like develop infrastructure to support their facilities.

If an area is suitable for development it will develop, and that decision should be left to the private sector. That said, it remains to be seen what most states will do with this money. My guess is that they will either use it to prop up funding for exsisting infrastructure until their tax base recovers or they will waste it on some outlandish project like a giant wind farm or something. In either case, I don't see it being used to bolster or create new rural communities, except in very liberal states, and even then that is unlikely. There is a lot of political flak to overcome in the planned community department, given the abject failure of most of those projects in the past.

[mookiemookie]

I think this illustrates the point. That's infrastructure - not economic stimulous.

Putting contractors to work does little to help the vast majority of people and therefore the economy.

You're aware that infrastructure spending is a component of GDP, no?

How is it not stimulus? Where do the contractors get their materials from? Their labor? Their subcontractors? Does it all just magically appear?

[UnderseaLcpl]

You're aware that infrastructure spending is a component of GDP, no?

How is it not stimulus? Where do the contractors get their materials from? Their labor? Their subcontractors? Does it all just magically appear?

You sound like Keynes; "Money doesn't matter".

The important question is where the demand and capital are coming from.
A fiat increase in demand neccessitates an increase in supply, usually provided by suppliers with vested political interests. That all costs money, and despite Keynes' assumption, money does matter. This is doubly true in a state that is in debt. Any new money either comes from taxes, which hamper market functionality, or from an increase in the currency supply, which is inflation if it is not matched by growth in goods and services.

Sure, contractors will earn money and pass it along to their workforce and suppliers, but that isn't the important part. Completely setting aside the standard wastes of capital that are virtually always part and parcel of any kind of government spending(due to limitless supply and lack of competition), what you are essentially doing with this form of stimulus is creating a limitless fiat demand that must be supported by state funds, which in turn create either inflation or taxation. Yeah, you could argue that the state will respond with the appropriate adjustments in funding, but how often does that ever happen? Pretty much everything only ever gets bigger, whether it is providing a useful service or not.
Consequently, the money supply expands rapidly, making it worth less, and the artificial demand the state created outpaces actual demand, neccessitating wasteful busywork that does nothing to create useful goods and services.
This is why this nation has and will continue to suffer from stagflation. Keynes was wrong. Money does matter because it is a medium of trade, and is thus tied to supply and demand, if only in an intermediary capacity.
His assumption that the currency supply could be regulated at whim without consequence has repeatedly been proven false, as evidenced by exacerbated recessions and the marked devaluation and volatility of the dollar since the inception of the Federal Reserve, despite the general surge in overall U.S. trade over the past century and a quarter.
In those respects, this is not a "stimulus" package, but a "hamstring" package.

As far as GDP is concerned, I wouldn't put too much faith in it, precisely because it includes state spending, even when it is defecit spending. Of all the standardized measures of national wealth and standards of living, I favor PPP per capita or simple market performance and currency exchange rates.
GDP doesn't really capture whether or not a nation is prosperous. GDP per capita is a little more accurate, but remains flawed. For instance, the U.K.'s GDP percapita has remained relatively close to that of the U.S. for a number of years, despite the lower standard of living and increased prices of products. Looking strictly at GDP measures, one might assume that the U.K. is on par with the U.S, when in fact it is not. Everything is more expensive, the public services are, at best, on par with U.S. counterparts, (and notably deficient in the area of healthcare) and people keep less of their income.

In any case, the fact remains that this "stimulus" will function no better than any of the similar intiatives that preceeded it. To stimulate the market, one only needs to allow it to function, and that is best accomplished by relieving state control and influence.

[Captain Vlad]

If an area is suitable for development it will develop, and that decision should be left to the private sector.

The idea is that greater infrastructure will make an area more suitable for development. The fact is that most companies will not move into a place that does not offer an existing support structure. Why would you pay extra $$$ to develop infrastructure when you could easily go someplace that already has it? Build it yourself? Why? Then you'd have to maintain it, deal with whatever laws regulate that kind of infrastructure, and all that, which will be as much or more of a drain on your business than taxes.

The private sector makes their decisions on what's best for their company, and by making an area more attractive to them, you increase the chances of them deciding to build their business in your town.

If you take your attitude, they won't say 'this would be a great spot if we had water, let's build a pipeline'. They'll just go somewhere else.

[UnderseaLcpl]

The idea is that greater infrastructure will make an area more suitable for development.


That sounds reasonable enough, but the concept rarely ever works, especially when you start with something as basic as infrastructure and build up. It's not like Simcity, there has to be a natural reason for industry to gravitate towards the area.
I would agree with you more if I thought the state was capable of selecting a site that industry favored, and then executing an infrastructure development plan that fit its' needs, but I find the possibility extremely dubious at best. As with most things the state does, it sounds like a good idea until it is put into practice and then fails utterly. Then it takes years to change it, if it ever changes at all. In the meantime it's just a massive waste of capital.


If you take your attitude, they won't say 'this would be a great spot if we had water, let's build a pipeline'. They'll just go somewhere else.
As well they should. There are indubitably other suitable places to build that already have water and don't require a pipeline.
On the other hand, if the area is suitable enough or contains needed resources, private intrests will build their own roads, pumping facilities, power generation structures, and even pipelines. The trick is that it has to be profitable in the end.
Companies already do this and have been doing this for two hundred years. For instance, the Powder River Basin in Wyoming is a coal goldmine, and all the infrastructure needed to support the industry there has been largely built and maintained by private interests, especially the railroads.
Nonetheless, it would be stupid to spend funds on new infrastructure to attract other business to the area, because nobody wants to live there or trade there. The climate is generally miserable, it's a gazillion miles from anything important, and most of the freight infrastructure is used to capacity by the coal mines. It's as developed as it needs to be for the time being.

Perhaps someone like you could develop an effective infrastructure planning agenda, but don't place any stock in the state having the same ability.
For starters, states that would support such an agenda are already unattractive to business, because they tend to be controlling and have high tax and licensure costs. Remember the mass exodus of industry to foreign shores and the southern states? Clearly, well-intended state initiatives did nothing to keep those companies around. Why should this one be any different? Someone has to pay for all that infrastructure, and even if you give tax breaks (or other incentives) to the companies in the recently-developed area, you only harm other areas where infrastructure is in place as business migrates. You certainly aren't going to encourage the formation of new business with those taxes, so where does the money come from? Very wasteful.
Secondly, we have the abysmal history of planned development. If I need to cite examples then there's probably no point in even explaining the whole thing. Whether it's rent-controls or public transportation or housing projects or utility initiatives, virtually all planned development ends up being grossly overbudget while delivering less than optimal results, to put it lightly. In the worst cases, entire communities have to be bulldozed and restarted from scratch or abandoned because they were so hopelessly botched. There are exceptions, but they are few and far between.

Finally, (well, not finally but this is the last argument I will present here) I will suggest that you have a little faith in the eventual private development of rural, inaccesible, and otherwise immediately undesireable areas. There may be little to no demand for them now, but demand will increase as the country grows. Real-estate is no exception to the laws of supply and demand. Companies constantly resettle or arise in areas where circumstances are the most favorable. If they haven't developed an area, it is only because it is not cost-effective to do so, and so should not be pursued.

Planting an orchard in gravel rarely yields success. You must wait for it to become soil. Be patient, and carefully consider the unintended effects of policy. If areas of the Northeast or any other area is underdeveloped, it is because circumstances are either unfavorable or were made unfavorable, generally the latter.

[sharkbit]

I'm stil waiting for my pony he promised while campaigning.

:D

[em2nought]

Bah, can't even get cash for my clunker because it averages 19 mpg(if it was new) instead of the required 18 mpg.

[Captain Vlad]

It's not like Simcity, there has to be a natural reason for industry to gravitate towards the area.

Since you said those were your final points, I also won't post a response except to say that my views of private industry are more jaded than yours, and feel that more proactive steps are required by state and local governments to bring businesses and jobs to their areas.

In any case, it was good to have a civil discussion for once.

[CaptainHaplo]

Let me jump in here by saying that there are times when state and local governments can and should make decisions on infrastructure to allow a geographical area the ability to expand.

A perfect example is where I live. The 4 lane highway that I take before the last 8 miles to my home is developled as fully as possible. On the "city side", you have plenty of restaurants and such, where 10 miles later you have the tiny, independant eateries. On the city side you have large supermarkets, drug stores, and similiar in one "strip mall" type setting, with your big wal-mart and such stores close by. They build there because the infrastructure is there.

On the rural side, 10 miles out, there is one small market, a few indy gas station/groceries that are tiny. They thrive because few people want to drive the extra distance for the big shops. Those same big shops have tried for years to put stores and fast food shops and the like farther out, but they cannot, because the sewer line is undersized - they can't get the appropriate permits.

There are many sides to the idea of increasing infrastructure. One is whether or not its needed for growth. In this case, here - it is. The second is whether or not growth potential is there - again - it is. What is often overlooked is the DESIRE for the growth to occur. Economically, the growth would be a net positive, but the cost would also be high. We are not talking just dollars here, but a large "wal-mart" out here would kill at least 7 business I know of, off the top of my head. The area is rural, and the community likes it that way. Progress of this type would lead to more urbanization and sprawl. There are benefits, but there are also negatives.
If this area was developed as I list, you can bet it would also be annexed into the city, with its onerous regulations and burdensome taxes.

The state, which in many ways has more control locally than local governments do, has pushed a number of times for infrastructure increases here, mainly due to lobby efforts. Local fighting has held that up, for now - and while I am all for capitalism, the people have a voice and they use it when they want - which I am happy to see.

However, the real question hasn't been addressed by those who tried to have a real discussion. Has the money, taken from the taxpayers, or borrowed on the taxpayers behalf, truly stimulated the economy in an equitable way vs the cost.

The numbers right now - say no. Now before those liberals that think that their messiah can do no wrong, let me remind them this is not just the Obama stimulus, but also the Bush stimulus. Both have failed utterly. One put a bit of money in everyone's hands, while handing banks BILLIONS to go out and acquire other banks - which did nothing for the solidity of the industry, while the other has added a few bucks to a few paychecks, while the majority of money is still tied up in arguements over its usage, mainly due to the extreme regulation that has been placed on how states and groups must use the money.

Also note that the attempts to justify the stimulus on the basis of "jobs saved" has now been proven to be a fraud. A firm locally recieved an order from a group, the order being paid with stimulus funds. The firm had to fill out a form stating how many jobs were created and how many were "sustained" by the order. The owner put 0 in both cases, as his business would not have had to lay off anyone regardless of that order. He got a phone call from some government administrative office that told him the guideline is that any person who worked on the order at all was deemed to have their job "sustained" by that order, and thus by stimulus funds. In his case, as a manufacturer, it would have been the receptionist who answered the phone, the salesperson who took the order, the 4 people involved in the production of the item, as well as the 3 people involved in qc, packing and shipping the product - for a total of 9 jobs "saved" through the stimulus money. Considering the order was for a total amount less than $1000, there is no denying that the order did NOT save 9 jobs. This is, however, how the current administration is going to show the people what a good job its done with their money. :o That is outright fraud.

Based on the numbers - unemployment, housing sales, foreclosures, average take home pay of the employed, cost of goods and services, etc - no, neither stimulus has had any measurable, widespread effect. In a few places sure it has, but in the vast majority, leaving the money in the hands of the CONSUMERS, reducing the tax burden on the average working joe, would have stimulated the economy much more.

For those that doubt this - answer me one question. You now have water and sewer and electricity to an underdeveloped area - great. Lets say a developer moves in and builds - fine. You just created alot more homes that no worker can afford to buy, because he can't afford his current home either. How did that really help? If you simply let the worker keep more of his money - he is more likely to be able to pay his own bills, meaning one less house on the foreclosure lists, one more guy buying a little more at the grocery.... and that does do some good. Sure, the return per person is small, but your talking about a LOT of taxpayers - that builds up. If you doubt it, check into how many "half cent" and "one cent" taxes their are in your area. Here, a "half cent" local sales tax could equate to a property tax rate drop of 14 cents per hundred value for homeowners - or as the city puts it - about 23 Million in local revenue.

[SteamWake]

Oh ... really ?! :06:


July 11 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Barack+Obama&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) said his $787 billion stimulus bill “has worked as intended” as he pushed back against Republican criticism that his recovery program has failed to rescue the economy.
“It has already extended unemployment insurance and health insurance to those who have lost their jobs in this recession,” Obama, who is traveling today in Ghana, said in his weekly Saturday radio and Web address. “It has delivered $43 billion in tax relief to American working families and business.”


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a0StZd9y2rCY

How about creating jobs that way you wont have to extend unemployment :88)

and what buisness? only thing I see planned for small buisness is more taxes. :stare:

[geetrue]

Too bad this whole thread couldn't (or won't at least) be sent to the Congress and the Senate of the United States of America.

Lot of good thoughts and feed back in this thread of what real people,
even an international one at that, think is wrong with the stimulus package.

I like the one where we should spend a trillion dollars on one thing and at least get something for our money.

Notice the recent excuses from the white house that the stimulus wasn't designed to work in just four
months, but in two years nd the bulk of the money hasn't even gone out yet, but the banks are getting their money now, not to mention the car companies.

The president with an O in his name has even said from a far away place overseas that the stimulus package was designed to start working by 2011.

Isn't that the year men and women start getting serious about runing for office and relection.

Pre-meditation is what this stimulus package feels like timed to look good in 2011.

[Sailor Steve]

The stimulus is working for me, I guess. I'm getting an extra $25 on my unemployment check.:dead:

[Platapus]

On a personal note, things are looking better. I just got my quarterly reports from my investments and for the first time in years every single investment I have made money. Maybe not a lot of money but at least it was a positive movement vice losing every quarter.

So I am pretty happy :D

[GoldenRivet]

my chief investments right now are not publicly traded...

they are my family and my small business.

every quarter it seems that the government demands more from both. :cry:

[UnderseaLcpl]

my chief investments right now are not publicly traded...

they are my family and my small business.

every quarter it seems that the government demands more from both. :cry:

And it will continue to do so. Whether under Republicans or Democrats, the state is an insatiable entity. There will only ever be more controls, more taxes, and more power in the hands of the few at the expense of the many.

I pray for and admire the success of your flight school and your family in the face of that trend. It is people like you who keep this country's economy strong even when confronted with economic adversity. It is people like you who keep America adaptive and productive and prosperous.

There are some of us who appreciate innovators, investors, and entrepeneurs for more than just what they can give us in terms of free capital, so thank you for doing your part in making this country what it could be:up:

[SteamWake]

Oh good lord found some of the stimulous money... this will most certanly bring jobs !


BEAR, Del. (AP) - Amtrak has wasted little time using its $1.3 billion slice of the federal stimulus package, unveiling the first of 81 passenger cars to be restored with the help of economic recovery funds.


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090713/D99DROPG0.html

So the federal goverment gave money to a fialing goverment industry :rotfl:

[CastleBravo]

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak (reporting mark AMTK), is a government-owned corporation that was organized on May 1, 1971.

On a slightly different note.............
Amtrak accused of hindering stimulus oversight
WASHINGTON — Amtrak managers have improperly interfered with oversight of the railroad's $1.3 billion in economic stimulus funding, according to an independent report by a former federal prosecutor.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-13-amtrak_N.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-13-amtrak_N.htm)

Change we can believe in.:woot:

[geetrue]

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak (reporting mark AMTK), is a government-owned corporation that was organized on May 1, 1971.

On a slightly different note.............
Amtrak accused of hindering stimulus oversight
WASHINGTON — Amtrak managers have improperly interfered with oversight of the railroad's $1.3 billion in economic stimulus funding, according to an independent report by a former federal prosecutor.
Change we can believe in.:woot:


I can see the headlines now: "Stimulus derailed"

[CastleBravo]

I can see the headlines now: "Stimulus derailed"

Yep. WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama conceded Tuesday that the unemployment rate will keep growing for "several months" as he prepared to head to battered Michigan to unveil a plan to help train people for the next generation of jobs. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99EB86O3&show_article=1


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/july_2009/obama_index_july_14/232318-1-eng-US/obama_index_july_14.jpg

[SteamWake]

Sure Joe sure... we believe you...


I say, 'Don't let your opposition to the Recovery Act blind you to its results. Come see what I see everywhere I go: workers rehired, factories reopened, cops on the street, teachers in the classroom, progress toward getting our economy back on the move.'"


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/16/up_next_biden_vs_cantor.html

Please someone tell me where these factories have re-opened and workers 're-hired'? China perhaps? Explain the double digit un-employment while your at it.

and cops on the street and teachers in the classrooms ! Awsome we never had these before the stimulous. You know the first thing that is threatened in a city or states financial burdon is "Were going to have to cut services, fire department, police, etc etc" Yea thats scary stuff.

A local colledge here announced the layoffs would not be as bad as previously thought "Thanks to the stimulus bill". Yep they got enough money to keep them for a whole year. :oops: