The economy was already adding jobs, before a single dime of stimulus money was spent through the government, the fact that there is no such thing as "shovel ready government jobs" has already been conceded by Obama. So its not as if we needed even more evidence that the stimulus was a complete waste of money, but here it is anyways. Turns out the Stimulus money actually went to the states that needed it the least. Well done Obama!! RICHER DEMOCRATIC STATES WITH LOWER UNEMPLOYMENT GOT BULK OF OBAMA STIMULUS In their explosive new book Debacle: Obama's War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future, Grover Norquist and John Lott, Jr. uncover a startling fact: heavily Democratic states with lower poverty rates, lower unemployment rates, lower bankruptcy rates, and lower foreclosure rates received most of President Barack Obama's $825 billion Stimulus. Put another way, Stimulus money went to precisely the states that needed it the least but were more politically connected to the Democratic Party. As Norquist and Lott's data reveal: There is 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. Obama may have claimed that he was motivated to help out those in the toughest shape, but it looks more likely that Democrats were more interested in helping their supporters. In Debacle, Norquist and Lott catalog the stunning degree to which Stimulus funds were allocated to the very states that needed them least. For example, richer states got more, not less, Stimulus money. For every additional $1,000 in a state's per-capita income a state received an average $86 more per capita in Stimulus money. Furthermore, states with high foreclosure rates got less, not more, money. Specifically, for every percentage point increase in a state's foreclosure rate, a state received $217 less per person. The amounts given to states ranged widely. For example, while Florida only received $553 per capita, the District of Columbia walked away with $3,745 per capita. And as Norquist and Lott reveal, "The patterns early show that the money went to the places the Democrats represented." The folly of the federal government's misappropriation of funds can best be summed up with a quote from an Obama Administration official whom Norquist and Lott interviewed for their penetrating book. As she explained, where government spends taxpayers' money doesn't matter because "giving out money is good for everyone." http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...lower-unemployment-got-bulk-of-obama-stimulus
Got to call bullshit with their claim. While Dem states did get significant $$$, many Repub states rejected it, like Fla Gov Scott, rejecting 2.4 billion for a high speed rail line. Take numbers like these out of the equation and it is bound to lower what a state "received". SC Sanford rejected 700million: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/round-2-omb-rejects-sc-governors-stimulus-plan/ Jindal rejected stimulus too http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/21/lousiana-gov-rejects-states-stimulus-share/?page=all and Perry and Palin too: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/03/12/63870/texas-perry-rejects-stimulus-for.html http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/20/palin-rejects-nearly-percent-stimulus-funds/ shit adds up.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/08/rick-perrys-lovehate-relationship-stimulus/41406/ Texas relied on President Obama's $787 billion package, passed in 2009, to plug big holes in the state budget Through the second quarter of this year, Texas has used $17.4 billion in federal stimulus money -- including $8 billion of the one-time dollars to fund state expenses that recur over and over. In fact, Texas used the federal stimulus to balance its last two budgets. It is true, as presidential candidate Perry says, that the state turned down some of the money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 because it had strings attached. Texas didn't apply for education grants that came with conditions, and the governor famously refused $556 million in federal stimulus funds for the state's unemployment insurance program, saying the conditions that came along with the cash would increase the long-term costs of the program. But Texas happily accepted the rest.
Sounds like a good argument, and it sounds like you could be right, but how would that explain the states with lower unemployment run by the democrats getting the most per capita?
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/0...ark-sanford-accepts-stimulus-money-after-all/ South Carolina's Mark Sanford Accepts Stimulus Money, After All Early last year, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford turned up his nose at federal stimulus funds for his state, saying it would only add to the national debt. That was then. On Tuesday, the Labor Department said the state had gone through the approval process and would begin receiving $97.5 million to help out its strapped unemployment compensation fund. It seems the once stubborn Sanford, staggered by an extramarital affair that threw him off message and effectively ruined his political career, quietly signed a bill two months ago that expanded eligibility for jobless benefits in South Carolina, opening the way for the federal money, the New York Times said. The reversal made South Carolina the 32nd state to take such action, qualifying for a full share of stimulus dollars, according to the National Employment Law Project, a liberal advocacy group. It also marked a "dramatic shift" for Sanford, a conservative governor the Law Project said had once been a "leading opponent" of the federal program. Sanford was only the latest to come on board for stimulus money, the Times said. Govs. Dave Heineman of Nebraska, Sonny Perdue of Georgia and Phil Bredesen of Tennessee also resisted taking the funds initially, but then thought better of it. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879653707088087.html South Carolina Governor Requests Stimulus Funds South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford became the nation's last governor Friday to request federal stimulus money but said he reserves the right to reject some of the money later. Mr. Sanford met a Friday deadline to certify that South Carolina will accept at least some of the $2.8 billion in federal stimulus money that the state is slated to receive. Mr. Sanford, however, said he hasn't changed his position that he will reject $700 million of the stimulus cashâso-called state fiscal stabilization fundsâunless the state legislature agrees to pay down an identical amount of state debt. The White House has said the money cannot be used for that purpose. Mr. Sanford's position has ignited a controversy in South Carolina, where top education and law-enforcement officials say the state will have to make Draconian budget cuts unless Mr. Sanford accepts the $700 million. The legislature has been trying to craft a budget in advance of the start of the new fiscal year July 1. In a letter sent Friday to the White House budget office, Mr. Sanford said he "continues to have reservations" about the stabilization funds and will apply for those funds "at some later date" only if he and the legislature can reach an acceptable compromise. South Carolina Governor Requests Stimulus Funds
I:m wondering which part of the article i posted said the republican states accepted zero money? You posting all these articles of republican states getting money doesnt change the fact that the democrats states with lower unemployment GOT MORE OF THE MONEY Jamesl argument was atleast a legitimate argument, you seem to be making the argument that because republican states got money, that balances out the inequality of democrats states with low unemployment getting the bulk of it. This is a ridiculous argument.
If the states are rejecting the funds, that's less that goes into the calculations, no? Also, if one gov don't want it, don't you think someone else will take it? After all, it was free money. BTW, I am not saying that Dems didn't take care of their own, I am just saying the Reps did a good job of hurting their own cause here. That's why I call bs to Norquist's claims. Until I read the book and not a selected blurb, I have my doubts.
http://www.financial-planning.com/news/The-Bond-Buyer-Jindal-Wary-Stimulus-Funds-2661226-1.html Louisiana Gov. Jindal Still Wary of Stimulus Funds Louisiana will accept up to $2.5 billion of federal stimulus funds over the next two years , but Gov. Bobby Jindal's administration is reviewing another $1.5 billion allocated to the state before deciding whether to use the available funds. Commissioner of Administration Angèle Davis, the governor's chief budget officer, told the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget on Wednesday that the state could be eligible for between $3.5 billion and $4 billion from the stimulus package approved by Congress in February. Davis said the state would accept $2.4 billion for use in fiscal years 2010 and 2011, but would not commit to taking the remaining funds until the restrictions on using the money are clarified. A meeting at the White House next week, chaired by Vice President Joe Biden, should provide states with additional information on the certification process for the $787 billion federal stimulus program, she said.