Colorado ranks 49th in stimulus aid, tax relief
State's relative economic health said to be a factor
By Burt Hubbard, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published February 23, 2009 at 12:05 a.m.
The stimulus package President Barack Obama signed with much fanfare in Denver leaves Colorado near the bottom of the deck in terms of federal aid and tax relief.
Colorado will get $7.89 billion, the equivalent of $1,597 per resident. That ranks 49th among the 50 states, surpassing only Utah in per capita spending and tax savings, according to a Rocky Mountain News analysis of a state-by- state breakdown by the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C.
The top state: Alaska at $2,619 per person.
Evan Dreyer, spokesman for Gov. Bill Ritter, said one reason for the low ranking could be Colorado's relative economic health compared with the rest of the nation. The state has a low unemployment and poverty rate compared with other states.
"Colorado, for many reasons, is doing much better than most other states," Dreyer said.
But the governor's office will keep a close watch on funding, he said.
"I think it will lead us to ask questions of the administration and our delegations to ensure that Colorado is receiving its fair share," he said.
Kathy White of the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute, a Denver think tank, said it's unclear why the state is in the basement.
Some stimulus funding is based on formulas; other funding levels, such as money for energy projects, are governed by existing state spending plans. Still other allocations will be influenced by proposals that states have yet to submit to the federal government, White said.
Tara Trujillo, spokeswoman for U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, said the state's take could change as it competes for various aspects of the stimulus funding.
"It will increase," Trujillo said.
For example, the stimulus program sets aside $1.5 billion for which states can compete. Any transportation project ranging from $20 million to $300 million is eligible. The rules for that program will be published within three months.
hubbardb@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5107
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
February 23, 2009
1:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
windskull writes:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/stat...
Population, 2007 estimate 4,861,515
Very interesting, you have just claimed that Colorado will get $7.89 billion, the equivalent of $1,597 per resident.
Who put the batteries in your calculator, Coffman or May?
$1,597 X 4,861,515 = $7,763,839,455 If your errant mathematics were even remotely close to realistic you "lost" $130 MILLION DOLLARS before ever laying a finger on the first cent!?!
What`s more the census counts prison inmates so you are even further out in left field for you know good and well republicans desperate to regain any credibility would have pounced on inmates getting checks like a school of pirhanna!
February 23, 2009
2:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
windskull writes:
Grand Junction News reports Colorado to receive ALMOST $2 Billion
http://www.nbc11news.com/home/headlin...
Colorado Springs News reports Colorado to get at least $1.97 Billion
http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-colorad...
Both a far cry from the $7.89 billion total posted above and with the latest census figures noted in my initial posting 2007 persons below poverty, 11.5% percent or 486,151.5 Colorado`s citizens live at or below poverty would you care to correct this piece of garbage tale and rethink your insensitivity?
February 23, 2009
3:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
nottaobamagirl writes:
OMG! You mean to tell me that this POLITICIAN went back on his word???? Get a grip, you young voters, who voted this liberal senator into power: EVEN tho he did have a wonderful inaugural gala that supported the "fake" hollywood- types... he was the FIRST president EVER to ignore the salute to our Armed Forces in his inaugural event. GIVE ME A BREAK!!! Hollywood is as it is... and will never defend our country from anything... Our military is the only secondary salute we should ever give...our first will always be to our flag, which still flies for our freedom (at this point!).
AND we trust him and his cabinet... WHY???? (We should all be praying to GOD at this point).
February 23, 2009
3:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
jrhino writes:
Tip of the Hat to Obama's close associate, denver Representative V. DeJett. Her floor leadership has benifited illegals across the state. No E-verify from the Colorado Democratic delegation tells you who owns them (the chamber of commerce.)
February 23, 2009
4:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Madre2 writes:
So now it's OK to openly use vulgar language to describe a woman who is also a Colorado congresswoman? What a lack of respect for women, the English language, our lawmakers, fellow citizens, and society in general. People like you are going to drag us back into the dark ages.
February 23, 2009
6:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
DakotaPlainsman writes:
Remember who is doing the math. The Obama administration. The same people who had a hard time computing their tax liabilities. Lots of numbers don't add up to me. Of course my calulator does not have enough digits to deal with trillions. But I can compute smaller numbers. Example: extra $13 per week starting in April... that's 38 weeks this year, or about $500 but the stimulous is supposed to be $400. Which is it Tim Geitner? Next year an extra $7 per week times 52 weeks is $364.
February 23, 2009
6:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
VVVV writes:
When we are talking about rampant deficit spending, does it really matter how it adds up? Whether you dig 100 miles or 110, it's still a hole.
February 23, 2009
6:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
44roger writes:
Regardless of the gender, when a Politician is basically clueless, the public is getting mighty fed up with the business as usual. And they call each other criminals in their ads while on the campaign trail, so why should we hold back in our opinion?
February 23, 2009
6:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
coachk writes:
Wow what a refreshing sight. People who actually THINK rather than just feel replying to the article. Maybe there is hope for Colorado yet.
February 23, 2009
6:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
SanctuaryCity writes:
With the illegal infestation & contamination, this sanctuary state is only 49th.
February 23, 2009
6:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
SockRayBlue writes:
I WONDER IF RITTER STILL THINKS IT WAS A GOOD DEAL?
February 23, 2009
7:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
awhite411 writes:
This is probably because most of Colorado residents are not "U.S. Citizens"? lol....
Glad to see how California is doing....Colorado is going down the same path. Keep allowing all these people who don't pay taxes in this country, and Colorado will end up like Calif. someday soon.....get ready for your taxes to go way up! Get your head out of the sand, and Vote the right people in!
February 23, 2009
7:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
cowboy69 writes:
Interesting news as our govenor sold Colorado's sole to Obama and his socialist political machine. Maybe this will serve as a wake up call for Ritter....but I doubt it.
February 23, 2009
7:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ditto writes:
What’s this per resident? No resident in Colorado or any where else will revieve that per resident amount.
Maybe that’s what it will cost each resident to pay for the damn thing.
Convention in Colorado, Signing Ceremony in Colorado, opponents VP pick from Alaska:
Colorado 49th
Alaska 1st
February 23, 2009
7:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
VeryOpinionated writes:
In the "for what it's worth" department, the www.recovery.gov website says that there will be 59,000 jobs created in Colorado over the next two years. I don't know how they got that number.
I wonder how many of those jobs are funded by the Federal Government for one year, then it's up to the State to continue the funding. Additional police and firemen come to mind as a possibility.
February 23, 2009
7:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Beergut writes:
Then Colorado is doing better than most of the country, which is why there is less stimulus money for us. People didn't want ear marks, and wanted spending to based on need of the country as a whole. That is what we got. The same people who are complaining about the lack of money coming in are the same ones that complained it was all pork. I guess pork is good Colorado, but nobody else.
February 23, 2009
8:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
VeryOpinionated writes:
Regarding the $13 per week that we'll be receiving in our paychecks. Remember Michelle Obama's remarks about (then) President Bush's proposed $600 rebate in June, 2008?
"Mrs. Obama said in Pontiac, Michigan, Wednesday that if her husband is elected he will offer more than a "quick fix" on the economy.
"You're getting $600 - what can you do with that? Not to be ungrateful or anything, but maybe it pays down a bill, but it doesn't pay down every bill every month," she said. "The short-term quick fix kinda stuff sounds good, and it may even feel good that first month when you get that check, and then you go out and you buy a pair of earrings."
So what are you (anyone out there) going to do with your extra $13 per week? I'm not convinced that $13 more per week will make much of an impact on Colorado's economy.
February 23, 2009
8:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
farmboy writes:
Wake up, people! We're not getting anything, because this isn't free money. Every dollar of this "stimulus" has to come out of the economy somewhere, either now or in the future.
Either we'll be paying for it, or our children will, or both.
awhite411,
You're exactly right about California. It promised everything to everybody and now has a $42 billion shortfall. It's trying to stop the bleeding by further raising income, sales and gasoline taxes, but that's just driving even more of its best people away.
A once proud state that was an economic powerhouse on its own is now turning into an economic basket case.
February 23, 2009
8:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Beergut writes:
VeryOpinionated: "Experts" $13 being spent through the year will have more impact since it will more likely spent on goods or services and spend through out the year, not once. At least that is the theory. For me $13 a week allows to go back to the dinner I use to head to every Friday but cut back on after a pay cut last year. Give me $600 I very well could go buy a toy made in China.
February 23, 2009
8:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
windskull writes:
nottaobamagirl evidently you been partying with bin Ladin,(or someone else living in a cave for the last 9 years) because a(self-purported) conservative Christian has been beating the plowshares into pistols all this time...farmboy you answer your own questions by choosing a state run into the ground in the identical fashion as flyboy soooo just enjoy the ride as you did throughout the 1990`s as another with the hindsight to right the listing ship of fools does so and thanks to democracy will at some future date have to do so again!
February 23, 2009
9 a.m.
Suggest removal
slocatch writes:
I would have thought we would have done much better with the Ritter sleep over and all. Oh well, the kids of all those illegals will get the bill soon enough.
February 23, 2009
9:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
robbyr2 writes:
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad to read all the rantings about deficit spending. I guess you don't mind if your president turned a trillion dollar surplus into a five trillion dollar deficit over his 8 years. Or the same senators screaming now who voted time and time again to spend $2.5 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan. The senators who voted for $250 billion to "rebuild" Iraq and Afghanistan but can't stand $25 million to rebuild national park trails. And before that comes up, the Republicans controlled Congress for 6 of those years, and effectively controlled it for the following 2 years.
February 23, 2009
9:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Devil_Dog writes:
So beergut
What you are saying is that it is good for the people to have someone else be responsible for our money and only dole it out a little at a time because we are not able to spend it wisely?
That $13 a week is almost virtually the same a $600 once.
That is the very definition of a nanny state. I and, I would hope, most adult Americans out grew the need for a nanny long before they reached the legal age to vote. Too bad so many of them made the mistake of voting a purveyor of the nanny state attitude in to office.
But I guess if they can't be trusted with $600 maybe they shouldn't be trusted with a vote either...
February 23, 2009
9:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
toocool writes:
China better fire up their printing presses Japan is broke and we know the French won't lend us any bucks. A check around the goods at the MCX (base exchange) found that we don't make anything...
February 23, 2009
9:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
MBR693 writes:
windskull writes:
"nottaobamagirl evidently you been partying with bin Ladin,(or someone else living in a cave for the last 9 years).............."
You most eloquently say nothing.
February 23, 2009
9:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
farmboy writes:
robbyr2,
You are waaaaaay overstating the amount of money spent in Iraq. It would require all the money spent in the *entire* U.S. defense budget since 2003 to reach $2.5 trillion, and that simply did not happen.
Furthermore, what money that's being spent there isn't coming back. It's now being shifted to Afghanistan.
And you're nuts if you think the Republicans "effectively controlled [Congress] for the following 2 years". They had no majority. They ran no sub-committees. They controlled nothing.
February 23, 2009
9:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
MBR693 writes:
robbyr2 writes:
"I guess you don't mind if your president turned a trillion dollar surplus into a five trillion dollar deficit over his 8 years. Or the same senators screaming now who voted time and time again to spend $2.5 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Good point. This is the essence of the problem with wealth distribution and redistribution. When the government has nearly absolute access to our money and control over the economy via taxes and public spending, there will always be one group who is envious or angered at another group whom they believe is being treated favorably.
The proper answer is, of course, for the government to not be so powerful in the first place. But those on the Left would greatly prefer to debate WHICH programs and special interest groups should receive their "fair share" of public money.
February 23, 2009
9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Beergut writes:
"Then Colorado is doing better than most of the country, which is why there is less stimulus money for us."
Nonsense. As the article points out, Alaska is getting the most per resident. Do you think Alaska is worse off than Michigan, California, or other states that are getting less per resident than Alaska? No. That proves there is no linkage between the amount of "stimulus/pork/whatever" the state is getting, and how that state's economy is doing. So your claim is refuted by the facts and logic.
February 23, 2009
9:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
BootyKicker writes:
HAHAHAHA. Yep. Pray to GOD for money. There's a good move. Get off your butts and stop asking for a government hand out. Guess where the government's money comes from? Taxes - taxes come from the people, so a hand-out is just us paying ourselves. Stop acting so entitled and stop acting like you have so little and need so much more.
February 23, 2009
9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
jbowen43 writes:
Probably the formula takes into account that Coloradans are taxed at one of the lowest rates and Coloradans support the state government a a very low rate. In fact this number is quite close to where we rank in support to public schools. What is the surprise? I believe money should be spent where it will do the most good. That wouldn't be Colorado.
February 23, 2009
9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
windskull writes:
robbyr2 makes an interesting point but stops short of following where all the lottery money specified for parks and recreation has gone since voters passed gaming in Colorado.
Shoot if the 3 fingered former shop teacher spouting these bunny from the top hat mystical numbers above was handling accounting there is a dang sight more than couch change out there they just ain`t bothered to look!
Remember it took a whistle blower with a hidden tape recorder to finally get attention focused on rampant DHCP&F chicanery.
It`s time to quit hiding the moronic mistakes and outright deceit that has run the nation into this ditch and collectively chain on to get her back in the upright and mobile position
February 23, 2009
9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Beergut writes:
rickg19611: Did I say it was exact? No. Alaska BTW has nearly 2% greater unemployment than Colorado. Also why not do it by square mile rather per person? The numbers you site are interesting, but hardly meaningful by themselves.
February 23, 2009
9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
leatherneck writes:
Surprise...Surprise.... Where is all the Obamamaniacs now?
February 23, 2009
9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
timeandagain writes:
Ritter/Udall/Bennett/Salazar/Degette/ETC. -
You are pathetic excuses for advocates and leaders. Please resign your positions immediately so that Colorado has a chance of surviving this nightmare...
February 23, 2009
9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
windskull writes:
Ditto writes:
What’s this per resident? No resident in Colorado or any where else will revieve that per resident amount.
Maybe that’s what it will cost each resident to pay for the damn thing.
Convention in Colorado, Signing Ceremony in Colorado, opponents VP pick from Alaska:
Colorado 49th
Alaska 1st
Check required PER STUDENT spending also if you ferret around the census and dot gov websites confusing as they seem all the block formulas are there and it ain`t that tough to catch them with both hands and a foot in the blessed cookie jar! http://www.coloradobudget.com/amend23...
February 23, 2009
9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Beergut...
You make excuses for the monstrosity of a "bill" all you want. You can invent ways to spin this failure, but any intelligent person will admit that Colorado got ripped off by the con-artists that created this bill. 49th out of 50 states. Next to last.
Coloradoans...
You now know that the clowns in D.C. increased your share of the national debt by $55,000 per person. And you got next to nothing in return. 49th out of 50 states!!!!
This is your reward for allowing 23% of the population to install a failure into office.
Next time, don't allow the idiot 23% to foist their con jobs off on you. Get out and vote..... and then these clowns won't be able to continue stealing from you and your kids, and handing it out to their special interest cronies in hopes of buying votes.
February 23, 2009
9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Beergut writes:
leatherneck: So you want pork now?
February 23, 2009
9:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
windskull writes:
BY THEM I MEAN THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION
February 23, 2009
10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
mpinco writes:
The reality, the stimulus bill is estimated to 'cost' upwards of $3T. With approximately 300 million people in the US the cost is $10,000 per person.
But I bet you 'feel' better. LOL
February 23, 2009
10:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
The excuses being offered up by the Obamatrons are predictable.... and devoid of any logical thought.
For example, one apologist tried to claim that Colorado has lower unemployment, so that is the excuse for Obama/Democrats ripping off Coloradoans.
The apologists forgot to check the facts. Colorado's unemployment rate is 6.1%. California's rate is 9.3% Montana's rate is 5.4%.
If the apologists correct in their excuse, Montana would be getting the least, Colorado in the middle, and California the most. But it is the exact OPPOSITE of what the apologist claims... Montana is getting almost TWICE the amount as Colorado. Montana is even getting more than California!
The excuses being offered by the clowns that support this failing "stimulus" bill are almost as laughable as the clowns themselves. They don't even bother to try to come up with rational excuses for their beloved leader. Because they know there are none!
February 23, 2009
10:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
FlyfishDude52 writes:
California needs to fix their own problems. They've gone to the federal government they feel they're entitled to the help. They'll NEVER stop unless cut-off. Much like their usurping the Colorado River water. Stop them now. Stop the fed now. Stop the debt now. Stop the entitlement programs now. Stop the nationalization now. This never ends. Stop the irresponsible goverment that we've lived with for many, many years. This is not a dem vs. repub issue. This is a "We the People" issue & it's our fault we've reached the point of living in a kakistocracy.
February 23, 2009
10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
tjpatriot writes:
Maybe we ranked 49th, but the feds dropped a million or two for Obama to come here with his 50-car entourage complete with black helicopters for a 2-3 hours to sign the bill. I'm sure that created jobs. ...Well maybe not, but at least they were able to close down some major streets and impress the hell out of a fair number of weak-minded, overweight loads who lined the streets to wave frantically at what they guessed (probably wrongly) was the car he was in. That created jobs right? ...Well, maybe not, but at least he got to promote the solar company CEO, who proudly stated how cost-effective the solar was, at least after a 50% rebate from Excel (Thanks guys, for increasing MY rates to pay for YOUR boondoggles), and with tax deductibility and an anticipated federal grant, Solar panels could be cost-effective in as little as 15 years. Gee, I'll be SO glad when we get off that evil, cheap, clean-burning, abundant Natural Gas. Because after all, it is evil.
You people who are buying into all this crap need to venture back in time and visit a few random typical apartments in a random Communist country and see how those people really lived. It is then that you will realize what "Evil" really is, when a group of people take over and control everything, for the "Good of the People". When the average citizen consciously or unconsciously feel they have no control over their lives, and naturally fall into despair. Alcoholism and dependency both go up. And of course the standard of living goes down, as illustrated by any number of examples in history which clearly show that "collective" or "government" efforts are simply not as efficient and effective as the "Free Market".
Big Government supporters feel we are going down a splendid road into a brighter future, where history indicates we are going down a dark road into eventual despair and disaster.
February 23, 2009
10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
zivo24 writes:
The only part of this that is interesting to me is that Rep. Doug Lamborn voted against the bill and yet his district has requested the lion's share of the funds.
Typical neo-cons.
February 23, 2009
11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Devil_Dog writes:
zivo24 writes:
The only part of this that is interesting to me is that Rep. Doug Lamborn voted against the bill and yet his district has requested the lion's share of the funds.
Typical neo-cons.
The above post is atypical of the problems facing our nation and our inability to correctly identify these problems. We do not have a severe economical catastrophe knocking at our door because democrats disagree with republicans. We have the wolf breathing at our door because virtually ALL politicians have let this happens (democrats and republican alike). They have let it happen because those that pull their strings (the wealthy, powerful individuals and corporations) have made it so. Why do you think the power brokers support both sides of the aisle equally? They really don't care who wins an election (not really) because they know they will control whoever gets in. (Obviously there are some with a more vested interest because they will wield more power over one politician than another, but in the end it is not too big of a problem.) The idea is keep us, the worker, the voter, the producer squabbling with one another while they reap the benefits.
They do this by slight of hand, while we all watch the magicians pretty assistant (or in this case the political wh0re) and fight with each other over who gets to take her out for a spin they continue to rape us for all we've got. The only real difference is who gets raped the most and how.
While we fight over the leftovers the politicians and their puppeteers dine on our carcasses.
And no this is not some whacked out support for socialism. This is an indictment of the politicians we have in office now and have had in for a while now. It is our own fault for we choose the easy things in life rather than the correct ones. It is not our political system that is broken it is us for we have let the corrupt power hungry thieves hijack our Nation and our political system. We have sold our souls and those of our children for a life with less (read NO) responsibility.
Well the piper is collecting his due.
Wake up and vote with an eye to what is right and what is good for your children and good for your country! YOUR COUNTRY YOUR CHILDREN YOUR NEIGHBOR YOUR FUTURE
February 23, 2009
12:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Beergut writes:
rickg19611: So you want pork? You keep picking out states that get more, only they have more land which requires more money to upkeep. If this was filled with 100% pork all going to Colorado would you be happy? Of course not, but yet you are screaming there isn't enough money going to Colorado. What you are asking for is pork.
February 23, 2009
12:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
T1anda writes:
Excellent post Devil_Dog!
February 23, 2009
12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Beergut...
Admit it. Obama/Democrats have forced $55,000 in debt onto the backs of EACH Coloradoan, and what have Coloradoans gotten in return for it? Next to nothing.
Colorado....
Let this be a lesson for you. You allowed 23% of the population to vote this conartist into office, and are now reaping the result. More debt. Less results. The Obama results.
February 23, 2009
12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
Alaska gets the most per person?
They have no State income tax - no state sales tax - and from revenue from the pipeline typically give $1000's per resident (anyone over a year old..) Seems to me they would need it the least!
Hope they do not build anymore bridges!
And if you listened to Palins claims during the election - I would think they would (or could) reject it!
February 23, 2009
12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
laughingman writes:
So do tell, oh wise naysayers...since when is trillions of dollars being doled out for a war that was waged on false premises, how is *that* acceptable?? At least this is being spent HERE, regardless of where it comes from.
Where do you think the money came from to fight this war that has been going on for almost 6 years now? Hmmm? STFU already until you can provide some REAL answers as to how better to fix this crappy economy that the LAST corporate sock-puppet got us into! Seems like you have all forgotten about this little quagmire, huh? Who do you think is paying for this war? A war that you have most likely blindly accepted as "Gods will"..just like our former puppet monkey. YOUR puppet monkey.
So get over yourselves already..SOMETHING had to be done, and at least it is being spent HERE.
February 23, 2009
12:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
INC writes:
So Karl Rove thumbed his nose at congress AGAIN...
Gop Governors will take the money and attempt to take the accolades too. Just Like Palin did she said "no thanks" to the bridge but kept the money and spent it elsewhere.
February 23, 2009
1:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
LockNLoad writes:
INC: Karl Rove? what fantasy land are you living in? he was a political advisor to the former administration. And, he should thumb his nose at the rediculous politically motivated, trumped up charges of Democratic left wingers in Congress.
You betch ya! Palin did the right thing. The bridge to nowhere money was being forced on her, and she spent in programs that really benefited the Alaskans.
Beergut:
Obviously, you have no clue about this Obamanation of a spending plan. It is nothing but earmarks to move forward the lIberal agenda.
February 23, 2009
1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Devil_Dog writes:
That's just it laughingman there isn't any money. Not real money their just printing it, there aren't any new gold reserves to back it up, no one gave us a loan, it's pretend money. And every dollar of it makes the real ones out there worth less. It works like a pain killer does it goes to your brain or nervous system and stops the message from getting through. You then are effectivly fooled into believing you are better, but the pain is still there you're just to numb to know it. And since you keep running on that broken leg it only gets worse and eventually you colapse. But that's not the end of it because someone (your children) has to continue on so they are forced to pick you up and carry you with them, eventually you get too heavy and they die on the side of the road. They are then eaten by the ones who were smart enough to fix their problems instead of taking the pain killers (the easy way out).
February 23, 2009
1:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
And so it begins: they put the stimulus chum into the water and the feeding frenzy begins. Wait, there's more! Joe Biden will be the "stimulus czar" tossing buckets of largesse to the squabbling piglets.
Count me with Devil Dog.
February 23, 2009
1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
Colorado doesn't need ANY of this spending bill; states like California are irresponsible and DO NEED it; they will be rewarded for their irresponsibility. Alaska has a low population which is why per person it is high.
Part of the reason Colorado doesn't need the money is because of TABOR; it keeps politicians from blowing OUR money.
Beergut; so you can't put the $600 into savings and take out $13 a week until it is gone? You need government to do it for you?
February 23, 2009
2:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Chicken.... it would interesting to get your take on this.....
http://www.american.com/archive/2009/...
"In my opinion the sophisticated Keynesian view is still that the stimulus won’t work." —Tyler Cowen
"Many varieties of Keynesian macroeconomists exist, and some of us believe that the the Obama administration’s outsourcing of economic decisions to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has resulted in a policy that is likely to work poorly, if at all. " - Yes. Obama's mistake was ignoring economists and letting politicians create his economic plan instead. Like a patient who ignores doctors, and instead hires a plumber to treat his ailments.
"If you follow the news media, you may think that the economics profession is divided into two camps: the majority, who favor the stimulus bill; and a minority, who are against any stimulus. In fact, there are many of us who support the idea of a stimulus but who question the Pelosi bill." - Excellent point.
"President Obama said that his goal is to have 75 percent of the stimulus take effect before the end of 2010. Instead, I would argue that we should have 100 percent take effect by then, and 75 percent take effect by the end of 2009." - Obama's approach is like a doctor telling a parent their child has cancer that could be fatal within a year... but the doctor's favorite treatment plan won't have any effect until next year... and so the doctor ignores the needs of his patient, since that is less important that supporting his favorite treatment plan.
"There is a lot of rhetoric about making sure that we do not lay off cops or teachers. But the fact is that millions of private sector workers are being laid off, while public sector layoffs so far have been fewer than one hundred thousand. The need for stimulus is in the private sector, but the political focus of the bill is on enlarging the public sector."
"Textbook Keynesian economics says that a spending increase will stimulate more powerfully than a tax cut, because part of a tax cut will be saved rather than spent. However, this same textbook analysis says that a stimulus now is more powerful than a stimulus that kicks in two years from now. Even though the multiplier for a spending increase may be higher than that for a tax cut that is enacted at the same time, we can be certain that the “multiplier” for a tax cut in 2009 is greater than the multiplier for a spending increase in 2011."
February 23, 2009
4:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
onusone writes:
None of it adds up.Creating jobs that don't produce any saleable goods just adds to the problem.
February 23, 2009
5:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
jpkiljan writes:
The math in this article didn't work out for me either. I went to the Center for American Progress' web site to look for the raw data and I couldn't find it.
I did find an interactive map that shows what percent of a states' Gross State Product each state will receive in stimulus funding, but it cautions that they can only make that estimate for 69% of the available funding. And it includes such things as the hard-to-calculate anticipated average tax cuts for a state's population. All that sounds pretty useless to me if you are trying to figure whether or not Colorado is getting its fair share of the stimulus.
Since the emphasis in this stimulus package is on jobs and infrastructure needs, it would seem that the states with the highest unemployment and the crappiest infrastructure (that's not Colorado) would end up receiving the most dollars, but that all the states should be bunched fairly close to each other on a per capita basis.
The when-the-dust-settles statistic I'm interested in is by what percentage do our per capita benefits come out below the national average. It may be a year or two before we know the answer to that question, and all bets on equity are off until those numbers come in.
--John Kiljan
February 23, 2009
6:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Beergut writes:
rickg19611: Wow. You nothing about yourself do you? The stimulus package is aimed at the whole country, not Colorado. Colorado can't get of its economic problems by ignoring California or other worse of states. I am not saying it will work, but you have totally missed the concept of the bill: To help ALL American, not just your corner of the world.
February 23, 2009
7:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
gregu710 writes:
"farmboy writes:
robbyr2,
You are waaaaaay overstating the amount of money spent in Iraq. It would require all the money spent in the *entire* U.S. defense budget since 2003 to reach $2.5 trillion...
And you're nuts if you think the Republicans "effectively controlled [Congress] for the following 2 years". They had no majority. They ran no sub-committees. They controlled nothing."
First farmboy, the money being used to rebuild Iraq is not coming SOLELY from the Defense Dept, and some is not even traceable per se, because it is coming in through other means than Congressional appropriations. Sooo, NO, the total reportable amount spent to rebuild Iraq (and now Afghanistan) is not in the Trillion Dollar range, but I bet if you took into account spending by other governmental agencies such as Dept of State, and so on, it would top well over a Trillion. As it is, JUST the defense related spending with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan will reach between approximately $1 Trillion by 2013 IF we draw down to 75,000 by then, and $1.7 Trillion by 2018. That's based on the Congressional Research Service Report of July 2008 and was presented to Congress. Given the deterioration in conditions in Afghanistan during the last 6-8 months though that amount may not reflect actual costs and may be higher.
Further, you kind of completely ignored the whole 6 years of Repbulican control to sieze on the 2 year thing. You're right, in all, 6 or 2 years, they controlled and did nothing. For having 2 branches of government, they came away with a pretty dismal record of accomplishment.
February 23, 2009
9:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
greg...
You're missing the fact that the true cost of any military action (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, etc) is LESS than it appears because of "displacement".
For example, what is the pay of a soldier (E-4 with 3 years of service) serving in Iraq? $2025 per month, plus Imminent Danger pay of $225 per month.
For that same soldier, if remaining at Ft Lewis instead, his pay would be $2025 per month.
So the true cost of Iraq for a single soldier is only $225 per month. And considering that soldier will be taxed and likely end up paying back $50 or so of that pay in taxes, the true cost per month for one soldier to be in Iraq, rather than stateside, is approximately $175 per month.
What those who like to complain about Iraq always forget, is that they add up the amount that the US spends for Iraq, but then fail to account for the fact that the US would be spending a large portion of that expense for fuel, ammunition, medical services, military exercises/training, and troop pay/benefits, regardless of WHERE the military has them stationed. That distorts the TRUE cost of Iraq.... or any other military excursion.
The TRUE cost of Iraq is far less than the amounts quoted by those complaining about Iraq, because they fail to account for the costs that would occur even if we weren't in Iraq.
February 24, 2009
3:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
gwats writes:
My family doesn't need the stimulus money or help with our Mortgages as much as some folks I've seen. I think we should be grateful there is help out there for the folks who are truly hurting.
and by the way, the Iraq invasion/occupation was a HORRIBLE blunder by people who should have known better. The debt we incurred on that fiasco will be repaid by our kids with interest.
February 24, 2009
7:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
FCZ writes:
49th .
Udall and that new guy are not getting us the pork.
How much did Harry Reid get Nevada ?
or Pelosi for her husband ?
Come on Ritter : ask for $ 10 Billion
February 24, 2009
9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
haloguy628 writes:
----------------rickg19611 writes:-------------------------------------------
For example, what is the pay of a soldier (E-4 with 3 years of service) serving in Iraq? $2025 per month, plus Imminent Danger pay of $225 per month.
For that same soldier, if remaining at Ft Lewis instead, his pay would be $2025 per month.
So the true cost of Iraq for a single soldier is only $225 per month. And considering that soldier will be taxed and likely end up paying back $50 or so of that pay in taxes, the true cost per month for one soldier to be in Iraq, rather than stateside, is approximately $175 per month.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your post is correct regarding set cost for pay, however service members are tax exempt while in combat operations theater. So the true cost is the $225 danger pay plus the federal taxes that would be collected from the service members pay if not deployed to COT.