Interesting, Billions in aid go to areas that backed Obama in '08

Correlation, not causation. If this was a 2009-only occurrence, then I would be upset.

 

Conservatives don't like government spending, and are less inclined to request and then receive it.

 

this one is easy folks. low income communities overwhelming supported obama. tell me which communities need more help, the low income urban communities or the mid to upper class suburban communities?

 

Wasn't Katrina/Rita in 2005? The Orleans Parish voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008 (link). I'd think that that area got a pretty good portion of government aid in the time period of 2005-07.

 

That's not completely true. Low income communities in urban settings overwhelmingly supported Obama. Low income communities in rural settings still voted for McCain by 60-40 margin, at least in Ohio.

 

Really? You find this "interesting" and evidence of some sort of corruption?

First - considering that the majority of the country voted for Obama, by mathematical probability they're going to get more money. Further considering that the vast majority of urban areas voted for Obama where unemployment is high, there is more infrastructure either to be repaired or built (as it has a more beneficial impact) and pre-existing programs and where it's easier to create employment-generating infrastructure projects and programs.................where would you expect the majority of the stimulus money to go? To flow disproportionately to rural areas with less dense populations and less unemployment? where the money would be not as effective? I'd like to see your math on why this is a good idea?

Second - congress is largely the one that determines these appropriations - do you know this?

Third - there's a front page NYT story today that directly contradicts this - in highway funding at least, it appears that rural areas (and their tea party red state congressman, the few that are left) have been hogging a disproportionate share of the stimulus money.

 

The reports show the 872 counties that supported Obama received about $69 per person, on average. The 2,234 that supported McCain received about $34.[i/]

This seems like a simple case of urban vs. rural. Notice how many more counties voted for McCain - these are a bunch of small rural counties with fewer people than the Obama counties. I'm not too surprised that more money would go to urban centers as opposed to rural areas, simply because of the readiness of more projects and aggressiveness of those cities/counties.

I'd guess if you did a study purely on urban vs. rural per-person $s, it would be an even more pronounced difference.

 

wouldn't it make more sense the stimulus would lean towards having a better $/person ratio in the rural areas? For instance a piece of infastructure in a city serves far more people than in a rural area so it seems like the value would be higher.

 

True, if they were reasonably evenly distributed - except I'm guessing that a good chunk of those rural areas are simply getting no stimulus projects at all. My guess is that the vast majority of construction and the like are all going to urban places that probably have the highest need or the most deterioritating infrastructure.

Of the places that are getting stimulus projects, I'd agree - the rural areas would probably show a higher per-person ratio than urban areas.

 

Conservatives claim that government is the problem anyway..Why should they want or be given the money?Give it to the people who are the most needy and appreciative.

 

In that case- what part of the relatively basic logic behind the urban/rural/majority/minority explanation - which basically boils down to x +1 > x, do you find surprising/interesting?

I'd like to know. I personally find it neither surprising nor especially interesting in any sense.

For a smart guy, you seem to keep making dumb arguments that deliberately obscure facts to imply some sort of political agenda.

 

It's also true that some governors in places that voted against Obama are refusing the stimulus money.

 

selective memory,

Bridge to No where​

 

what part about per person do you not understand. Even if Obama won 3:1 the per person amount wouldn't change.

 

you are just stealing all of my arguments.