On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:24:04 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 17/02/2011 11:35 AM, Frogwatch wrote:

Very few Americans have seen any of that trillion dollars in stimulus
money cuz most went to Obama cronies. I have been talking to two very
large european companies this week who say the got a large amount of
stimulus money. I just though people would like to know who got it.

I don't think anyone in DC has the guts to ask that question.

I agree. They would be involuntarily committed.

Round the Horn wrote:
In articleSdKdnUkwMaUMF8DQnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@giganews. com, atrueboater1
@hotmail.com says...

On 2/17/11 3:10 PM, Harryk wrote:

On 2/17/11 2:49 PM, Gene wrote:

On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:35:40 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:


Very few Americans have seen any of that trillion dollars in stimulus
money cuz most went to Obama cronies. I have been talking to two very
large european companies this week who say the got a large amount of
stimulus money. I just though people would like to know who got it.

If you think it is bad, now, just wait.....

http://tinyurl.com/4zp4sy8






My Baltimore-based investment client is funding a $362 million
construction loan and end loan for a small community-owned hospital in
the midwest. The loan agreement stipulates, among other things, that all
building materials and equipment at the facility must be 100%
manufactured in the United States or Canada. I don't have many of the
details yet, but I was told "stimulus dollars" are involved.

Harry, I love the way you take common knowledge info that has been
reported in all of the newspapers, and then report it as your own
"inside" info. All projects using "stimulus dollars" must use products
made in the US and Canada.

This reminds me when on New Years Eve 2000, you made a post telling us
that an old friend from Perth, Australia emailed you to tell you that
they were not having any problems with their computers. It just so
happened that all of the news agencies were reporting the same thing 30
minutes before your friend sent you the email. Yeah right.

What makes you beg for attention in rec.boats?

Narcissism


Yep. His imaginary wife should have noticed by now. Maybe she should
be alerted for humanitarian reasons - not for any negative reasons.

wrote in message ...

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:26:53 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 17/02/2011 12:47 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:35:40 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

Very few Americans have seen any of that trillion dollars in stimulus
money cuz most went to Obama cronies. I have been talking to two very
large european companies this week who say the got a large amount of
stimulus money. I just though people would like to know who got it.

As usual, you're full of it.

Not really, have you seen any of the $4 trillion Obama-debt is flowing?

Who knows, maybe Ashley Turton and John Wheeler knew. No one else knows
where it is all going.

Because you would think the 100M workers would notice $40K/per and that
is just the debt part.

You really need to get some meds or something. You're just ranting and
honestly it's very unattractive.



The State I reside in (MA) received just under $8B of the federal stimulus
package.
The bulk of the money was spent on:

1. Extension of initial unemployment benefits to 46 weeks.
2. Increase in the maximum unemployment benefit payouts by $25/week.
3. Subsidizing of 67 percent of Cobra Health Insurance costs by the
unemployed.
4. $400 tax credit to anyone with a job for the year (if you make under
$95k/year).
5. One time $250 Social Security payment bonus for non-workers.

You can argue that the $8B was spent wisely and for good reasons but I don't
think it can really be called "Stimulus" money.
It hasn't stimulated a thing in terms of creating jobs. All it did was to
make the current economic conditions a tiny bit more tolerable by those
affected for a limited period of time. The money is now gone and there's
no more coming.

“Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he
will eat for a lifetime.�
(Chinese Proverb boating content)

Eisboch

On Feb 19, 4:49*am, "Eisboch" wrote:

“Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. *Teach a man to fish and he
will eat for a lifetime.”
* (Chinese Proverb boating content)

Eisboch


Rich, that woks great in theory bur in practice it may be different.

Around here it's "Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day.
Teach a man to fish and all he'll what to do is drink beer and fish"

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 05:49:38 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



wrote in message ...

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:26:53 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 17/02/2011 12:47 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:35:40 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

Very few Americans have seen any of that trillion dollars in stimulus
money cuz most went to Obama cronies. I have been talking to two very
large european companies this week who say the got a large amount of
stimulus money. I just though people would like to know who got it.

As usual, you're full of it.

Not really, have you seen any of the $4 trillion Obama-debt is flowing?

Who knows, maybe Ashley Turton and John Wheeler knew. No one else knows
where it is all going.

Because you would think the 100M workers would notice $40K/per and that
is just the debt part.

You really need to get some meds or something. You're just ranting and
honestly it's very unattractive.



The State I reside in (MA) received just under $8B of the federal stimulus
package.
The bulk of the money was spent on:

1. Extension of initial unemployment benefits to 46 weeks.
2. Increase in the maximum unemployment benefit payouts by $25/week.
3. Subsidizing of 67 percent of Cobra Health Insurance costs by the
unemployed.
4. $400 tax credit to anyone with a job for the year (if you make under
$95k/year).
5. One time $250 Social Security payment bonus for non-workers.

You can argue that the $8B was spent wisely and for good reasons but I don't
think it can really be called "Stimulus" money.
It hasn't stimulated a thing in terms of creating jobs. All it did was to
make the current economic conditions a tiny bit more tolerable by those
affected for a limited period of time. The money is now gone and there's
no more coming.

That's certainly not true. Assuming your numbers are correct,
extending unemployment and all the other things you mention pump money
directly back into the economy and jobs are created or retained as a
result. This is really econ 101. Unemployment benefits are one of the
MOST stimulative things around.

FYI, http://arraprweb1.itd.state.ma.us/mapapp/money.html

“Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he
will eat for a lifetime.”
(Chinese Proverb boating content)

Which has nothing to do with the situation...

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote:

Unemployment benefits are one of the
MOST stimulative things around.

I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people
would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're
really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of
long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money
flow which is a basic economic principle.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote:

Unemployment benefits are one of the
MOST stimulative things around.

I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people
would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're
really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of
long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money
flow which is a basic economic principle.

The people collecting partial pay (unemployment) are not stimulating the
economy. They are barely getting by after 20 years of stagnant payroll
as it is. These folks are tightening their belts and they are not buying
anything more than what they need to live on. Just look at real estate,
retail, auto sales, vacation destinations, electronics stocks, etc, and
you know Emma is only posting talking points everyone here knows are
just more Obamaspeak!

There is just no evidence that a family making 50-70% of what their
lifestyle was based on just two years ago, is spending money on anything
other than bare necessities now. And certainly no evidence a family
making 50-70% of what they made just two years ago, is going to
stimulate the economy more than a family with a real job, making 100% of
what they made two years ago. It is just silly and dishonest to suggest
otherwise. Add in the fact that we are up to $3.50 a gallon for gasoline
again, and you know nobody is spending money on sneakers or wide screen
TV's. And we are not creating any new jobs except at the IR$.

Here are some facts, not talking points.

Mass. received just under $8B of the federal stimulus
package.
The bulk of the money was spent on:

1. Extension of initial unemployment benefits to 46 weeks.
2. Increase in the maximum unemployment benefit payouts by $25/week.
3. Subsidizing of 67 percent of Cobra Health Insurance costs by the
unemployed.
4. $400 tax credit to anyone with a job for the year (if you make under
$95k/year).
5. One time $250 Social Security payment bonus for non-workers.

You can argue that the $8B was spent wisely and for good reasons but I
don't think it can really be called "Stimulus" money. It hasn't
stimulated a thing in terms of creating jobs. All it did was to make
the current economic conditions a tiny bit more tolerable by those
affected for a limited period of time. The money is now gone and
there's no more coming.

These are the facts on the ground.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote:

Unemployment benefits are one of the
MOST stimulative things around.

I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people
would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're
really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of
long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money
flow which is a basic economic principle.

Look I have money in my left hand. Close your eyes. No open your eyes.
No the money is in my right hand. It is the same money it has just been
moved from one hand to the other. There has been no wealth creation.
There is no new money. There is no increase in the amount of money. It
is all just slight of hand.

BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:53 -0800, wrote:


Unemployment benefits are one of the
MOST stimulative things around.

I don't think there's any evidence for that. A lot of smart people
would argue that new infrastructure projects, as long as they're
really needed, not only create jobs but also leave behind something of
long term value. More importantly they increase the velocity of money
flow which is a basic economic principle.

Look I have money in my left hand. Close your eyes. No open your eyes.
No the money is in my right hand. It is the same money it has just been
moved from one hand to the other. There has been no wealth creation.
There is no new money. There is no increase in the amount of money. It
is all just slight of hand.

Unless you at the BEP when Obama tells them to turn it up.

On Feb 19, 8:49*am, Tim wrote:
On Feb 19, 4:49*am, "Eisboch" wrote:

“Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. *Teach a man to fish and he
will eat for a lifetime.”
* (Chinese Proverb boating content)

Eisboch

Rich, that woks great in theory bur in practice it may be different.

Around here it's *"Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day.
Teach a man to fish and all he'll what to do is drink beer and fish"

How bout this one.......

* " Let snotty Ingersoll involve you in his fights, and everyone
will think you're a snitch" *