Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues The Obama Administration Stimulus package

Maybe it's time to get back to the other questions I posed, based on the assumption that your source, the AM talk radio host, either did not know what he was talking about or was deliberately presenting false information when he characterized the bailout as being full of pork because it included $8B for "engineering studies".

As I pointed out before, $8 Billion is about one percent of the total amount. Is one percent too much for engineering studies? As Emma pointed out, engineering studies absolutely must be performed before any actual construction can begin. Is the entire $8 Billion for engineering, as Mr. Gross led you to believe, or is that the entire amount for all high speed rail transportation projects, with engineering only a portion of it? If so, what portion?

How does that $8B figure compare to what is being allocated for infrastructure, such as highways, bridges, and schools? Does it make more sense to spend all of the money on projects that can be started today, or does it make more sense to invest a small portion of the money in projects that can be started in a few months?

Instead of looking at this "stimulus" package through rose color glasses, maybe we should attach some reality to it. This package is a scheme to increase spending by using the economic crisis as an excuse.

This package doesn't do anything short term and creates very little stimulus long term. It does, however, pay for political influence for years to come.

So much for Hope and change.

Sources please.

You and I are in total agreement. I've always stated: Charity starts at home.

Thank you helping me "see" those assumptions - both false positive and false negative, RB.

Given what we all read over the weekend, yes, it was false and misleading for Gil Gross to allude to "engineering studies" making up $8b for high speed rail between LA and LV and SF and LA.

For that, I'm very disappointed in Mr. Gross.


No given that's these projects are for the entire country to benefit from.


The impression left with us KGO listeners by Mr. Gross is that 100% was going for "engineering studies" for only the LA to LV and SF to LA HSR.

It was my impression that the intent was to start projects today. However, given how Congress works and given how the Republicans will most likely start blocking future spending, and given that HSR is for the entire country, putting those monies into the stimulus package was a good idea, and as I stated previously, I'm backing away from my displeasure of having HSR in the stimulus packages - given the new information that has come to light - my enlightenment - after writing those posts.

I thought some of you might be interested in a presentation given to Florida DOT staff and districts on Friday.

Economic Stimulus-Florida Transportation

The presentation is located here on a public site which contains other Economic Stimulus information.
FDOT EconStim Site

EmmaG

The "quibble" stems from that the source alludes that one can actually live in the Bay Area on $29K as a single person. When those figures cited are added up, they come close to $29K.

What about payroll taxes?

I'm simply saying that the $29K isn't reality – the minimum amount needed is actually more when payroll taxes are factored in.

Does "living" mean staying in one's apartment and no entertainment (cable, movies, dining out...becuase that is all one can afford) AND living in very dangeous and sketchy neighborhoods (...because for $29K those are the only areas where one can live in the Bay Area) really "living"?

I think not.

The $29K figure came from your source, rick. My source said $26K.

Either way, $26K or $29K, one would have to live in really shady neighborhoods and have a really low/poor quality of live.

...and again I ask: Is that "living"?

...and as I pointed out, payroll taxes were not factored in - so the minimum amounts would actually be in the low's $30ks - given the $26K and $29K figure.

Sorry, you're mistaken about the taxes, rick. Check your sources.

And again, you're entitled to your own definition of "living wage", even though it is a specific term with a specific meaning. I accept that you assign a different meaning to it, and understand what that meaning is. To you, people who live in downscale neighborhoods and can't afford to "dine out" aren't "living". So be it.