Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Rep. Michele Bachmann’s stimulus plan: $1 billion to each of the 435 congressional districts.»

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 02:53 PM
Original message
Rep. Michele Bachmann’s stimulus plan: $1 billion to each of the 435 congressional districts.»
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/12/bachmann-stimulus-plan/

Bachmann’s stimulus plan: $1 billion to each of the 435 congressional districts.»


Last month, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) voted against the House version of the economic recovery package, claiming that it had “far too little actual stimulus” and “far too much plain old political pork.” In an interview last week with the St Croix Valley Press, Bachmann said that she wished “the bill would contain more money for transportation and roads and infrastructure building.” She then offered an odd proposal for how to do that:

“There are 435 house districts across the United States,” she said. “Let’s say congress limited itself to $435 billion on the stimulus package and $1 billion to the 6th district and put that on infrastructure spending and build the Stillwater bridge, for instance, or widen I-35, or build overpasses by Forest Lake by I-35 where we need them.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. Dumbfuckistan can finally build that Hee Haw museum
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UnrepentantUnitarian Donating Member (887 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. No pork in that plan, right? No, not a worry there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hvn_nbr_2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
3. Even crazy people say something plausible once in awhile.
The proposal is obviously oversimplified and has lots of problems, but yet it does have some kind of sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Believing Is Art Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Yeah
It's a marked improvement from "tax cuts."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K Gardner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
4. She's protesting in front of the capitol today with "Americans for Prosperity". She's still insane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Parche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
6. so she can build the mental hospital she will be staying at
:woohoo: :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
7. Wow. That would pay for a lot of Creationist Museums!
Giant fuckin' gold-plated Jesus ridin' dinosaurs, and everything!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JitterbugPerfume Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
8. she is the poster child for
the need for a quality education .

There is so much wrong with her "idea" that it does not even need explaining to DUers. Even the dumbest among us can see that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
9. Has she been investigated for un-American activities yet?
Splitting up cash like that smacks of Communism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
10. That is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
11. So districts with big cities like LA/ NY/ Houston get $1 billion the same as a densely populated
district in, say, Wyoming or Montana?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Staph Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Let's look a little closer....
The city of Los Angeles -- metro population approximately 18 million
The state of Montana -- population approximately 1 million

The city of Los Angeles -- metro area has 20 Representatives
The state of Montana -- 1 representative


I'd say this plan is unfair for the state of Montana!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ColbertWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
12. Fuck her. How about this instead ...
... $800 billion divided among the districts whose representatives voted for it.

If your rep didn't support the bill, you get nothing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caraher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
14. This is a better plan than tax cuts, actually
It's not enough money - but neither is the real stimulus. But at least it's spending. But it's also the 100% pork plan.

Fortunately her opinion is utterly irrelevant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
15. While that's a recipe for pork, it's a better idea than tax cuts. Make it two billion,
Edited on Thu Feb-12-09 03:44 PM by Occam Bandage
and she's actually got something of a point. I'd prefer better-targeted spending, but I can see the argument for ensuring equality among districts, and districts are the organizational level most closely related to population.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swede Atlanta Donating Member (906 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
16. Makes so much sense....NOT
I am proud of my heritage of having been born and raised in Wyoming (except that Cheney came from there).

But they are a single Congressional district with approximately $500K people ranking 51st (if you include D.C.). So we give Wyoming $1BN = $2K per capita

I live in Georgia which ranks 10th in terms of population of 8,200,000 people. So we give Georgia $13BN (13 Congressional districts) = $1600K per capita or only 80% of the per capita for Wyoming.

In terms of demands for infrastructure and ability to drive consumer demand Georgia arguably has greater need for revenue than Wyoming especially when you look at the respective unemployment rates. Wyoming's unemployment rate as of December 2008 was 3.4%. Georgia's unemployment rate is currently 8.1%.

So giving an equal amount per congressional district makes no sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cottonseed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
17. She's a nut, but it's a neat idea to chew on.
Edited on Thu Feb-12-09 04:20 PM by cottonseed
I think people would be much more involved if the money was tied to a representative. If it is spent wisely they stay, if not, they go. Goes to show how ugly this is when I have to give Bachmann atleast a little credit for creativity.

Could you imagine a representative in this climate say something like, "Hey I've got a Billion, but I'm going to spend it on overpriced contractors, providing credit to insolvent banks, and funding our local multi-nationals." If and that's a big if, people could hold their reps feet to the fire on spending decisions, it couldn't be as bad as any of the other crappy ideas out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Hey! I'd LOVE to tie something to my reps but it sure isn't MONEY. I
am sick of subsidizing the wrong end of this country and the two that Nebraska barfed up and sent to Washington wouldn't spend that money in a way that would most benefit those hardest hit. And one of them is supposed to be a Dem. You know, Ben Nelson, Dumbass-NE, who tied up the bill so that he could try to play deal maker. And all he did was make himself look like a clown.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. It would give comedy and optimism to a depressed society!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
18. buh-bye to most "red" states ...
with one Representative ... (3 minimum electoral votes)

ironically, that would concentrate the spending into the more populous areas ... read: URBAN/Dem ...

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost in CT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
20. This is actually a surprisingly progressive idea.... nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ourbluenation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. I dont think so...read post 13 above. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost in CT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. It sends the money to places with the most population.
Which often need the most help.

Concentrating money in urban areas with greater needs is not a bad thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hologram Donating Member (277 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
22. Billions for places that don't need them.
I think the tax base of some districts is probably far greater than that of other districts due to things like where a corporation decided to locate its facilities (and jobs) and where the wealthy have built their upscale housing developments/schools/etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
23. I actually don't think it's a bad idea.
Put some stipulations on what it can be spent on (i.e., no Creation Museums). It would solve CA's budget problems immediately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geardaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
26. Sorry Michelle...
You don't get a billion dollars to spend on your pet projects.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 06:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC