<blockquote> "We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years;</blockquote>
I'd like to know what this is for. Do we get money to help out with our transportation issues? New rail lines? However, if Amtrak dies, how many jobs will be lost? Is this a job-saving move? Or is it just intended to create jobs for those who will be paid to build the infrastructure (if that's what the money is going for)?
<blockquote>$2 billion for child-care subsidies; </blockquote>
Seems like a lot, but okay, people need child-care to go to work. I get that part at least. Jobs for the care-givers/preschool teachers are a plus.
<blockquote>$50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; </blockquote>
If architects and engineers and researchers and construction workers and teachers and baby-sitters get what I will call "grants" so that they can keep getting paid to do what they were trained to do, why not painters and musicians and composers and writers and ballerinas? I thoroughly enjoy and appreciate the arts, so when the artists' share is 2.5% of just what the child-care folks are gettting, let alone the whole package, I think people can chill out about it. And maybe even go see some live theater while they are at it. /rant
<blockquote>$400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects.</blockquote>
So jobs for all those hard science majors out there. If it said "renewable energy" or "green technology research" I would make less of a face at this one. I'm skeptical of this one and its deliverables, but at least it will create jobs.
<blockquote> There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons"</blockquote>
Seriously?
<blockquote>"Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. </blockquote>
Lame.
<blockquote>Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator?"</blockquote>
Jobs for electricians and construction and the like. Sweet. I sometimes work in a government building that is literally falling apart (like parts of the ceiling have fallen down into cubicles this year, and last year the heat was broken and we had to work when it was 56 degrees inside), so I'm totally cool with this one. Not sure what the money for the Smithsonian is for.
<blockquote>"Another "stimulus" secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments -- that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren't job creators."</blockquote>
Minor grumbles on this one. Help for the poor, yeah, yeah. However, money not spent on meds or food is money spent elsewhere in the economy...or so I can hope.
Just because this is likely to be the end result:
http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/celebrity-pictures-joker-bailout.jpg