Economic Stimulus Parody

2/13/2009:

Sinking economy: not funny – this graphic: funny!

With all the bickering taking place on the “Economic Stimulus Plan: A Disaster?” thread lately – – – why not have a little chuckle with this great graphic parody of where Government Bailout money might really get spent. From Mad Magazine (about the only publication that guarantees laughs for me these days!)

mad-magazine-government-bailout-diagram.jpg

Leave a Reply

22 Comments on "Economic Stimulus Parody"

matt_72
Member

[quote comment=”137601″]matt – i’m not arguing the merits of the wetlands restoration directly. It may be that it doesn’t stimulate the economy at all in California. You may be correct. I’m just laughing at the way it was falsely catogorized as spending $30 million on mice. If you want to debate whether or not $30 million should be included for a wetlands restoration project in California, that’s one conversation, but the people pointing it out as a waste shouldn’t use lies to prove it is a waste.

Fact is – it’s money being spent on a project. That project will have employees – construction workers, planners, architects, etc – just like a bridge, tunnel, road, sewer, building, etc would. Now – maybe it doesn’t create many jobs. Maybe making improvements to a Cailfornia railroad or a road is $30 million spent better, but that’s not what I was making fun of.

I don’t know if spending $30 million on wetlands project adds/saves jobs.[/quote]

I think you missed my point. Spending on stuff like this doesn’t belong in a stimulus bill. It belongs in a bill dealing w/ the environment.

As for the jobs it will create, creating jobs in an unproductive manner doesn’t stimulate the economy. It would be more productive to pay people to do nothing b/c at least then they could use their free time productively. Comprende?

bradykp
Member
bradykp

matt – i’m not arguing the merits of the wetlands restoration directly. It may be that it doesn’t stimulate the economy at all in California. You may be correct. I’m just laughing at the way it was falsely catogorized as spending $30 million on mice. If you want to debate whether or not $30 million should be included for a wetlands restoration project in California, that’s one conversation, but the people pointing it out as a waste shouldn’t use lies to prove it is a waste.

Fact is – it’s money being spent on a project. That project will have employees – construction workers, planners, architects, etc – just like a bridge, tunnel, road, sewer, building, etc would. Now – maybe it doesn’t create many jobs. Maybe making improvements to a Cailfornia railroad or a road is $30 million spent better, but that’s not what I was making fun of.

I don’t know if spending $30 million on wetlands project adds/saves jobs.

matt_72
Member
[quote comment=”137571″][quote comment=”136030″] $30 million for little rats in San Francisco to billions for pumping out thank you notes to the ACORN fraudsters and every political IOU in-between.[/quote] i was a big fan of the Senator that got up in response to the Senator that complained about $30 million for mice. His response – while holding up the printed bill, he asked the Senator to show him the page where there was $30 million for mice. Of course, the Senator couldn’t show him, cause that’s not what the $30 million was for. The $30 million was for restoring wetlands in California (maybe it’s pork or maybe it’s the “infrastructure” spending they spoke about putting in the stimulus bill) which happen to be the home of various animals. Whether it should be done or not is the same as saying should we spend money on repaving roads in some other state, or spend money on sewer pumps in Hoboken, or maybe new parks in Ohio, or whatever else they chose as the infrastructure projects.[/quote] Since when is creating habitat (wetlands) for a mouse creating infrastructure? And since when does spending money on stuff like this stimulate the economy? If you want to stimulate the economy, you actually have to spend the money in such a way that the government spending is MORE productive than leaving it in the hands of taxpayers. Spending money on a wetlands improvement project that won’t at all be beneficial to the economy (except to the extent… Read more »
bradykp
Member
bradykp

[quote comment=”137580″][quote comment=”137572″][quote comment=”136072″]Nice thud.

1. Not one Congress person read the gigantic spending bill

2. Pelosi broke her promise to allow Americans 48 hours to read the spending bill (you know, so we can tell our Congressional representatives how we feel about it – since that is the kind of government we have.

3. They made it a PDF document (as YipYap brought up in another thread) to make it impossible to perform a keyword search.

Where’s all this transparency promised? And is this the change talked about?[/quote]

when i review PDFs i use keyword searches – how did they disable that?[/quote]
Brady- depends on how it was saved. If you convert from word to pdf file then it can be searched. However, if you scan the document into a scanner and save as a pdf it cannot be searched.[/quote]

i scan documents in with our office scanner all the time and search them. In fact, when clients give us hard copy documentation, we scan it in as a PDF so that we can review them for specific things more easily. Then if we want to, we use the text selector that Acrobat has to copy text we want to quote when we’re documenting a process.

PDFs are fully searchable.

Katie_Scarlett
Member

ps- There are other ways, I’m sure. That’s just the way I know to prevent searches.

wpDiscuz