New Math: Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist

Well, I actually clicked through on the website, have you done this yet? Yes? No?

You have to click through several levels to even find the breakdown by congressional district once you get to a state level , and it very much seems like a typo to me. The individual grants are not done by "congressional district" - I believe they are done by agency/program. All of the grants to connecticut, for example, do not appear to be ruses despite some obvious Typos in the congressional districts (there is no 00 district in connecticut I don't think).

Accounting by congressional district obviously can be very tricky. For example, the biggest grant to Connecticutt is to the state DOT. Obviously this is for roads. Now how do you account for this? does this all get accounted to Hartford, wheere the state DOT is located? Or does it go to where the individual roads are in each congressional district? And more importantly why does it matter how that is accounted for, presuming that the DOT uses the funds to build roads somewhere in CT.

Yes, it is my position. Though, I wish it had been delivered more quickly and the total amount of spending had been higher.

To put it in macroeconomic terms, the economy is 1.x * 300 billion better off than it would have been otherwise. That's not really even disputable.

Jobs are indeed being created and not eliminated. Is it enough to counteract job losses on a net basis? No...I'd rather that there be more. But better something than nothing. Why don't you elaborate on how having even more jobs be eliminated would help the economy? I find that truly confusing.

 

Are you really that naive? You think all of the "mistakes" were typos. This seems like too many to me to simply be typos

 

The beauty of math is that it works exactly the same everywhere.

 

And let me guess - you haven't gone to the site either.

With all of this open and obvious subterfuge, it should only be a matter of time before you expose the chicanery. I eagerly await your proffer of evidence.

 

Yes, I have. There are 8 congressional districts in Arizona, yet this site accounts for 22, 14 of which do not exist. How do you account for that. Why are districts 86, 40, 9, 15, 00, 78, 38, 11, 29, 36, 50, 52, 25, and 18 mentioned on the list?

 

Connecticut appears to mention a number of those same districts too, most of which don't exist (specifically, 86, 00, 9). Indeed I put that in my previous post.

Typo/glitch or sinister conspiracy?

I still await your proffer of evidence regarding the latter. Please elaborate.

 

people harping on this are like people who harp on Al Gore supposedly saying he created the internet. Its more of a joke than anything else, in the age of twenty four hour news coverage, i would think biden's gaffe's every now and then (and this really isn't a gaffe) would be less focused on.

Has anyone lied in the administration about the overall unemployment numbers? Even if the administration deliberately lied on this web site, everyone knows the unemployment number has gone up and is above 10%.

I know the strategy on this board is for conservatives to act like they held the same standards for Bush, but its hilarious that Obama tries to hold his admin accountable and the conservatives complain about the higher standards

 

I would say it was a typo if the amount of jobs created and money going into those districts were the same for the non-exsistant ones that appear in numerous states (86, 00, etc.) but they are all different. In Arizona, you are saying that there are more typos (14) than existing districts (8). These seem like quite drastic typos to me.

 

Is the strategy for the liberals on this board to act like they hold Obama to the same standards as they held Bush to? It's done from both sides, don't act like it isn't.

 

So you are saying that there is a deliberate conspiracy, in which clearly fake congressional districts are being fabricated in order to cover up fraud and misappropriation, which was just now discovered....rather than it being difficult to fold in hundreds of thousands of data points from various sources into a spreadsheet and having it display perfectly on a website with zero glitches, malfunctions, or typos, whether human, programmatic, bad data, or otherwise.

Again where is your evidence? Are these "00" congressional districts just Obama's Swiss bank account?

Nobody has yet to be able to answer my question as to why dividing up appropriations by congressional district actually matters - as far as I know, I don't believe government appropriations are done on a "district by district" bassis rather than on a project by project basis.

Can you explain to me why it is important?

 

I'm saying that this looks pretty suspicious. This seems to have way too many mistakes to simply chalk it up to a typo. Are really not even questioning this issue? You are just going to ignore the numerous numbers on the website?

 

Its funny to see "conservatives" on this board act like

a) "liberals" don't complain about Obama as Glynch has on Afghanistan, as a number have on wire tapping, not going prosecuting the previous administration, etc.

and b) just because "liberals" don't complain about the nonsense "conservatives" complain about such as bowing, "conservatives" believe "liberals" are giving Obama a free ride

 

It is only important to this article because more than half of the listed districts seem to not exist.

 

I'm asking you why it matters if appropriations are not done on a district-by-district basis.

You haven't explained why that matters if the accounting/appropriation is not performed on that basis.

If I give the state of Texas Department of Education 1 million dollars to a project, and a website later mistakenly displays that the Department of Education was in the 00 congressional district - what does it matter if that's not the way the accounting is performed or the appropriation was made?

 

It matters because one the website IT APPEARS THAT THEY ARE GIVING HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO DISTRICTS DO NOT EXIST.

I do not know why the government is keeping a statistic of this but they are. Why does that even matter at all?

 

If it "appears" that way and they are actually not - what does it matter? All the specific projects are listed on the site. Why don't you point out the fraudulent ones for me?

Probably so congressmen can brag about how much $$$ they are bringing home - it's otherwise quite meaningless.

 

It wouldn't, but how do you know they are not? The only evidence I see is that they are. You have nothing supporting your claim

 

No, I don't have firsthand knowledge, nor do you; basically I made a bunch of pretty logical assumptions regarding a complex set of facts.

I'm pretty confident in them.

How confident are you in your conspiracy theory? Do you want to go BBS sig bet or something?

 

you mean the conspiracy that the gov't mishandled and or gave away stimulus funds and posted on a web site publicly how they mishandled or maybe even just gave them away as if no one would actually notice on the web site

 

You're a joke. I am simply reading the government website and I have suspicions about it. I have never ONCE mentioned "conspiracy" as you have several times. I would simply love to hear an explanation of these non-existent districts from the government.