Tuesday, December 15, 2009


So, I was listening to several radio programs and tv shows the past few days where they were discussing the pork spending in this next stimulus-type bill. I can't confirm the details right now, but they all seemed to mention the same lists. One in particular was about 1.5 million dollars to get rid of the smell of manure in Iowa. Huh? There are others like park benches in Georgetown. My first thought was that those should be state or municipal needs, not something to be covered in a federal bill (but then again, most things are state aren't they?).

But then I got to thinking - if they want to use multibillions of dollars to stimulate the economy - why don't they buy homeless and very poor people homes? I would rather my tax dollars went to housing a family than to a giant bottle of air freshener being sprayed over Iowa.

Now, just so you know, I don't actually think that the home-buying should be done. BUT if they are going to go ahead and push these bills through and ignore what Americans want, why don't they put it to something hugely humanitarian like buying homes for poor and needy people? Buy a condo, a small home, a decent clean home and then whatever they earn can be used to buy Goods and Services instead of largely going to the rental of the roof over their head. Or for homeless who cannot get a decent job because they are 'of no fixed address', they can finally get back on their feet and get a good job and start contributing to the economy again. Wouldn't that do a HUGE thing for the US and it's citizens?

But no, they will NEVER do that so you really have to question their motives when you see billions and billions of dollars of stimulus money going to businesses instead of people. This is just for you people out there who support this to think about. Wouldn't it make a much bigger difference to the people and the economy if the money was used to buy homes? Why would you support buying new park benches in Georgetown, when the money would be very well appreciated by the homeless family in the next town who actually SLEEPS on a park bench? Seriously... would that not boost the economy? Sell all the homes that are having trouble shifting in today's market, give people the chance to actually make it in this world without having to worry about making their rent - they can buy things to actually put IN the house instead. They can go out for dinner, they can pay their utilities, etc.

Again, I don't actually think that is the answer either because so many people would abuse this (although a hell of a lot would greatly appreciate it and do well). But it baffles me that people jump up and down about stimulus money and cheer for it - when it isn't going to help most needy families out there. Not one bit. The whole thing is such a farce.


  1. They have already given billions of dollars to buy hones for the poor. They did it in 1995, when they passed the amendments to the Community Reinvestment Act. These amendments forced banks to give large numbers of loans to home buyers who could not repay the loans.

  2. Ah yes, they did that but the catch was, people had to pay it back and that did not work very well ;)

    Again, I don't actually think that buying everyone a home is the answer but I was watching a few things last night on MSNBC where naysayers of the various stimulas packages were being chastised. So then I thought 'who in their right mind thinks these packages will really help those most in need???'. And my ideas went from there.

    My point - it's not about stimulating anything. It's about distributing hard earned tax payer dollars wherever they see fit. No matter what anyone else (including those very tax payers) thinks. How can the supporters of this not see through that??



These are my views and opinions. If you don't agree or think I am sadly misguided, that is your view. Feel free to share your thoughts but I also reserve my right to moderate content (IE foul language, excessive flaming, etc).