Hmmm. So according to Gothamist New York receives 28 billion while states like NC received only 6 billion? What gives? NC's population is roughly 60% that of NY so it's obviously not population based.

This data wasn't based on the final bill, but gives some indication of the breakdowns (note the total isn't $787 billion because certain parts of the bill could not be included in the analysis.. read the methodology for more info).

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/01/house_stimulus_overview.html

There is a link at the bottom to an excel spreadsheet. On a %GSP (gross state product) basis, NC is getting slightly more than NY, but again I emphasize that this analysis was not based on the final bill, nor do I claim that this is the right or wrong way to compare stimulus payouts by state.

Thanks, Politburo.

I believe it's a combination of having two NY senators and the fact that NY State has traditionally contributed a lot to the nation's economy.

Wouldn't the 2nd Ave subway be a perfect stimulus project?

The 2nd Ave subway line would extend the nation's largest mass transit system and decrease the need for Middle Eastern oil. That's a plus for the enviroment, regional development, national security and our balance of payments (less money sent abroad for imported oil). The multiplier effect of these construction jobs will benefit the entire metro area.

Phase I has already been budgeted and is already in construction phase. Phases II+ are still in engineering, so they are not "shovel ready" and therefore do not qualify as stimulus projects.

I don't see how the 2nd Ave. subway is going to "stimulate" the economy. The best stimulus projects are ones the encourage additional investment or economic activity by others. Thats why people keep bringing up the interstate highway spending in the 1950s. The government built the highways but the developers built houses in the suburbs and people bought more cars. Business could move goods quicker and cheaper. That said, what's the subway going to do? Spur more condo development on the UES? The place is already crowded yet people manage to get to work. I think it would have been better to build subways in parts of Queens where people either take a bus to the train or drive to Manhattan.

I didn't argue that the 2nd Ave Subway would (or would not) be stimulative, but as I understand, the main point of the package is to keep people employed. Keeping them employed would keep them spending, and that spending could result in additional investment or economic activity by others (to compete for those spending dollars). Again, I'm no economist and I don't claim that this will actually occur. That's just how it's been explained to me.

I should have replied to TimSPC as to whether the subway is stimulative or not or to what degree. I would say the subway is money better spent than resodding the National Mall or building an Ultimate Frisbie course in Austin, Texas (proposed - not actually in the bill). But Bottomless Chips asks a valid question as to what happens when the projects are completed. Again, the subway is not the bridge to nowhere but will it spur more economic activity?

Theoretically, it would spur economic activity after completion by allowing for better access to commerce on the East Side.

The East Side is primarily residential with the exception of museums (mostly on Fifth) and medical (centered on York). Not to be overly argumentative but the subway isn't going to do much to spur further commercial activity. And it's almost always spun as a way to alleviate crowding on the 4-5-6 lines. I could see if someone wanted to claim that the crowded trains discouraged development but I don't see that that has happened.

Unfortunately, I don't have the answer to your question.

And my understanding is that no one does, which is what makes this such a fearful and uncertain time. But, again as I understand, this is routine for economic slowdowns. When you're in the middle, you don't know what's going to pull you out. As an example, who knew in the early 90s that the internet would come along and have the impact that it did?

Of course, but it isn't going to gain any upstate votes.

They then start on a ten year repair project of the same bridge. The circle of life is complete.

Aside from the obvious, like not having a bridge collapse, you would have in general more efficient use of transportation. Truck transport of goods, for example, will flow a little faster -saving time and money that would have been spend on fuel. The savings on each individual trip might not be much but the savings become meaningful when aggregated over a huge number of trips.

The same thing is true for mass transit. If a train car breaks down ten percent less often the MTA will (theoretically, this is the MTA) save huge amounts of money in avoided repairs over the long term.

Sarcasm. It doesn't "stimulate" anything.

And after the bridges are built--granted which may take 25 years at the pace unionized, state workers go--what happens then?

Is productivity increased because a road is repaired or road built that those workers will then have 1000s of projects to work on after they repair the roads---which is what New York State should have been doing in the first place?

Obama has always said the main goal of the stimulus is to 'save or create' 3 million jobs, not to increase productivity. As I understand the thinking behind it (which is certainly open to criticism), the stimulus spending is meant to maintain the economy until the private sector gets moving again. While productivity is an important economic indicator, it doesn't seem relevant to focus on it at this point in time. But I'm no economist, so who knows.

There's also a debate as to whether productivity has been artificially inflated over the past 5 years or so. For example: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_25/b4039001.htm

Obama has always said the main goal of the stimulus is to 'save or create' 3 million jobs, not to increase productivity. As I understand the thinking behind it (which is certainly open to criticism), the stimulus spending is meant to maintain the economy until the private sector gets moving again. While productivity is an important economic indicator, it doesn't seem relevant to focus on it at this point in time. But I'm no economist, so who knows.

There's also a debate as to whether productivity has been artificially inflated over the past 5 years or so. For example: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_25/b4039001.htm

How they will quantify jobs they saved seemed a bit disingenuous to me, first off.

But if you're going to call it a stimulus instead of a bailout/spending package, it should be focused on increasing productivity.

Granted, I'm an Austrian who firmly believes that increased production comes from savings.

I feel like you may be of the Keynesian school as you claim that productive jobs are of less importance and that saving or creating jobs is more important. I disagree with JM Keynes and his banknote bottle jobs theory.

http://books.google.com/books?id=LlwH4tXQWYUC&pg=PA129&dq=%22fill+old+bottles+with+banknotes%22&num=50