Debunking the Stimulus Myth: Only 3% Allotted for Infrastructure

[red states rule]

Wel another liberal talking point has bit the dust. So much for Dems wanting to salvage America's crumbling infrastructure.

Will they blame Pres Bush for this as well?


snip

The total size of the plan is about $750 to $800 billion - roughly $300 billion is for tax cuts for businesses and individuals," CBS correspondent Chip Reid said on CBS's Jan. 12 "The Early Show." "The rest will be spent on everything from roads and bridges to renewable energy to create three to 4 million jobs. Republicans are raising red flags about the amount of spending."

The recent proposal distributed by congressional Democrats will provide only an additional $15 billion in 2009 and 2010 for road construction and repair. And of that $30 billion total provided, some funds are earmarked for narrow uses such as technology training or construction of roads on Indian reservations and in national parks.

According to those calculations, that's just a little more than 3 percent meant to be spent on actual road and bridge construction. Compare that $30 billion allocated in this bill to the most expensive road project in U.S. history - the infamous "Big Dig" of Massachusetts. The final tally puts the cost of this road project to $15 billion and estimates say it will end up costing $22 billion by the year 2038. The $30 billion in this package would just be enough to cover the costs of that one project and a few smaller plans.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/01/23/debunking-stimulus-myth-only-3-allotted-road-bridge-spending

and

http://www.readthestimulus.org/

[5stringJeff]

Government spending cannot "stimulate" the economy. Every dollar government spends is either taken through taxation or borrowed at the cheapening of the dollar.

[red states rule]

Government spending cannot "stimulate" the economy. Every dollar government spends is either taken through taxation or borrowed at the cheapening of the dollar.

On that we agree

Dems are going to pour a few more trillion of tax payer dollars down the drain

[Joe Steel]

Government spending cannot "stimulate" the economy. Every dollar government spends is either taken through taxation or borrowed at the cheapening of the dollar.

Nonsense.

Taking money from those who won't spend and giving it to those who will spend is good policy and will make the economy soar.

[red states rule]

Nonsense.

Taking money from those who won't spend and giving it to those who will spend is good policy and will make the economy soar.

So government can spend YOUR money better then you can Joe? How often do you send a check in to the Feds Joe?

[stephanie]

Nonsense.

Taking money from those who won't spend and giving it to those who will spend is good policy and will make the economy soar.

wouldn't a Goverment taking of other peoples money who WORK, and giving it to others who DON'T WORK, be called Comminism?

[red states rule]

wouldn't a Goverment taking of other peoples money who WORK, and giving it to others who DON'T WORK, be called Comminism?

No, it is called Obama's "tax cuts"

[Trigg]

wouldn't a Goverment taking of other peoples money who WORK, and giving it to others who DON'T WORK, be called Comminism?


Joe would love to see this country go communist.

[red states rule]

And check out how some mof the money is being spent

In a conference call on Jan. 23, House Minority Whip Rep. Eric Cantor and Hensarling pointed out some of the more egregious spending provisions in the House Democrat proposal:

For every dollar that is spent for small business tax relief, $4 are being spent for the maintenance and new grass in Washington, D.C.

$360 million for sexually transmitted disease education

$50 million for the National Endowment of Arts

$726 million for an afterschool snack program


So Dems want $726 million for an afterschool snack program. Hell, the liberal media have been telling us how fat our kids are :laugh2:

[manu1959]

Nonsense.

Taking money from those who won't spend and giving it to those who will spend is good policy and will make the economy soar.

please cite 3 examples of this working....

[Joe Steel]

So government can spend YOUR money better then you can Joe? How often do you send a check in to the Feds Joe?

In some circumstances, yes.

Recessions are caused by a lack of spending. The cure is spending. Consumers aren't spending so someone must.

When the government spends and the recession ends.

[Joe Steel]

wouldn't a Goverment taking of other peoples money who WORK, and giving it to others who DON'T WORK, be called Comminism?

No.

It's called an constitutional power of the United States Congress.

[red states rule]

In some circumstances, yes.

Recessions are caused by a lack of spending. The cure is spending. Consumers aren't spending so someone must.

When the government spends and the recession ends.

Try cutting taxes across the board, people have more money in their pockets, and they will spend it much better then the government

But perhaps the Dems can add a few billion for some extra printing presses so they can print that money you want them to spend

[Joe Steel]

And check out how some mof the money is being spent

In a conference call on Jan. 23, House Minority Whip Rep. Eric Cantor and Hensarling pointed out some of the more egregious spending provisions in the House Democrat proposal:

For every dollar that is spent for small business tax relief, $4 are being spent for the maintenance and new grass in Washington, D.C.

$360 million for sexually transmitted disease education

$50 million for the National Endowment of Arts

$726 million for an afterschool snack program

So Dems want $726 million for an afterschool snack program. Hell, the liberal media have been telling us how fat our kids are

These are excellent choices. They seem to be going to low-income individuals who almost certainly will spend every penny they receive. That's the whole point; spending.

[Joe Steel]

please cite 3 examples of this working....

One of the best is the Great Depression. Government spending on WWII ended it.

[red states rule]

These are excellent choices. They seem to be going to low-income individuals who almost certainly will spend every penny they receive. That's the whole point; spending.

Excellent choices if you love pork. Our hard earned dollard bieing pissed thorugh by spend thrift liberals who are doing nothing but buying votes with our money

[red states rule]

One of the best is the Great Depression. Government spending on WWII ended it.

But 13 years of big government social programs did not. FDR's New Deal only prolonged the Great Depression

[Joe Steel]

Try cutting taxes across the board, people have more money in their pockets, and they will spend it much better then the government

Nope. They won't. That's why we have recessions. They don't spend money.

[red states rule]

Nope. They won't. That's why we have recessions. They don't spend money.

Lets see... Under Jimmy Carter the top tax rate was 70% - and we had one of thw worst recession in my lifetime

Double digit inflation

Prime rate of 21%

Near double digit unemployment

Gas lines around the block

The economy was much nworse then it is today

[Joe Steel]

Excellent choices if you love pork. Our hard earned dollard bieing pissed thorugh by spend thrift liberals who are doing nothing but buying votes with our money

The object of the spending, pork or otherwise, doesn't matter. All that matters is spending.

[red states rule]

The object of the spending, pork or otherwise, doesn't matter. All that matters is spending.

Spending ourselves into prosperity with money we do not have will leave a sad pile of debt for generations of Americans to come.

This is the cure for being in a mess because we spent money we did not have?

Reminds me of a gambler in Vegas who keeps putting more money in the pot so he can break out even

[Joe Steel]

But 13 years of big government social programs did not. FDR's New Deal only prolonged the Great Depression

Nonsense.

You've got to stop listening to hate radio.

The New Deal was working until Roosevelt listened to conservatives:


...the right bases its New Deal revisionism on the short-lived recession in a year straddling 1937 and 1938. But that was four years into Roosevelt's term — four years marked by spectacular economic growth. Additionally, the fleeting decline happened not because of the New Deal's spending programs, but because Roosevelt momentarily listened to conservatives and backed off them. As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman notes, in 1937-38, FDR "was persuaded to balance the budget" and "cut spending and the economy went back down again."

FDR Prolonged the Depression? Really? (http://www.creators.com/opinion/david-sirota/fdr-prolonged-the-depression-really.html)

[Joe Steel]

Spending ourselves into prosperity with money we do not have will leave a sad pile of debt for generations of Americans to come.

This is the cure for being in a mess because we spent money we did not have?

Reminds me of a gambler in Vegas who keeps putting more money in the pot so he can break out even

We're in a mess because of Bush's bungling. His policies created the recession.

[red states rule]

Nonsense.

You've got to stop listening to hate radio.

The New Deal was working until Roosevelt listened to conservatives:

and what was the unemployment rate and overall condition of the economy on Dec 6. 1941?

Joe, I do not listen to Dead Air America - as with most of the country

[red states rule]

We're in a mess because of Bush's bungling. His policies created the recession.

Joe, it was Dems who said there was no issue with Fannie and Freddie

It was Dems who blocked all reform efforts to tighten lending requirements

It has been Dems who have controlled government spending for the last 2 years

[Joe Steel]

and what was the unemployment rate and overall condition of the economy on Dec 6. 1941?

Joe, I do not listen to Dead Air America - as with most of the country

Not as good as 1941, perhaps, but better than 1933.


..."Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt's first two terms (while) the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent," writes University of California historian Eric Rauchway.

op cit

[Kathianne]

We're in a mess because of Bush's bungling. His policies created the recession.

So you are saying Obama is 'channeling Bush,' less than a week out? Weird.

[Joe Steel]

Joe, it was Dems who said there was no issue with Fannie and Freddie

It was Dems who blocked all reform efforts to tighten lending requirements

It has been Dems who have controlled government spending for the last 2 years

Nonsense.

Republican obstructionism and a Republican president had significant control.

Secondly, Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the recession. In fact, their not even remotely responsible for our sub-prime problem. That's a myth of hate radio.

[Joe Steel]

So you are saying Obama is 'channeling Bush,' less than a week out? Weird.

I don't recall saying that. Perhaps you could show me where.

[red states rule]

Nonsense.

Republican obstructionism and a Republican president had significant control.

Secondly, Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the recession. In fact, their not even remotely responsible for our sub-prime problem. That's a myth of hate radio.

Joe, you are not a very good liar


First from the New York Times: Note the date!

September 11, 2003– The Bush Administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry,

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

[Trigg]

Nonsense.

Republican obstructionism and a Republican president had significant control.

Secondly, Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the recession. In fact, their not even remotely responsible for our sub-prime problem. That's a myth of hate radio.

You have got to be kidding....sadly your not


Freddie and Fannie and many banking institutions gave HIGH risk mortgages to people who should never have been loaned to. When gas prices went through the roof people who had been struggling started to go under. From there EVERYTHING got more and more expensive as businesses increased their prices.
When things got tight reasonable people tightened their belts and spent less money. (How many people here stopped buying or eating out as much when gas was $4.15 I know I did).

Months of sky high gas prices and much less spending by consumers led to this recession. The gov. printing money will only lead to inflation and once again less spending by the consumers.

IMHO the gov. needs to stay out of it. Prices are down, gas is down, people with stable incomes will start spending again and our economy will improve.

[Joe Steel]

Joe, you are not a very good liar

First from the New York Times: Note the date!

September 11, 2003– The Bush Administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry,

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

What's your point?

Certainly you're not suggesting Bush wouldn't do anything only for political reasons, are you?

[Joe Steel]

You have got to be kidding....sadly your not

Freddie and Fannie and many banking institutions gave HIGH risk mortgages to people who should never have been loaned to.

Nope.

Almost sixty percent of sub prime mortgages went to persons who could have qualified under normal lending practices. They defaulted because the economy was crashing and they couldn't afford any loan even the good loans they could have had.

The failing economy was caused by Bush's rigging the it to favor of the already affluent. That led to the mortgage crisis.

[5stringJeff]

Nonsense.

Taking money from those who won't spend and giving it to those who will spend is good policy and will make the economy soar.

First of all, the money is not the State's to decide what to do with it. Secondly, if the money isn't currently being spent, it's being saved, which means that banks get to loan that money out. And, given our fractional reserve system, banks get to loan out $10 for every dollar in deposits. Saving is an actual stimulus, whereas confiscatory taxes hurt the economy.

[DragonStryk72]

Wel another liberal talking point has bit the dust. So much for Dems wanting to salvage America's crumbling infrastructure.

Will they blame Pres Bush for this as well?


snip

The total size of the plan is about $750 to $800 billion - roughly $300 billion is for tax cuts for businesses and individuals," CBS correspondent Chip Reid said on CBS's Jan. 12 "The Early Show." "The rest will be spent on everything from roads and bridges to renewable energy to create three to 4 million jobs. Republicans are raising red flags about the amount of spending."

The recent proposal distributed by congressional Democrats will provide only an additional $15 billion in 2009 and 2010 for road construction and repair. And of that $30 billion total provided, some funds are earmarked for narrow uses such as technology training or construction of roads on Indian reservations and in national parks.

According to those calculations, that's just a little more than 3 percent meant to be spent on actual road and bridge construction. Compare that $30 billion allocated in this bill to the most expensive road project in U.S. history - the infamous "Big Dig" of Massachusetts. The final tally puts the cost of this road project to $15 billion and estimates say it will end up costing $22 billion by the year 2038. The $30 billion in this package would just be enough to cover the costs of that one project and a few smaller plans.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/01/23/debunking-stimulus-myth-only-3-allotted-road-bridge-spending

and

http://www.readthestimulus.org/

Oh thank god, we need to lose some of that shit, seriously.The other part of me goes, "You threw $800 trillion at it, didn't attach any strings at all to the money, and you expected some other occurrence?"

[Joe Steel]

First of all, the money is not the State's to decide what to do with it. Secondly, if the money isn't currently being spent, it's being saved, which means that banks get to loan that money out. And, given our fractional reserve system, banks get to loan out $10 for every dollar in deposits. Saving is an actual stimulus, whereas confiscatory taxes hurt the economy.


If you've been paying attention, you know one of the reasons we're in trouble is banks' refusal to lend. Secondly, even if they were lending, they might not be lending in the US. They could be lending to foreigners.

The only way to guarantee US spending increases is government control.

[Trigg]

If you've been paying attention, you know one of the reasons we're in trouble is banks' refusal to lend. Secondly, even if they were lending, they might not be lending in the US. They could be lending to foreigners.

The only way to guarantee US spending increases is government control.


Banks are lending......to people with GOOD credit. That's the way it should be.

This problem has been in the making for a good 10 years. Banks were giving credit cards to everyone and their dog, in the case of Bank of America they were giving credit to illegals. The banks did this to themselves and these kinds of risky mortgages and "loan to anyone" days should be stopped.

[5stringJeff]

If you've been paying attention, you know one of the reasons we're in trouble is banks' refusal to lend. Secondly, even if they were lending, they might not be lending in the US. They could be lending to foreigners.

The only way to guarantee US spending increases is government control.

Someone once said, "it's pointless to argue with someone you have to educate first." So this may be pointless, but let me try to educate you:

Banks are lending. However, they're not handing out money left and right like they were during the housing bubble. They're lending to people who are not credit risks. They're lending to people who they think will pay it back. That keeps "toxic assets" off their books, and makes them healthier all around.

Whether or not banks are lending in the US is irrelevant. If they're lending, they're getting interest, which goes to pay the salaries of US bank employees.

Moreover, the entire premise of US consumer spending having to be maintained at current levels is a farce. If people want to improve their financial situation, they should start using their extra cash to pay off debt, not to go buy more consumer items. When the American consumer gets his own financial house in order by retiring debt, he can purchase consumer goods without adding to his debt, which is good for everyone.

[DragonStryk72]

Someone once said, "it's pointless to argue with someone you have to educate first." So this may be pointless, but let me try to educate you:

Banks are lending. However, they're not handing out money left and right like they were during the housing bubble. They're lending to people who are not credit risks. They're lending to people who they think will pay it back. That keeps "toxic assets" off their books, and makes them healthier all around.

Whether or not banks are lending in the US is irrelevant. If they're lending, they're getting interest, which goes to pay the salaries of US bank employees.

Moreover, the entire premise of US consumer spending having to be maintained at current levels is a farce. If people want to improve their financial situation, they should start using their extra cash to pay off debt, not to go buy more consumer items. When the American consumer gets his own financial house in order by retiring debt, he can purchase consumer goods without adding to his debt, which is good for everyone.

Aw, damn it, how could you use basic sense? You know, you've killed the whole thread now, right?

[red states rule]

Here is more on how our tax money is going to be spent. This is looking like nothing more then a Dem pork fest


A Look At Obama’s Pork-Riddled Economic Stimulus Bill

By Rob on December 26, 2008 at 04:41 pm

A few days ago I posted about the city of Grand Forks already earmarking their portion of Obama’s “economic stimulus” behemoth noting that they want to spend it on CFL light bulbs and homeless shelters. As it turns out, Grand Forks’ request was just part of a national effort by the nation’s mayors to get some tasty, tasty pork from Obama.

All together, the mayors have requested $73 billion in pork for things like fitness centers and tennis facilities.

Oh and halls of fame. Yes. That’s plural.

By all accounts, the $73 billion wish list may be the largest collection of parochial spending projects in American history. Strolling through the 800 pages, we found such beauties as: $1 million to upgrade the Los Angeles County Convention Center elevated “catwalk” for cameras and lighting; $350,000 for an Albuquerque, N.M., fitness center; $94 million for a parking garage at the Orange Bowl in Miami; $4.5 million for Gretna, Florida, to bottle water with recyclable bottles; a $35 million music hall of fame in Florissant, Missouri, and $3.1 million for a swimming pool in Tulsa.

Oh, and desperate Santa Barbara, Calif., respectfully requests $80,000 for a tennis facility; Savannah, Georgia, would like to build a children’s museum; Ventura, Calif., wants $6 million to renovate the beach at Surfers Point, and Durham, N.C., home of the Durham Bulls, wants to construct the first Minor League Baseball Hall of Fame. Dayton, Ohio, wants $1.5 million to reduce prostitution with education programs, and Ponce, Puerto Rico wants $5.7 million to improve its cruise ship terminal (which will create all of 60 jobs).

Are we really supposed to believe that the path to economic recovery in America lays with pork spending? If that’s true, we should have kept Senator Ted Stevens in office. If government spending on earmarks are what’s going to stimulate this economy why not let Stevens build 1,000 bridges to nowhere and then sit back and enjoy the prosperity?

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/a_look_at_obamas_pork_riddled_economic_stimulus_bi ll/

[5stringJeff]

Aw, damn it, how could you use basic sense? You know, you've killed the whole thread now, right?

That must be why they don't use common sense in government meetings... everyone would be out of a job!

[Joe Steel]

Someone once said, "it's pointless to argue with someone you have to educate first."

Don't I know it!

I don't know why I try.


So this may be pointless, but let me try to educate you:

Banks are lending. However, they're not handing out money left and right like they were during the housing bubble. They're lending to people who are not credit risks. They're lending to people who they think will pay it back. That keeps "toxic assets" off their books, and makes them healthier all around.

Whether or not banks are lending in the US is irrelevant. If they're lending, they're getting interest, which goes to pay the salaries of US bank employees.

Moreover, the entire premise of US consumer spending having to be maintained at current levels is a farce. If people want to improve their financial situation, they should start using their extra cash to pay off debt, not to go buy more consumer items. When the American consumer gets his own financial house in order by retiring debt, he can purchase consumer goods without adding to his debt, which is good for everyone.

Nonsense.

Stimulating the economy involved spending.

Think about that. Try hard.

[5stringJeff]

Nonsense.

Stimulating the economy involved spending.

Think about that. Try hard.

And since private citizens already have money (the government has no money of its own), they are in the best position to know what to do with it. What's best for the individuals that make up society is best for society.

And, if spending, spending, spending is the only thing that matters, why shouldn't the government just wipe everyone's debt slate clean? That way, there's no mortgages to worry about, no credit card debt - everyone's got a clean slate! Credit cards would effectively be limitless! What a spending utopia that would be!

[red states rule]

If you've been paying attention, you know one of the reasons we're in trouble is banks' refusal to lend. Secondly, even if they were lending, they might not be lending in the US. They could be lending to foreigners.

The only way to guarantee US spending increases is government control.

Damn Joe!!!

Looks like the banks are lending - but they are giving loans to people with GOOD CREDIT

Seems the economy is not as bad as liberals have been telling us


Jan. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Two measures of U.S. economic performance unexpectedly turned positive in December, in sharp contrast to the tens of thousands of firings announced by companies as diverse as Caterpillar Inc. and Sprint Nextel Corp.

The National Association of Realtors said sales of existing homes rose 6.5 percent to an annual rate of 4.74 million last month, propelled by the biggest slump in prices since the Great Depression. The Conference Board’s index of leading economic indicators increased 0.3 percent as the supply of money expanded.

Analysts said the indicators, while reflecting Federal Reserve and Treasury efforts to stave off a complete collapse of the economy, needed to be viewed against the backdrop of surging firings -- at least 74,000 announced today alone. The job losses, they said, may deepen the pullback in consumer spending and make banks more reluctant to lend, exacerbating what’s already the longest recession since 1982.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=au__wlfYnLhk&refer=home

[moderate democrat]

the staggering number of job losses seem to paint a different picture.

[emmett]

Nonsense.

Taking money from those who won't spend and giving it to those who will spend is good policy and will make the economy soar.


Why don't you send me your money and we'll see if your philosophy is true! My mattress has a couple of air pockets in it.

:laugh2:

[emmett]

If you've been paying attention, you know one of the reasons we're in trouble is banks' refusal to lend. Secondly, even if they were lending, they might not be lending in the US. They could be lending to foreigners.

The only way to guarantee US spending increases is government control.


Just say it Joe..... you mean socialism! Don't blow on your balls if they itch dude... scratch em!

[manu1959]

If you've been paying attention, you know one of the reasons we're in trouble is banks' refusal to lend. Secondly, even if they were lending, they might not be lending in the US. They could be lending to foreigners.

The only way to guarantee US spending increases is government control.

banks are lending i have two projects that are selling between 15 and 20 units a month and my buddy is still selling cars ......

what they are not doing is lending and selling to people that can't afford to pay......like acorn and the rest of the lending gestapo made everyone do .....

[red states rule]

the staggering number of job losses seem to paint a different picture.

Jobs are always the last part of the economy to recover. Point is, Dems and the liberal media have been telling us the banks are not lending and "hording" their money

[PostmodernProphet]

Nonsense.

Taking money from those who won't spend and giving it to those who will spend is good policy and will make the economy soar.

but that policy was already in place......people who didn't "spend" their money put it in banks and banks would give it to people who wanted to "spend" it......it's just that banks paid and charged interest for the right to be the middle man......

[MtnBiker]

Nonsense.

Taking money from those who won't spend and giving it to those who will spend is good policy and will make the economy soar.

Nonsense when this was posted. And even more so now.

[Sweetchuck]

Ok, who bought this guy a flux capacitor?

:laugh2:

[sybarite]

Ok, who bought this guy a flux capacitor?

:laugh2:

Nope, he doesn't have one of those! If he tries to get her up past 80 MPH in the school he's attending for the mentally challenged, he would hit the wall!