PDA

View Full Version : Economics $50 Billion More In Infrastructure Spending In The Works.......


Stinger
09-06-2010, 08:04 AM
Obama calling for more infrastructure spending

Sep 6, 8:33 AM (ET)

By JULIE PACE


WASHINGTON (AP) - Vowing to find new ways to stimulate the sputtering economy, President Barack Obama will call for long-term investments in the nation's roads, railways and runways that would cost at least $50 billion.

The infrastructure investments are one part of a package of targeted proposals the White House is expected to announce in hopes of jump-starting the economy ahead of the November election. Obama will outline the infrastructure proposal Monday at a Labor Day event in Milwaukee.

While the proposal calls for investments over six years, the White House said spending would be front-loaded with an initial $50 billion to help create jobs in the near future.

The goals of the infrastructure plan include: rebuilding 150,000 miles of roads; constructing and maintaining 4,000 miles of railways, enough to go coast-to-coast; and rehabilitating or reconstructing 150 miles of airport runways, while also installing a new air navigation system designed to reduce travel times and delays.

Obama will also call for the creation of a permanent infrastructure bank that would focus on funding national and regional infrastructure projects.

Administration officials wouldn't say what the total cost of the infrastructure investments would be, but did say the initial $50 billion represents a significant percentage. Officials said the White House would consider closing a number of special tax breaks for oil and gas companies to pay for the proposal.

Obama made infrastructure investments a central part of the $814 billion stimulus Congress passed last year, but with that spending winding down, the economy's growth has slowed. Officials said this infrastructure package differs from the stimulus because it's aimed at long-term growth, while still focusing on creating jobs in the short-term.

In a Labor Day interview on CBS'"Early Show," Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said the plan Obama was to unveil Monday would "put construction workers, welders, electricians back to work ... folks that have been unemployed for a long time."

With the unemployment rate ticking up to 9.6 percent, and polls showing the midterm elections could be dismal for Democrats, the president has promised to unveil a series of new measures on the economy.

In addition to Monday's announcement in Milwaukee, Obama will travel to Cleveland Wednesday to pitch a $100 billion proposal to increase and make permanent research and development tax credits for businesses, a White House official said.

While the idea is popular in Congress, coming up with offsetting tax increases or spending cuts has been a stumbling block. Similar to his proposal to pay for the infrastructure investments, Obama will ask lawmakers to close tax breaks for oil and gas companies and multinational corporations to pay for the plan.

Other stimulus measures the administration is considering include extending a law passed in March that exempts companies that hire unemployed workers from paying Social Security taxes on those workers through December. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has proposed extending the exemption an additional six months.

Obama is also continuing to prod the Senate to pass the small business bill that calls for about $12 billion in tax breaks and a $30 billion fund to help unfreeze lending. Republicans have likened the bill to the unpopular bailout of the financial industry. And the president wants to make permanent the portion of George W. Bush's tax cuts affecting the middle class.

Wary of the public's concern over rising deficits, the administration insists a second stimulus plan, similar to last year's $814 billion bill, is not in the works.

HonestChieffan
09-06-2010, 08:24 AM
Incredible. Simply incredible.

Ebolapox
09-06-2010, 08:55 AM
ya know, if we ACTUALLY had the cash for this, I'd consider this a good idea (our infrastructure is a joke in a lot of ways). since we obviously don't, it's fucking stupid.

Bwana
09-06-2010, 09:49 AM
I read about that earlier. Barry is a complete moron.

petegz28
09-06-2010, 10:02 AM
I thought the Stimulus was supposed to do all this? Is the OP admitting the Stimulus was spent with little if any long term vision???? Color me shocked!

mlyonsd
09-06-2010, 10:28 AM
Something like $24 million of the last stimulus pork orgy is being spent on an 8 mile stretch of new interstate that I drive every day.

They've had the concrete on one side completely torn out since July 1st. That's 9 weeks ago. Not only have they not poured one square inch yet, they haven't even begun constructing the machine they use to make concrete.

9 F'ing weeks.

Yeah Obama, you're brilliant. 50 billion more is just what we need.

Idiot.

Wyndex
09-06-2010, 10:34 AM
Jesus *facepalm*, thought we did this with that Road Recovery and Reinvestment bullshit going on in JOCO right

HonestChieffan
09-06-2010, 10:42 AM
Cleveland got sidewalks.

Thats Cleveland Missouri.

Look that up under pissed money away for Ike Skelton Votes.

petegz28
09-06-2010, 10:46 AM
Obviously his answer to everything is spend money we don't have.

HonestChieffan
09-06-2010, 10:48 AM
Obviously his answer to everything is spend money we don't have.


On Union projects....while wondering why small business is not hiring people madly....

go bowe
09-06-2010, 11:03 AM
On Union projects....while wondering why small business is not hiring people madly....one reason small businesses are not hiring people madly is that there is not much business these days...

the recession has depressed small businesses, along with most other segments of the economy, whodathunkit?

Saul Good
09-06-2010, 11:04 AM
Something like $24 million of the last stimulus pork orgy is being spent on an 8 mile stretch of new interstate that I drive every day.

They've had the concrete on one side completely torn out since July 1st. That's 9 weeks ago. Not only have they not poured one square inch yet, they haven't even begun constructing the machine they use to make concrete.

9 F'ing weeks.

Yeah Obama, you're brilliant. 50 billion more is just what we need.

Idiot.

You mean it wasn't shovel-ready?

HonestChieffan
09-06-2010, 11:12 AM
one reason small businesses are not hiring people madly is that there is not much business these days...

the recession has depressed small businesses, along with most other segments of the economy, whodathunkit?



Nawwwwww say it aint so

FD
09-06-2010, 12:12 PM
Great news. Should have done this a year ago.

Saul Good
09-06-2010, 12:14 PM
Great news. Should have done this a year ago.

Don't you mean a trillion dollars ago?

HonestChieffan
09-06-2010, 12:16 PM
Great news. Should have done this a year ago.


Can we hear why this is good and what result you anticipate to justify it?

Direckshun
09-06-2010, 12:16 PM
Great news. Should have done this a year ago.

That's about where I am.

This stuff is like catnip to the GDP. I don't know why this hasn't been goal #1A from the start of the administration.

HonestChieffan
09-06-2010, 12:19 PM
That's about where I am.

This stuff is like catnip to the GDP. I don't know why this hasn't been goal #1A from the start of the administration.


It sure has worked great

Direckshun
09-06-2010, 12:21 PM
It sure has worked great

What sure has worked great?

FD
09-06-2010, 12:30 PM
Can we hear why this is good and what result you anticipate to justify it?

Unemployment is still sky high due to the sustained lack of demand in the economy. By injecting this federal spending into the economy not only do we get improved roads, but a lot of construction workers get employed and the overall demand increases creating a lot more jobs elsewhere. Infrastructure spending probably has the highest multiplier effect on GDP and employment of any type of spending.

The initial stimulus bill created between 2-4.8 million jobs, which is great, but in hindsight we see that the bill was much too small for the recession we're in, so any new stimulus spending is positive. With capacity utilization remaining extremely low and deflation a serious risk, the more expansionary fiscal policy the better.

2bikemike
09-06-2010, 12:32 PM
Something like $24 million of the last stimulus pork orgy is being spent on an 8 mile stretch of new interstate that I drive every day.

They've had the concrete on one side completely torn out since July 1st. That's 9 weeks ago. Not only have they not poured one square inch yet, they haven't even begun constructing the machine they use to make concrete.

9 F'ing weeks.

Yeah Obama, you're brilliant. 50 billion more is just what we need.

Idiot.

We took a 7500 mile motorcycle trip around the country this summer. We probable saw 40 signs along the roadway talking about recovery act projects. They had pylons and barriers up. But there wasn's hardly a lick of work going on. We were kinda shocked at the amount projects that nobody was working on.

Deberg_1990
09-06-2010, 12:35 PM
The initial stimulus bill created between 2-4.8 million jobs

link please....

FD
09-06-2010, 12:36 PM
link please....

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11706/08-24-ARRA.pdf

Saul Good
09-06-2010, 12:43 PM
temporary jobs

Over 2 trillion dollars in new obligations may have created somewhere around 3,000,000 temporary jobs. That's nearly $1,000,000 per temp job. Good work.

FD
09-06-2010, 12:46 PM
temporary jobs

Over 2 trillion dollars in new obligations may have created somewhere around 3,000,000 temporary jobs. That's nearly $1,000,000 per temp job. Good work.

Actually they 2-4.8 million figure refers to full time jobs, and ARRA only cost $787 billion, some of which hasn't been spent yet.

go bowe
09-06-2010, 12:46 PM
You mean it wasn't shovel-ready?:LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

Saul Good
09-06-2010, 12:50 PM
Actually they 2-4.8 million figure refers to full time jobs, and ARRA only cost $787 billion, some of which hasn't been spent yet.

Full-time and temporary aren't mutually exclusive.

go bowe
09-06-2010, 12:58 PM
We took a 7500 mile motorcycle trip around the country this summer. We probable saw 40 signs along the roadway talking about recovery act projects. They had pylons and barriers up. But there wasn's hardly a lick of work going on. We were kinda shocked at the amount projects that nobody was working on.yeah, what's up with that?

red tape and all might slow the process down, but it seems like we hear about this from all over the country, just as you say...

if the money is meant to stimulate, then let's get to it...

Saul Good
09-06-2010, 12:58 PM
ARRA only cost $787 billion

This part isn't true. It had a $787 billion price tag, but it has obligated us for $2 trillion in repayments. Buying a $20,000 car for cash isn't the same as buying one at 20% interest.

Saul Good
09-06-2010, 12:59 PM
yeah, what's up with that?

red tape and all might slow the process down, but it seems like we hear about this from all over the country, just as you say...

if the money is meant to stimulate, then let's get to it...

Not

HonestChieffan
09-06-2010, 01:01 PM
What sure has worked great?

Spending out of the recession, the jobs created, everyone seems pleased. Doing more should be awesome if we have enough people to fill the demand.

KC Dan
09-06-2010, 01:02 PM
link please....No link with selected economists opinions please , proof positive is needed - actual jobs adding up to the figure that he and the demos claim to have "saved" or created. Anything short of that is NOT proof. It is an opinion based lie.

They can't prove it just like they can't prove that had the stimulous not passed that we would have been in a depression. They can't prove it and no one holds them to proof.

HonestChieffan
09-06-2010, 01:03 PM
No link with selected economists opinions please , proof positive is needed - actual jobs adding up to the figure that he and the demos claim to have "saved" or created. Anything short of that is NOT proof. It is an opinion based lie.

They can't prove it just like they can't prove that had the stimulous not passed that we would have been in a depression. They can't prove it and no one holds them to proof.


You cannot prove is when it isn't.

KC Dan
09-06-2010, 01:05 PM
Actually they 2-4.8 million figure refers to full time jobs, and ARRA only cost $787 billion, some of which hasn't been spent yet.Is this the same CBO that said the health care bill was deficit neutral right before the vote before it was proven that it wasn't? Yeah, thought so...

go bowe
09-06-2010, 01:09 PM
Notsome of the projects look like they could be shovel ready, like mlyon's road...

they just need to start the projects and then finish the damn things...

imo, it's a great idea to use the money for infrastructure instead of whatever, but they need to cut the red tape and get the shit started and get at least some people working again...

Bwana
09-06-2010, 01:13 PM
Barry's theory seems to be, if it doesn't freaken work, KEEP DOING IT! The clown doesen't have a clue.


http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2009-10-19-lostobama.jpg

go bowe
09-06-2010, 01:16 PM
No link with selected economists opinions please , proof positive is needed - actual jobs adding up to the figure that he and the demos claim to have "saved" or created. Anything short of that is NOT proof. It is an opinion based lie.

They can't prove it just like they can't prove that had the stimulous not passed that we would have been in a depression. They can't prove it and no one holds them to proof.there's no question that they can't prove it...

no-one can prove what might have happend, it's always an opinion, but opinions based at least partly on proven indicators and the like can be persuasive and do often form the basis for decisions...

nobody can prove it, but a decision can nevertheless be made that something is most likely to happen without some sort of intervention...

Bwana
09-06-2010, 01:16 PM
Actually they 2-4.8 million figure refers to full time jobs, and ARRA only cost $787 billion, some of which hasn't been spent yet.

Dude, if you buy into that bullshit, I have some really bad new regarding big foot and the tooth fairy.

http://rlv.zcache.com/obama_tooth_fairy_poster-p228040419403168306t5ta_400.jpg

go bowe
09-06-2010, 01:18 PM
You cannot prove is when it isn't.that sounds suspiciously similar to clinton's 'it depends on what the definition of is is'...

go bowe
09-06-2010, 01:20 PM
Barry's theory seems to be, if it doesn't freaken work, KEEP DOING IT! The clown doesen't have a clue.


http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2009-10-19-lostobama.jpg it's hard to argue with that, isn't it?

sometimes politicians get it wrong (did i just say sometimes?)...

HonestChieffan
09-06-2010, 01:21 PM
that sounds suspiciously similar to clinton's 'it depends on what the definition of is is'...

That was called the prime rule by a professor I had who taught Market Research....said we would need that someday when management wanted a study to prove what was not so they would feel better.

go bowe
09-06-2010, 01:22 PM
Dude, if you buy into that bullshit, I have some really bad new regarding big foot and the tooth fairy.

http://rlv.zcache.com/obama_tooth_fairy_poster-p228040419403168306t5ta_400.jpgyou big meany...

next you're gonna tell us that the easter bunny is not real either... :huh: :huh: :huh:

go bowe
09-06-2010, 01:25 PM
That was called the prime rule by a professor I had who taught Market Research....said we would need that someday when management wanted a study to prove what was not so they would feel better.sounds like sound advice...

have you had to use it yet?

Bwana
09-06-2010, 01:26 PM
you big meany...

next you're gonna tell us that the easter bunny is not real either... :huh: :huh: :huh:

:evil:

I'll wait until the end of the week for that. I think Jr. may be in shock from the first post.

HonestChieffan
09-06-2010, 01:30 PM
sounds like sound advice...

have you had to use it yet?

Multiple times.

go bowe
09-06-2010, 01:39 PM
Multiple times.ROFL ROFL ROFL

(laughing at the dipshits who actually requested such studies... were they all democrats?)

HonestChieffan
09-06-2010, 01:45 PM
ROFL ROFL ROFL

(laughing at the dipshits who actually requested such studies... were they all democrats?)

No, they were the ones who created sales plans without data, presented them as fact, and upon falling short, wildly seek any information that will focus away from them. Then they cut salesforce.


Sorta like congress.

Deberg_1990
09-06-2010, 01:46 PM
No link with selected economists opinions please , proof positive is needed - actual jobs adding up to the figure that he and the demos claim to have "saved" or created. Anything short of that is NOT proof. It is an opinion based lie.

They can't prove it just like they can't prove that had the stimulous not passed that we would have been in a depression. They can't prove it and no one holds them to proof.

Exactly.....Id love to know how the Federal Government can create private sector jobs and not government jobs??

Saul Good
09-06-2010, 01:52 PM
some of the projects look like they could be shovel ready, like mlyon's road...

they just need to start the projects and then finish the damn things...

imo, it's a great idea to use the money for infrastructure instead of whatever, but they need to cut the red tape and get the shit started and get at least some people working again...

I have no qualms about using the stimulus money for infrastructure. Where I have a problem is that we didn't do it in the first place. Where I have a bigger problem is with trusting this incompetent administration with another $50,000,000,000.

go bowe
09-06-2010, 01:57 PM
I have no qualms about using the stimulus money for infrastructure. Where I have a problem is that we didn't do it in the first place. Where I have a bigger problem is with trusting this incompetent administration with another $50,000,000,000.totally agree about not doing it in the first place...

should we trust any administration with these amounts of our money?

Direckshun
09-06-2010, 02:57 PM
Spending out of the recession, the jobs created, everyone seems pleased. Doing more should be awesome if we have enough people to fill the demand.

Well us Keynesian types only got part of what we wanted. As a result there was only a partial recovery from the recession.

What we did get worked. So why not get $50 billion more of it.

Ebolapox
09-06-2010, 02:58 PM
What sure has worked great?

(nothing at all so far, har har har har):evil:

Direckshun
09-06-2010, 02:58 PM
Exactly.....Id love to know how the Federal Government can create private sector jobs and not government jobs??

The government can incentivize. That's about it.

For the record, we've had 8 months of private sector job growth.

Which is being offset right now by a loss in public sector jobs.

Which, you'd think, conservatives would be happy about.

Brock
09-06-2010, 02:59 PM
Well us Keynesian types only got part of what we wanted. As a result there was only a partial recovery from the recession.

What we did get worked. So why not get $50 billion more of it.

Keep sucking that koolaid, boy.

Saul Good
09-06-2010, 03:00 PM
The government can incentivize. That's about it.

For the record, we've had 8 months of private sector job growth.

Which is being offset right now by a loss in public sector jobs.

Which, you'd think, conservatives would be happy about.

How many of actual job growth? The benchmark is 52 consecutive months of job growth under the Republicans before they were voted out in 2006.

Direckshun
09-06-2010, 03:01 PM
How many of actual job growth? The benchmark is 52 consecutive months of job growth under the Republicans before they were voted out in 2006.

So the Recession is the Democrats' fault, is what you're saying.

If only the Republicans had kept control of Congress, we would have had continual job growth for the last four years, right?

Saul Good
09-06-2010, 03:04 PM
So the Recession is the Democrats' fault, is what you're saying.

If only the Republicans had kept control of Congress, we would have had continual job growth for the last four years, right?

I think there was a trend developing. 52 months in a row wasn't an accident. After all, unemployment was falling and continued to fall for several months after the Dems took over. It's not like the house was on fire in 2006.

Direckshun
09-06-2010, 03:05 PM
I think there was a trend developing. 52 months in a row wasn't an accident. After all, unemployment was falling and continued to fall for several months after the Dems took over. It's not like the house was on fire in 2006.

So you agree with the proposition that a Democratic Congress was responsible for the Great Recession, and that job growth would have been continual under a Republican Congress the past four years.

Because that's certifiable.

Saul Good
09-06-2010, 03:08 PM
16 months after the Democrats swept to power in Congress, the unemployment rate had fallen from 4.7 to 4.4%. In fact, it wasn't until May of 2008, nearly two and a half years after the Democrats took over, that we really saw unemployment increase.

Direckshun
09-06-2010, 03:10 PM
16 months after the Democrats swept to power in Congress, the unemployment rate had fallen from 4.7 to 4.4%. In fact, it wasn't until May of 2008, nearly two and a half years after the Democrats took over, that we really saw unemployment increase.

So you agree with the proposition that a Democratic Congress was responsible for the Great Recession, and that job growth would have been continual under a Republican Congress the past four years.

That's it. That's the argument you're making.

Embrace it. You're in grrrrrrrrreat company.

Saul Good
09-06-2010, 03:10 PM
So you agree with the proposition that a Democratic Congress was responsible for the Great Recession, and that job growth would have been continual under a Republican Congress the past four years.

Because that's certifiable.

No, I think 52 consecutive months of net job creation was a fluke. We're much better off now under the competent leadership of Reid, Pelosi, and Obama.

Direckshun
09-06-2010, 03:12 PM
No, I think 52 consecutive months of net job creation was a fluke. We're much better off now under the competent leadership of Reid, Pelosi, and Obama.

Answer the question, then:

Do you agree with the proposition that a Democratic Congress was responsible for the Great Recession, and that job growth would have been continual under a Republican Congress the past four years?

It's clear to everybody but yourself that you believe this.

Just come out and say you believe it. Grow some nuts and get yourself on the record.

Saul Good
09-06-2010, 03:12 PM
So you agree with the proposition that a Democratic Congress was responsible for the Great Recession, and that job growth would have been continual under a Republican Congress the past four years.

That's it. That's the argument you're making.

Embrace it. You're in grrrrrrrrreat company.

No, I think that they should have spent another trillion dollars on pet projects that amount to buying votes. That would have prevented the issues that came about 2 years after they left office.

Direckshun
09-06-2010, 03:14 PM
No, I think that they should have spent another trillion dollars on pet projects that amount to buying votes. That would have prevented the issues that came about 2 years after they left office.

You are SPRINTING away from stating your belief that Democratic Congress = Great Recession.

And we both know why.

Saul Good
09-06-2010, 03:14 PM
Answer the question, then:

Do you agree with the proposition that a Democratic Congress was responsible for the Great Recession, and that job growth would have been continual under a Republican Congress the past four years?

It's clear to everybody but yourself that you believe this.

Just come out and say you believe it. Grow some nuts and get yourself on the record.

I believe that we would be better off today. I don't believe that job growth would have continued for 56 consecutive months, if that's what you are asking. 52 is the record. 108 is unrealistic. I do not believe that we would be in the 10% unemployment range today with nothing but trillions more in debt to show for it.

Direckshun
09-06-2010, 03:16 PM
I believe that we would be better off today. I don't believe that job growth would have continued for 56 consecutive months, if that's what you are asking. 52 is the record. 108 is unrealistic. I do not believe that we would be in the 10% unemployment range today with nothing but trillions more in debt to show for it.

So... Republicans had a plan all this time to prevent the Great Recession.

Did they announce it somewhere? Was there a press release?

Saul Good
09-06-2010, 03:19 PM
So... Republicans had a plan all this time to prevent the Great Recession.

Did they announce it somewhere? Was there a press release?

I don't know that they felt the need after 52 consecutive months of job creation. I also don't believe that they have put out any press releases on their plans to keep Andorra from invading us.

Direckshun
09-06-2010, 03:21 PM
I don't know that they felt the need after 52 consecutive months of job creation. I also don't believe that they have put out any press releases on their plans to keep Andorra from invading us.

You understand that your entire opinion about what started the Great Recession is assinine, and that it precludes you from being taken seriously on economic recovery?

Saul Good
09-06-2010, 03:23 PM
You understand that your entire opinion about what started the Great Recession is assinine, and that it precludes you from being taken seriously on economic recovery?

I'll put the record of prosperity under a Republican congress up against that under a Democrat congress any day of the week.

Direckshun
09-06-2010, 03:24 PM
I'll put the record of prosperity under a Republican congress up against that under a Democrat congress any day of the week.

I assume you'll also embrace an economic bubble so long as it's inflating.

Saul Good
09-06-2010, 03:28 PM
I assume you'll also embrace an economic bubble so long as it's inflating.

What, exactly, did the Dems do to let out a little air? If things were so bad, why didn't they stop it during the 2.5 years between the time they took power and the time that the economy went south?

Direckshun
09-06-2010, 03:37 PM
What, exactly, did the Dems do to let out a little air? If things were so bad, why didn't they stop it during the 2.5 years between the time they took power and the time that the economy went south?

What exactly did ANYBODY do?

THAT's my point. And why you're not taken seriously when you lay the Great Recession at the feet of one political party, claiming we never would have entered it with a Republican Congress.

Because that's the argument you're making. Precious.

Saul Good
09-06-2010, 03:47 PM
What exactly did ANYBODY do?

THAT's my point. And why you're not taken seriously when you lay the Great Recession at the feet of one political party, claiming we never would have entered it with a Republican Congress.

Because that's the argument you're making. Precious.

I haven't laid it at the feet of either party despite your multiple attempts at baiting me into it. What I have done is to say that it would be better if Republicans still controlled Congress. The US economy has a tremendous record of prosperity while Congress is under Republican control. You can't say that about the Democrats. This has never been more clear than during the terms of Clinton, Bush, and Obama.

HonestChieffan
09-06-2010, 03:54 PM
Answer the question, then:

Do you agree with the proposition that a Democratic Congress was responsible for the Great Recession, and that job growth would have been continual under a Republican Congress the past four years?

It's clear to everybody but yourself that you believe this.

Just come out and say you believe it. Grow some nuts and get yourself on the record.

Where was this Republican Congress you speak of. That went away just before the economic slide began. We know it was Bush who made it happen but lest we forget ...The Spendocrats wrote all the checks and led us to where we are.

Saul Good
09-06-2010, 03:59 PM
Where was this Republican Congress you speak of. That went away just before the economic slide began. We know it was Bush who made it happen but lest we forget ...The Spendocrats wrote all the checks and led us to where we are.

The slide didn't start until 20+ months later. It's not like things went bad right after the Republicans left. If things were really that bad, there was plenty of time to Hope and Change things.

bevischief
09-06-2010, 04:26 PM
I thought the Stimulus was supposed to do all this? Is the OP admitting the Stimulus was spent with little if any long term vision???? Color me shocked!

This.

bevischief
09-06-2010, 04:27 PM
Cleveland got sidewalks.

Thats Cleveland Missouri.

Look that up under pissed money away for Ike Skelton Votes.

I wondered how they pulled that off...

bevischief
09-06-2010, 04:37 PM
They haven't done much on highway 69 in Overland Park for a while now...

mlyonsd
09-06-2010, 04:57 PM
You mean it wasn't shovel-ready?

Maybe it's a new form of democratic green technology. Rip out the old concrete, grade it until perfect, then let it sit in the rain and bake in the sun until it turns into concrete.

alnorth
09-06-2010, 05:18 PM
So.... why are we pissed off about infrastructure improvements again? Yes, a lot of money was spent on things we'd rather they not spend it on, but now they finally get around to doing what they should have been doing immediately to help lots of blue-collar construction workers, we are going to fold our arms and say "nope, no more, the car companies have your money, we'll keep driving on broken roads and bridges thank you very much."

Oh yeah, because Obama said so. If Bush had proposed it during the final months of his presidency, I imagine it would be a whole different story.

The Mad Crapper
09-06-2010, 05:24 PM
B.O., it would be fine if you resign, everybody would understand.

The Mad Crapper
09-06-2010, 05:26 PM
So.... why are we pissed off about infrastructure improvements again? .

Al, isn't that what they said they were going to do with the $700 billion?

but with the $50 billion they really mean it this time.

LMAO

go bowe
09-06-2010, 06:58 PM
I don't know that they felt the need after 52 consecutive months of job creation. I also don't believe that they have put out any press releases on their plans to keep Andorra from invading us.a plan to prevent invasion by andorra isn't as important to the u.s. as a plan to avoid the great recession...

andorra invading us is a little less likely than was the advent of the great recession and a lot less likely to so profoundly affect our economy and way of life...

go bowe
09-06-2010, 07:03 PM
No, I think that they should have spent another trillion dollars on pet projects that amount to buying votes. That would have prevented the issues that came about 2 years after they left office.buying votes?

from all reports of the coming disaster in november, it doesn't appear that they have bought enough votes despite all the money spent...

go bowe
09-06-2010, 07:07 PM
I haven't laid it at the feet of either party despite your multiple attempts at baiting me into it. What I have done is to say that it would be better if Republicans still controlled Congress. The US economy has a tremendous record of prosperity while Congress is under Republican control. You can't say that about the Democrats. This has never been more clear than during the terms of Clinton, Bush, and Obama.actually, there are those who believe that the clinton years were pretty properous too...

good times and all that...

go bowe
09-06-2010, 07:12 PM
Al, isn't that what they said they were going to do with the $700 billion?

but with the $50 billion they really mean it this time.

LMAOreally mean it?

that's it?

c'mon, we expect much better material from a renowned poster like you...

really mean it... :lame:

alnorth
09-06-2010, 07:29 PM
Al, isn't that what they said they were going to do with the $700 billion?

but with the $50 billion they really mean it this time.

LMAO

oh...

heh, good point. They damned well better spend it on roads and bridges this time.

Saul Good
09-06-2010, 07:59 PM
actually, there are those who believe that the clinton years were pretty properous too...

good times and all that...

They were. At least they were once the Republicans swept to power in Congress.

Saul Good
09-06-2010, 08:02 PM
So.... why are we pissed off about infrastructure improvements again? Yes, a lot of money was spent on things we'd rather they not spend it on, but now they finally get around to doing what they should have been doing immediately to help lots of blue-collar construction workers, we are going to fold our arms and say "nope, no more, the car companies have your money, we'll keep driving on broken roads and bridges thank you very much."

Oh yeah, because Obama said so. If Bush had proposed it during the final months of his presidency, I imagine it would be a whole different story.

I'm not pissed off about infrastructure improvements. I'm just not doing business with the guy who sold me a trillion dollars worth of magic beans anymore. If it's that good of a plan, it will still be good after the next election.

BucEyedPea
09-07-2010, 04:16 AM
They were. At least they were once the Republicans swept to power in Congress.

Even that was an artificial prosperity which is coming home to roost now.
Greenspan is the real culprit and now the fundamentals in our economy are in worse shape than ever. That the budget was in slightly better shape is all I can credit that era with.

ROYC75
09-07-2010, 09:30 AM
So.... why are we pissed off about infrastructure improvements again? Yes, a lot of money was spent on things we'd rather they not spend it on, but now they finally get around to doing what they should have been doing immediately to help lots of blue-collar construction workers, we are going to fold our arms and say "nope, no more, the car companies have your money, we'll keep driving on broken roads and bridges thank you very much."

Oh yeah, because Obama said so. If Bush had proposed it during the final months of his presidency, I imagine it would be a whole different story.

Uh, you can't call him Quick Draw McGraw about his campaign speeches on the economy. He claimed it would be priority # 1 and yet we are how far into his presidency.

Sorry, you and him both lose this argument.

vailpass
09-07-2010, 10:05 AM
I have no qualms about using the stimulus money for infrastructure. Where I have a problem is that we didn't do it in the first place. Where I have a bigger problem is with trusting this incompetent administration with another $50,000,000,000.

X100

If that puppet in chief had funneled the $trillion+ he gave away in his first porkulus DIRECTLY into infrastructure on our roads, bridges, parks, etc. and said "if nothing else we'll put people to work and come out of it with our infrastructure renewed" it would have been hard to argue with him.
If he would have done so and required that ALL who received government aid must apply for positions on the project even better.

vailpass
09-07-2010, 10:09 AM
So.... why are we pissed off about infrastructure improvements again? Yes, a lot of money was spent on things we'd rather they not spend it on, but now they finally get around to doing what they should have been doing immediately to help lots of blue-collar construction workers, we are going to fold our arms and say "nope, no more, the car companies have your money, we'll keep driving on broken roads and bridges thank you very much."

Oh yeah, because Obama said so. If Bush had proposed it during the final months of his presidency, I imagine it would be a whole different story.

A trillion dollars spent on infrastructure and 50 billion dollars thrown toward pork that didn't help the economy would be at least pallitable.

A trillion dollars thrown toward pork that didn't help the economy and 50 billion dollars on infrastructure is what we got instead.
See the difference?

Otter
09-07-2010, 10:13 AM
When can I start spending money I don't have?

Bumfuck Barry should do us all a favor and throw himself under a bus.

HonestChieffan
09-07-2010, 10:13 AM
What is so total crap about this is that they and everyone else knows the real employer is small business. And building RR's, roads, and airports over a 6 year period is not going to add squat to anything except to line the union construction trade pockets. These sorts of things have zero to do with helping small business grow, the projects they do will likely be ones that were already planned, if they are on state highways the state will just use fed money to do what they already were going to do so no net jobs will accrue.

If we are going to piss money away, yes its best on stuff we need and that needs fixed. But being real, we should not spend one more damn dime for this crap and call it a jobs booster. It isnt, it wont be, and its a waste .

vailpass
09-07-2010, 11:09 AM
What is so total crap about this is that they and everyone else knows the real employer is small business. And building RR's, roads, and airports over a 6 year period is not going to add squat to anything except to line the union construction trade pockets. These sorts of things have zero to do with helping small business grow, the projects they do will likely be ones that were already planned, if they are on state highways the state will just use fed money to do what they already were going to do so no net jobs will accrue.

If we are going to piss money away, yes its best on stuff we need and that needs fixed. But being real, we should not spend one more damn dime for this crap and call it a jobs booster. It isnt, it wont be, and its a waste .

They see obama's approval ratings, they know they better show something in the way of jobs being created. Doesn't matter to them if they are temporary jobs as there are plenty of dupes who think the census jobs were real.

go bowe
09-07-2010, 12:32 PM
They see obama's approval ratings, they know they better show something in the way of jobs being created. Doesn't matter to them if they are temporary jobs as there are plenty of dupes who think the census jobs were real.i dunno...

the jobs seemed real enough to those getting a paycheck...

temporarily...

ROYC75
09-07-2010, 01:04 PM
i dunno...

the jobs seemed real enough to those getting a paycheck...

temporarily...

We have been putting ( temporarily ) band aids on our jobs, economy and everything else for the last 40 years there big guy.

I say it's about time to stop the temporarily crap.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.:D

go bowe
09-07-2010, 01:25 PM
When can I start spending money I don't have?

Bum**** Barry should do us all a favor and throw himself under a bus.bumfuck barry...

absolutely love it...

rolls off the tongue easily, and i always appreciate alliteration...

go bowe
09-07-2010, 01:27 PM
We have been putting ( temporarily ) band aids on our jobs, economy and everything else for the last 40 years thee big guy.

I say it's about time to stop the temporarily crap.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.:Di i admit it's a comb over agree with you here, roy...

but temporary crap is sometimes a good idea until something better comes along...

ROYC75
09-07-2010, 02:04 PM
i i admit it's a comb over agree with you here, roy...

but temporary crap is sometimes a good idea until something better comes along...

Well, not if you are looking at the economy it's not. Obama clearly said in his campaign that the meltdown of the Housing & Financial markets ( BTW, Thank You Dodd & Frank, a couple of Dems ) was clearly going to affect the economy. He said it was his # 1 priority to fix the economy. That's what got him elected......... He has failed. He temporarily put the economy on hold for almost 2 years only to see his poll #'s falling as well as the Dem's running for re-election to come out slinging his garbage.

Bottom line is Obo was in over his head and didn't have a handle on what to do or how to fix it.

alnorth
09-07-2010, 04:49 PM
Uh, you can't call him Quick Draw McGraw about his campaign speeches on the economy. He claimed it would be priority # 1 and yet we are how far into his presidency.

Sorry, you and him both lose this argument.

You fail at reading. I'm not giving Obama credit, as a matter of fact I explicitely mentioned money was wasted and he didn't do this soon enough.

However, my point is, now that he finally is getting around to doing what should have been done from the very beginning, why are we opposed? I suspect it is pure partisan politics, and if the house republicans would have put this forward, the board would have signed on. ("great plan, too bad the dems wont pass it, see Obama, you POS, spend that stimulus money on us, not on the banks, car companies, mortgages, etc etc etc")

alnorth
09-07-2010, 04:50 PM
A trillion dollars spent on infrastructure and 50 billion dollars thrown toward pork that didn't help the economy would be at least pallitable.

A trillion dollars thrown toward pork that didn't help the economy and 50 billion dollars on infrastructure is what we got instead.
See the difference?

You fail at reading as well. The trillion or whatever dollars is not up for discussion, this 50 billion is. Why are you opposed?

HonestChieffan
09-07-2010, 04:55 PM
Im opposed cause we don't have the money. Thats a simple idea really. Spend what you have but not more? No matter who proposed stupid shit, its still stupid. Defending stupid is even worse.

KC Dan
09-07-2010, 04:58 PM
You fail at reading as well. The trillion or whatever dollars is not up for discussion, this 50 billion is. Why are you opposed?Actually, it should be. They haven't spent it all and should cancel crap that has not worked and use that money for the 50 billion, 100 billion, whatever he is proposing now instead of raising taxes in a horrible economy.

vailpass
09-07-2010, 05:05 PM
You fail at reading as well. The trillion or whatever dollars is not up for discussion, this 50 billion is. Why are you opposed?

Shut the **** up with telling me what is and isn't up for discussion. I'll discuss the trillion dollars obama wasted any time I like.

Bwana
09-07-2010, 05:08 PM
Bum**** Barry

LMAO

Saul Good
09-07-2010, 06:17 PM
You fail at reading. I'm not giving Obama credit, as a matter of fact I explicitely mentioned money was wasted and he didn't do this soon enough.

However, my point is, now that he finally is getting around to doing what should have been done from the very beginning, why are we opposed? I suspect it is pure partisan politics, and if the house republicans would have put this forward, the board would have signed on. ("great plan, too bad the dems wont pass it, see Obama, you POS, spend that stimulus money on us, not on the banks, car companies, mortgages, etc etc etc")

If somebody I trusted was in charge, yes, I would give that person the benefit of the doubt. That's not partisanship. It's just common sense. Obama, I just don't trust you with $50,000,000,000 anymore.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/you-hurt-me-just-now-when-you-hit-me-with-that-sho,10787/

ROYC75
09-09-2010, 11:52 AM
You fail at reading. I'm not giving Obama credit, as a matter of fact I explicitely mentioned money was wasted and he didn't do this soon enough.

However, my point is, now that he finally is getting around to doing what should have been done from the very beginning, why are we opposed? I suspect it is pure partisan politics, and if the house republicans would have put this forward, the board would have signed on. ("great plan, too bad the dems wont pass it, see Obama, you POS, spend that stimulus money on us, not on the banks, car companies, mortgages, etc etc etc")

Fail ? No ....... But Obama waiting 22 months and realizing the 1st one did nothing to stimulate job growth and plus not admitting to it and now wants another 50 billion ? Asking the American people to "Trust Me, I know what I am doing " type arropance is asking a lot from the people, don't you think.

Oops, we missed it by 50 billion folks, But that's OK, we will throw another 50 billion into it to make it right.:rolleyes:

Plus the fact he wants to allocate the money the wrong way is the biggest issue at stake here.

King_Chief_Fan
09-09-2010, 12:33 PM
You fail at reading. I'm not giving Obama credit, as a matter of fact I explicitely mentioned money was wasted and he didn't do this soon enough.

However, my point is, now that he finally is getting around to doing what should have been done from the very beginning, why are we opposed? I suspect it is pure partisan politics, and if the house republicans would have put this forward, the board would have signed on. ("great plan, too bad the dems wont pass it, see Obama, you POS, spend that stimulus money on us, not on the banks, car companies, mortgages, etc etc etc")

your point is fucking stupid......finally getting around to it? Wow.
do you pay any taxes?

go bowe
09-09-2010, 02:22 PM
Shut the **** up with telling me what is and isn't up for discussion. I'll discuss the trillion dollars obama wasted any time I like.you tell 'im, pass...

don't let the bastards get you down...

ROYC75
09-09-2010, 02:43 PM
Shut the **** up with telling me what is and isn't up for discussion. I'll discuss the trillion dollars obama wasted any time I like.

He didn't want to discuss what or how much more good the trillion could do that the 50 billion.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain !