PDA

View Full Version : Obama New Obama Jobs Plan: More "Investment" in Infrastructure?


RINGLEADER
08-29-2011, 10:59 AM
When will libs understand that buying jobs with money we dont have that ends when the appropriation runs out is not a self-sustaining jobs program. Making it easier for the private sector to create jobs is the better solution.

Of course that would require repealing Obamacare and mist of the regulations enacted, passed, and/or threatened and we can't have that. Just wouldn't be "fair".

Bewbies
08-29-2011, 11:41 AM
Obama's "jobs" program is actually his "blame Republicans for not wanting to create jobs and hope it gets me another 4 years in the White House" plan.

FD
08-29-2011, 12:18 PM
Just a common sense move. We have tons of infrastructure improvements we need to make, and tons more that will need to be made in the next few years. We also have millions of workers, especially in building and construction, sitting idle without jobs. We can also borrow for next to nothing with long term rates at historic lows. It would be crazy not to do more investment in infrastructure right now.

When people talk about government "creating the right environment for economic growth" they mean more than just low taxes. It also includes providing the modern transportation infrastructure that private industry needs, and that we sorely lack.

Donger
08-29-2011, 12:19 PM
Yeah, more spending. Sounds like a great fucking plan, Adolf.

mlyonsd
08-29-2011, 12:58 PM
What are the odds Obama's ego will let him just stand up one day and say, you know what my fellow dems, I just flat out suck at this. For the good of the country I'm asking you to find someone else to run in 2012.

patteeu
08-29-2011, 01:03 PM
Just a common sense move. We have tons of infrastructure improvements we need to make, and tons more that will need to be made in the next few years. We also have millions of workers, especially in building and construction, sitting idle without jobs. We can also borrow for next to nothing with long term rates at historic lows. It would be crazy not to do more investment in infrastructure right now.

When people talk about government "creating the right environment for economic growth" they mean more than just low taxes. It also includes providing the modern transportation infrastructure that private industry needs, and that we sorely lack.

This argument would be easier to buy from Obama if he had spent the first porkulus on it like he promised instead of just feeding democrat constituencies like government workers. Why should anyone trust him this time around?

vailpass
08-29-2011, 01:16 PM
Just a common sense move. We have tons of infrastructure improvements we need to make, and tons more that will need to be made in the next few years. We also have millions of workers, especially in building and construction, sitting idle without jobs. We can also borrow for next to nothing with long term rates at historic lows. It would be crazy not to do more investment in infrastructure right now.

When people talk about government "creating the right environment for economic growth" they mean more than just low taxes. It also includes providing the modern transportation infrastructure that private industry needs, and that we sorely lack.

I would have liked to have seen this infrastructure investment 3 years ago using the "stimulus" money.

JonesCrusher
08-29-2011, 01:22 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UBAsAwFsLV8/TL21b5Ks6UI/AAAAAAAAADc/kg3Cq-yGiI8/s1600/stimulussign.jpg

mlyonsd
08-29-2011, 01:34 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UBAsAwFsLV8/TL21b5Ks6UI/AAAAAAAAADc/kg3Cq-yGiI8/s1600/stimulussign.jpg

If you didn't already know it might scare you how much we actually spend just making those stupid signs. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/signs-stimulus/story?id=11163180)

The absolute worst thing we could do now is allow them to blow more.

Rooster
08-29-2011, 01:37 PM
What are the odds Obama's ego will let him just stand up one day and say, you know what my fellow dems, I just flat out suck at this. For the good of the country I'm asking you to find someone else to run in 2012.

:grovel::grovel:

2bikemike
08-29-2011, 03:06 PM
If you didn't already know it might scare you how much we actually spend just making those stupid signs. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/signs-stimulus/story?id=11163180)

The absolute worst thing we could do now is allow them to blow more.

I have taken several road trips across the country since the big meltdown and subsequent Stimulus packages. I have seen tons of these idiotic signs with nothing going on around them. Which led me to beleive the only thing stimulated was the sign maker and the installer.

Taco John
08-29-2011, 03:15 PM
I'm fairly certain that Obama's jobs plan is going to include the creation of a new bank - something akin to a "National Infrastructure Investment Bank." Basically, a new branch of government with the power to borrow money for infrastructure projects.

Who knows... Might be able to delay the ship from sinking for another 20 years before inflation and all the debt catch up with us. Maybe they'll be able to install another big government program at that time to re-inflate another bubble.

RINGLEADER
08-30-2011, 09:51 AM
Just a common sense move. We have tons of infrastructure improvements we need to make, and tons more that will need to be made in the next few years. We also have millions of workers, especially in building and construction, sitting idle without jobs. We can also borrow for next to nothing with long term rates at historic lows. It would be crazy not to do more investment in infrastructure right now.

When people talk about government "creating the right environment for economic growth" they mean more than just low taxes. It also includes providing the modern transportation infrastructure that private industry needs, and that we sorely lack.

This is a true point relative to the interest rates, and it is tempting, but it has proven not to work. Government (or any entity that doesn't have to account for it's actions on a day-to-day basis) is incredibly inefficient so while it is true that borrowing rates are low, that borrowing for government spending that is implemented by the government (via unions and other more expensive methods of implementation) actually ends up doing what you're ignoring -- it adds trillions of debt that we can't afford.

This is one of the consequences of being on a bankrupt fiscal trajectory -- and it's unfortunately at a point that Obama's economic philosophies can't save us from.

Shaid
08-30-2011, 09:53 AM
Just a common sense move. We have tons of infrastructure improvements we need to make, and tons more that will need to be made in the next few years. We also have millions of workers, especially in building and construction, sitting idle without jobs. We can also borrow for next to nothing with long term rates at historic lows. It would be crazy not to do more investment in infrastructure right now.

When people talk about government "creating the right environment for economic growth" they mean more than just low taxes. It also includes providing the modern transportation infrastructure that private industry needs, and that we sorely lack.

Completely agree if we spend on actual infrastructure. Stop building other nations when ours is falling apart.

alnorth
08-30-2011, 10:05 AM
This argument would be easier to buy from Obama if he had spent the first porkulus on it like he promised instead of just feeding democrat constituencies like government workers. Why should anyone trust him this time around?

This is actually a very fair criticism. If the Republicans oppose spending money on infrastructure, that would be pretty stupid. A better argument is that we should have started doing this right away. (we spent a little bit on infrastructure, but nowhere close to enough) If we had, maybe the construction jobs would have started coming online now.

I do believe for the most part that Keynes is right about the need for the government to stimulate the economy during a spectacular recession or depression, but both Bush *AND* Obama blew it on execution.

It is tempting to hand out checks instead of start much-needed infrastructure projects because infrastructure takes a very long time to ramp up and produce much of a benefit, vs a payroll tax cut which is immediate. Handing out money failed because the American people are in no mood to spend money, that "stimulus" just went straight to paying off debt or under the mattress.

Both Bush and Obama should have ignored the fact that it is bad politics to spend stimulus money on something that will be slow to pay off, because we need it and because this recession was obvious to most that it was going to last a long time anyway.

If this pans out that the feds are finally going to get serious about spending money where it should be spent, then fine, better late than never I guess, but I wish the first round of stimulus would have went into roads and bridges.

alnorth
08-30-2011, 10:11 AM
This is a true point relative to the interest rates, and it is tempting, but it has proven not to work. Government (or any entity that doesn't have to account for it's actions on a day-to-day basis) is incredibly inefficient so while it is true that borrowing rates are low, that borrowing for government spending that is implemented by the government (via unions and other more expensive methods of implementation) actually ends up doing what you're ignoring -- it adds trillions of debt that we can't afford.

The private sector does not plan out and approve road and bridge projects. Frankly, there has not been a better time in decades to improve our pathetic crumbling infrastructure than right now, when the world for some bizarre reason is desperate to loan us 2% money and we're mired in a recession.

It is not a question about "affording it", because it has to be done. Maybe we can't afford some abstract "improving the inner city" social welfare programs with vague goals, but infrastructure is different. When roads are undrivable and bridges collapse (putting aside the tragedy of possible deaths), you have to rebuild them anyway, and if we don't do it now, we're going to look pretty stupid doing it 20 years from now when the project is even more expensive and interest rates might be north of 8% for all we know.

Donger
08-30-2011, 10:12 AM
The private sector does not plan out and approve road and bridge projects. Frankly, there has not been a better time in decades to improve our pathetic crumbling infrastructure than right now, when the world for some bizarre reason is desperate to loan us 2% money and we're mired in a recession.

It is not a question about "affording it", because it has to be done. Maybe we can't afford some abstract "improving the inner city" social welfare programs with vague goals, but infrastructure is different. When roads are undrivable and bridges collapse (putting aside the tragedy of possible deaths), you have to rebuild them anyway, and if we don't do it now, we're going to look pretty stupid doing it 20 years from now when interest rates might be north of 8% for all we know.

Why do we need a "stimulus" in order to repair our road/bridge infrastructure? I was under the impression that we all pay a rather large tax on every gallon of gasoline/diesel that we consume.

Where does that money go?

RINGLEADER
08-30-2011, 10:16 AM
This is actually a very fair criticism. If the Republicans oppose spending money on infrastructure, that would be pretty stupid. A better argument is that we should have started doing this right away. (we spent a little bit on infrastructure, but nowhere close to enough) If we had, maybe the construction jobs would have started coming online now.

I do believe for the most part that Keynes is right about the need for the government to stimulate the economy during a spectacular recession or depression, but both Bush *AND* Obama blew it on execution.

Keynes also assumes that there will be surpluses during the good/boom/bubble times. Unfortunately, the baseline budgeting and political attitude is that boom times last forever so we should spend all that money now and plan for it to continue forever (when we know it won't).

Keynes also doesn't exactly bake entitlements the size of ours into the economy from a growth and sustainability perspective (both of which are suspect).

The biggest problem with the level of deficit spending advocated by some is that it is inefficient and unsustainable. When the stimulus is spent you find yourself in the same position as before it (as we are witnessing to a certain degree now).

alnorth
08-30-2011, 10:18 AM
Why do we need a "stimulus" in order to repair our road/bridge infrastructure? I was under the impression that we all pay a rather large tax on every gallon of gasoline/diesel that we consume.

Where does that money go?

Gas taxes do ostensibly go to infrastructure, but it obviously has not been enough.

That fact is also irrelevant because money is cheap right now. Combine that with the need for jobs, and this is, BY FAR the best time to do some massive road/bridge/airport improvement project in decades.

Hell, I'd even combine this with a requirement that all able-bodied men on unemployment after a few months or on welfare must sign up for this and either be rejected for a construction job or get a doctor to certify they can't work construction before they continue to get unemployment or welfare.

RINGLEADER
08-30-2011, 10:19 AM
The private sector does not plan out and approve road and bridge projects. Frankly, there has not been a better time in decades to improve our pathetic crumbling infrastructure than right now, when the world for some bizarre reason is desperate to loan us 2% money and we're mired in a recession.

It is not a question about "affording it", because it has to be done. Maybe we can't afford some abstract "improving the inner city" social welfare programs with vague goals, but infrastructure is different. When roads are undrivable and bridges collapse (putting aside the tragedy of possible deaths), you have to rebuild them anyway, and if we don't do it now, we're going to look pretty stupid doing it 20 years from now when the project is even more expensive and interest rates might be north of 8% for all we know.

I really don't understand this "it doesn't matter if we can afford it or not, it has to be done" mentality.

Donger
08-30-2011, 10:21 AM
Gas taxes do ostensibly go to infrastructure, but it obviously has not been enough.

That fact is also irrelevant because money is cheap right now. Combine that with the need for jobs, and this is, BY FAR the best time to do some massive road/bridge/airport improvement project in decades.

Hell, I'd even combine this with a requirement that all able-bodied men on unemployment after a few months or on welfare must sign up for this and either be rejected for a construction job or get a doctor to certify they can't work construction before they continue to get unemployment or welfare.

So, you want to give more money that we don't have to the same people who apparently mismanaged all that money in the first place?

I guess I could agree with you if we were having bridge failures every day. Or week/month.

RINGLEADER
08-30-2011, 10:21 AM
Gas taxes do ostensibly go to infrastructure, but it obviously has not been enough.

That fact is also irrelevant because money is cheap right now. Combine that with the need for jobs, and this is, BY FAR the best time to do some massive road/bridge/airport improvement project in decades.

Hell, I'd even combine this with a requirement that all able-bodied men on unemployment after a few months or on welfare must sign up for this and either be rejected for a construction job or get a doctor to certify they can't work construction before they continue to get unemployment or welfare.

Money is cheap, the implementation as evidenced by the last stimulus is not. Any savings you get from cheap money goes out the window when the government bureaucracy tries to implement it.

Radar Chief
08-30-2011, 10:24 AM
Why do we need a "stimulus" in order to repair our road/bridge infrastructure? I was under the impression that we all pay a rather large tax on every gallon of gasoline/diesel that we consume.

Where does that money go?

Good question, I’d like to know that myself.
And what about the “shovel ready jobs” the first “stimulus” was supposed to fund? Wasn’t that supposed to be for infrastructure?

donkhater
08-30-2011, 10:24 AM
Gas taxes do ostensibly go to infrastructure, but it obviously has not been enough.

That fact is also irrelevant because money is cheap right now. Combine that with the need for jobs, and this is, BY FAR the best time to do some massive road/bridge/airport improvement project in decades.

Hell, I'd even combine this with a requirement that all able-bodied men on unemployment after a few months or on welfare must sign up for this and either be rejected for a construction job or get a doctor to certify they can't work construction before they continue to get unemployment or welfare.

What you mean is that money intended for infrastructure is used instead to fund less popular/more controversial programs. Then when the money runs out, politicinas can demagouge those who oppose spending on infrastructure.

alnorth
08-30-2011, 10:27 AM
I really don't understand this "it doesn't matter if we can afford it or not, it has to be done" mentality.

:spock:

I don't understand the mentality that is unable to grasp the undeniable fact that infrastructure is mandatory spending, and we have some pretty massive deferred maintenance. If we keep fiddling along as we have been the last couple decades, the bill is going to come due in a decade or two anyway. "We can't afford it", is not a valid argument for infrastructure, when we've already put it off this long.

What is not to understand if it is true? Maybe you wish it wasn't true. Maybe you hate the fact that it is true, but you can't wave a magic wand to repair our bridges and roads and make it no longer true.

alnorth
08-30-2011, 10:32 AM
I guess I could agree with you if we were having bridge failures every day. Or week/month.

That is really what you need? Seriously? What if they collapsed with no one on them and no one was hurt, do we still need to spend money on a massive project then? How many bridges? What kind of a body count do we need before you throw up your hands and say "ok, I give, spend the money." By that time, our borrowing cost will surely be well north of 2%.

We are the United States of America. A bridge in Minnesota should not collapse in our country killing a lot of people, simply because it was too old and we didn't bother to fix it. It isn't a fluke, we've got bridges all over the place where we've decided to push the planned service time beyond the recommended limit.

patteeu
08-30-2011, 10:33 AM
As far as I'm concerned, infrastructure will have to wait until either the states take care of it or someone other than Obama is in the White House.

Radar Chief
08-30-2011, 10:33 AM
Gas taxes do ostensibly go to infrastructure, but it obviously has not been enough.

I’d like to see some proof of that before I’m willing to believe it.
Considering the “road tax” is between ~$.19 to $.70 per gallon, depending on location, and how many billions of gallons of gas and Diesel this country consumes per year we’re talking about a pretty decent chunk of change.

Donger
08-30-2011, 10:34 AM
That is really what you need? Seriously? What if they collapsed with no one on them and no one was hurt, do we still need to spend money on a massive project then? How many bridges? What kind of a body count do we need before you throw up your hands and say "ok, I give, spend the money." By that time, our borrowing cost will surely be well north of 2%.

We are the United States of America. A bridge in Minnesota should not collapse in our country killing a lot of people, simply because it was too old and we didn't bother to fix it. It isn't a fluke, we've got bridges all over the place where we've decided to push the planned service time beyond the recommended limit.

No, but the fact that we aren't having mass collapses (or any, for that matter) seems to lead to the conclusion that perhaps the situation isn't as dire as some make it out to be. At least dire enough that we need to have another stimulus with money we don't have. If the money that is taken isn't be used for this, figure out why not and fix THAT.

alnorth
08-30-2011, 10:37 AM
Good question, I’d like to know that myself.
And what about the “shovel ready jobs” the first “stimulus” was supposed to fund? Wasn’t that supposed to be for infrastructure?

"shovel ready jobs" was a politically-useful buzzword that ignored the fact that infrastructure projects take a while to start, much less complete. Our stupid politicians did a little bit of infrastructure spending on projects that could start right away, but for the most part they were too impatient to make a serious commitment to infrastructure spending. If they are serious this time, great.

Donger
08-30-2011, 10:37 AM
I’d like to see some proof of that before I’m willing to believe it.
Considering the “road tax” is between ~$.19 to $.70 per gallon, depending on location, and how many billions of gallons of gas and Diesel this country consumes per year we’re talking about a pretty decent chunk of change.

Then-Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters stated on August 15, 2007 that about 60% of federal gas taxes are used for highway and bridge construction. The remaining 40% goes to earmarked programs. However, revenues from other taxes are also used in federal transportation programs.

The federal gasoline tax raised $25 billion on gasoline in 2006.

It cost $425 billion to create the ENTIRE IHS.

alnorth
08-30-2011, 10:39 AM
As far as I'm concerned, infrastructure will have to wait until either the states take care of it or someone other than Obama is in the White House.

Why? Is there a reason other than a nakedly partisan "I don't want the democrats to be able to start something that might make them look good, so lets put off something we have to do until after the Republicans win the election", or am I too cynical?

Suppose Obama wins in 2012 (and he's got to be considered the odds-on favorite right now), and the tea party manages to screw up 2016 and we get another 2-term democrat through 2024? Do we wait for bridges to collapse in what might be a 8% world?

alnorth
08-30-2011, 10:44 AM
No, but the fact that we aren't having mass collapses (or any, for that matter) seems to lead to the conclusion that perhaps the situation isn't as dire as some make it out to be. At least dire enough that we need to have another stimulus with money we don't have. If the money that is taken isn't be used for this, figure out why not and fix THAT.

It is not *dire* now, but we are undeniably near the end of the useful life span for a whole hell of a lot of bridges and roads all over the country. Our infrastructure is very old.

Why do we have to wait for it to become, your word, "dire", when the project becomes more expensive, mandatory, and the cost of money is higher? Isn't that incredibly short-sighted and stupid?

Donger
08-30-2011, 10:49 AM
It is not *dire* now, but we are undeniably near the end of the useful life span for a whole hell of a lot of bridges and roads all over the country. Our infrastructure is very old.

Why do we have to wait for it to become, your word, "dire", when the project becomes more expensive, mandatory, and the cost of money is higher? Isn't that incredibly short-sighted and stupid?

My point is that the money that is taken from all of us should be used for what it was intended. You just seem to be taking a rather extreme position on this, like we aren't doing anything with regard to bridge and road maintenance now.

You are a civil engineer, yes?

HonestChieffan
08-30-2011, 10:59 AM
They have plenty of money to fix bridges. They just have to prioritize and get it from something else. No new money. None.

FD
08-30-2011, 11:09 AM
Why do we need a "stimulus" in order to repair our road/bridge infrastructure? I was under the impression that we all pay a rather large tax on every gallon of gasoline/diesel that we consume.

Where does that money go?

All the money from gas taxes go into the Highway Trust Fund, and all of the money from this fund is used for road/infrastructure projects. For a long time the revenues from the gas tax have been insufficient for even normal highway maintenance and so funds from the General Fund have been used as well. This is the main reason our infrastructure has deteriorated to the point that it has.

FD
08-30-2011, 11:13 AM
As far as I'm concerned, infrastructure will have to wait until either the states take care of it or someone other than Obama is in the White House.

Why is that? Why bring politics into it at all? This is spending that will need to be done eventually, and it will never be cheaper to do than right now, it will never benefit the economy more than right now.

Donger
08-30-2011, 11:17 AM
All the money from gas taxes go into the Highway Trust Fund, and all of the money from this fund is used for road projects. For a long time the revenues from the gas tax have been insufficient for even normal highway maintenance and so funds from the General Fund have been used as well. This is the main reason our infrastructure has deteriorated to the point that it has.

Well, just some quick math:

Tax revenue from gasoline/year = $25 billion

Tax revenue from diesel/year = $9 billion

That's ~$34 billion/year.

Take 60% of that, and you have $20 billion.

If that isn't enough to maintain our infrastructure, something is horribly wrong.

patteeu
08-30-2011, 11:17 AM
"shovel ready jobs" was a politically-useful buzzword that ignored the fact that infrastructure projects take a while to start, much less complete. Our stupid politicians did a little bit of infrastructure spending on projects that could start right away, but for the most part they were too impatient to make a serious commitment to infrastructure spending. If they are serious this time, great.

There is no reason to believe that the President is serious this time. None.

Not only will infrastructure investments take a while to get going, as you point out, but they'll take even longer to bear fruit. There would be little or no political payoff by November 2012 and there's no reason to believe that Obama is willing to take that kind of political hit. He's shown himself to be a man of almost zero political courage.

patteeu
08-30-2011, 11:22 AM
Why? Is there a reason other than a nakedly partisan "I don't want the democrats to be able to start something that might make them look good, so lets put off something we have to do until after the Republicans win the election", or am I too cynical?

Suppose Obama wins in 2012 (and he's got to be considered the odds-on favorite right now), and the tea party manages to screw up 2016 and we get another 2-term democrat through 2024? Do we wait for bridges to collapse in what might be a 8% world?

Obama certainly can't be trusted before November 2012, as I said in my previous post. If he wins re-election along with democrat control in Congress (not likely, IMO), I won't trust them because they've shown that they prefer advancing democrat political prospects over the well-being of the country. If he wins re-election along with Republican control of Congress, I'd be more inclined to reconsider.

patteeu
08-30-2011, 11:24 AM
It is not *dire* now, but we are undeniably near the end of the useful life span for a whole hell of a lot of bridges and roads all over the country. Our infrastructure is very old.

Why do we have to wait for it to become, your word, "dire", when the project becomes more expensive, mandatory, and the cost of money is higher? Isn't that incredibly short-sighted and stupid?

Most of that failing infrastructure should be fixed by the states without the federal government acting as a middle man. And when I say most, I mean the vast majority.

patteeu
08-30-2011, 11:27 AM
Why is that? Why bring politics into it at all? This is spending that will need to be done eventually, and it will never be cheaper to do than right now, it will never benefit the economy more than right now.

Because we've already been fooled by Obama once on this very subject. It's a shame that he destroyed his credibility, but that's water under the deteriorating bridge now. How could you possibly trust him again?

Bewbies
08-30-2011, 01:09 PM
The only shovel ready thing Obama has given us is the pile of shit he's been selling for 2.5 years.

ROYC75
08-30-2011, 01:49 PM
This is actually a very fair criticism. If the Republicans oppose spending money on infrastructure, that would be pretty stupid. A better argument is that we should have started doing this right away. (we spent a little bit on infrastructure, but nowhere close to enough) If we had, maybe the construction jobs would have started coming online now.

I do believe for the most part that Keynes is right about the need for the government to stimulate the economy during a spectacular recession or depression, but both Bush *AND* Obama blew it on execution.

It is tempting to hand out checks instead of start much-needed infrastructure projects because infrastructure takes a very long time to ramp up and produce much of a benefit, vs a payroll tax cut which is immediate. Handing out money failed because the American people are in no mood to spend money, that "stimulus" just went straight to paying off debt or under the mattress.

Both Bush and Obama should have ignored the fact that it is bad politics to spend stimulus money on something that will be slow to pay off, because we need it and because this recession was obvious to most that it was going to last a long time anyway.

If this pans out that the feds are finally going to get serious about spending money where it should be spent, then fine, better late than never I guess, but I wish the first round of stimulus would have went into roads and bridges.


All of my pipeline contractors were ready for the pipeline boom to expand the past 2 years after Obama promised it. Infrastructure, all of them expected very busy years, had jobs lined up and the contractors booklet came out for the bidding to all, the very next month it all went on " HOLD " because "HOPE " & " CHANGE " was a lie. It all went to banks, TARP, and Wall Street!

None of my customers believe in Obama and his lies anymore. Oh sure, after they lied the last round, they have to make it right now, if not it's a guaranteed way to lose the election for him.

ROYC75
08-30-2011, 01:50 PM
The only shovel ready thing Obama has given us is the pile of shit he's been selling for 2.5 years.

That's because he was in over his head and had to have on the job training to experience the trials and errors.

FD
08-30-2011, 06:48 PM
Because we've already been fooled by Obama once on this very subject. It's a shame that he destroyed his credibility, but that's water under the deteriorating bridge now. How could you possibly trust him again?

I don't know what you mean by this. Did he lie about the amount of infrastructure spending in ARRA? The numbers were and are publicly available. Do you think Obama will pass a bill that funds highway improvements and then say "gotcha! it actually funds abortions and welfare for illegal immigrants!"? Is that what you are worried about?

If you think there was too little thats a fair criticism, and one I agree with, but it seems like you are saying that since ARRA had too little infrastructure spending that Obama "fooled" the nation, and a new bill funding infrastructure improvements is somehow faulty for this reason. I just don't see any logic in that. Either infrastructure improvements pass a cost/benefit test or they don't, I don't see what politics has to do with it.

HonestChieffan
08-30-2011, 07:40 PM
Obama's proposal, if it what is being rumored is DOA. More of the same failed expensive special deals for Unions spending money we do not have on more pork. If this all we can expect from Obama, his already cratering approvals will freefall.


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House says President Obama will urge Congress to pass a federal highway bill that he says will protect about 1 million jobs.

The president will make his appeal Wednesday at the White House. He will be joined by the leaders of two occasionally warring factions - AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and David Chavern, chief operating officer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

At issue is the renewal of a transportation spending bill that expires Sept. 30. The House is considering a six-year, $230 billion bill paid entirely with current fuel taxes. The Senate proposal would last only two years and cost $109 billion.

The push for infrastructure spending comes as Obama prepares to unveil a jobs package that mixes spending and tax breaks.

Yada Yada ame old same old yada Bush bad, hurricane, tornado bush bad.

patteeu
08-30-2011, 08:51 PM
I don't know what you mean by this. Did he lie about the amount of infrastructure spending in ARRA? The numbers were and are publicly available. Do you think Obama will pass a bill that funds highway improvements and then say "gotcha! it actually funds abortions and welfare for illegal immigrants!"? Is that what you are worried about?

If you think there was too little thats a fair criticism, and one I agree with, but it seems like you are saying that since ARRA had too little infrastructure spending that Obama "fooled" the nation, and a new bill funding infrastructure improvements is somehow faulty for this reason. I just don't see any logic in that. Either infrastructure improvements pass a cost/benefit test or they don't, I don't see what politics has to do with it.

Are you suggesting that Congress will earmark all of this spending to insure that it goes to specific infrastructure projects that are fixed before legislation is passed? Because that's not the way it usually works. I don't trust the Obama administration to execute an infrastructure spending program.

And yes, he promised that porkulus money was going to be used to rebuild our infrastructure and that's not how it ended up working out. His promises came without numbers and projects attached. That level of "transparency" came only after the fact when it was too late. I don't know what planet you've been on for the past few years.

petegz28
08-30-2011, 09:02 PM
He already backed tracked on his entire "shovel ready" crap, so WTF this time? When will you people learn this guy and his ilk are ****ing clueless!!!

Unemployment won't go above 8%.....oops
Stimulus to be spend on shovel ready projects.....oops
Stimulus will create tons of green jobs....oops
Obamacare will create jobs....oops
Was for extending the Bush tax cuts before he was agains them....WHA???

And now some of you are ready to eat out of his hand again...lol


Nevermind this dumbass had his budget proposal voted down 97-0 and him and the Dems have been operating without a budget for a couple years now....


Don't worry...Pelosi will be along soon to say how his proposal is all about JOBS, JOBS, JOBS and tons of jobs will be created if we pass it......LMAO

petegz28
08-30-2011, 09:04 PM
Obama and the Democrats couldn't even get a fucking budget passed when they controlled everything yet he knows how to help the economy...... ROFL

HonestChieffan
08-30-2011, 09:44 PM
Will Rogers once observed and today this seems even more applicable...

"If stupidity got us in this mess, why can't it get us out?"

Would make a good campaign theme for Obama 2012

alnorth
08-30-2011, 10:28 PM
Because we've already been fooled by Obama once on this very subject. It's a shame that he destroyed his credibility, but that's water under the deteriorating bridge now. How could you possibly trust him again?

I hate to say it, but you could be proven out.

Everything I'm reading today has infrastructure as one facet on his plan. Something he'll probably highlight sure, but alongside a bunch of other garbage like job re-training and letting employers have a 2% payroll tax cut as well as employees.

I guess we'll have to wait for the numbers to see, but if this isn't several hundred billion dollars for infrastructure, like it always should have been, then Obama is not serious.

alnorth
08-30-2011, 10:31 PM
Well, just some quick math:

Tax revenue from gasoline/year = $25 billion

Tax revenue from diesel/year = $9 billion

That's ~$34 billion/year.

Take 60% of that, and you have $20 billion.

If that isn't enough to maintain our infrastructure, something is horribly wrong.

$20B/year is not even close to enough. One thing people need to remember is our federal gas tax hasn't changed since the early 90's. The inflation on the cost of construction certainly is not zero, and the federal funding was inadequate even back then.

go bowe
08-30-2011, 10:52 PM
If you didn't already know it might scare you how much we actually spend just making those stupid signs. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/signs-stimulus/story?id=11163180)

The absolute worst thing we could do now is allow them to blow more.

pffffffffft...

that's from abc, a well known communist rag...

alnorth
08-30-2011, 10:56 PM
My point is that the money that is taken from all of us should be used for what it was intended. You just seem to be taking a rather extreme position on this, like we aren't doing anything with regard to bridge and road maintenance now.

You are a civil engineer, yes?

No, but I'm basically parroting the full-throated screaming alarm put out every year by the ASCE. You aren't going to find many civil engineers who disagree.

ASCE Infrastructure Report (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/sites/default/files/RC2009_full_report.pdf)

They think we need to spend $2.2T over 5 years to repair everything, and that does not include the possible need to expand for a larger population by, say 2050. Realistically we probably can't dig up that kind of money and labor in that short a time, but no one is talking about a mere few tens of billions.

Some stats:


More than 25% of our ~600,000 bridges either need significant repair or are burdened with more traffic than they were designed to carry. (US Dept. Trans.)
About a third of our major roadways are in substandard condition. (Fed. Hwy Admin)
The number of dams that could fail has grown 134% from 1999 to 3,346, and more than 1,300 of those dams are classified as "high risk", meaning a collapse could threaten lives. (Assn of State Dam Safety Officials)
More than one-third of ALL dam failures or near failures since 1874 happened in the last decade.
Aging sewer systems spill over a trillion gallons of untreated sewage per year, resulting in over 50 billion in cleanup costs. (EPA)


The History channel even did a big widely-respected documentary on the issue recently. We've got a huge bill coming due because of our negligence. We can either borrow money at 2%, or we can borrow money at higher rates for a higher cost years from now, but borrow we shall, either soon or after disasters.

Our problem is pretty simple. Our grandparents spent a ton of money and labor to build a terrific infrastructure with new bridges, airport runways, pipes, and roads. Since then our population has increased beyond the capacity it was meant to handle, we have not kept up very well at all on maintenance, and we have not built new infrastructure capacity sufficient to handle the weight, usage, and miles our growing population has today.

We're just kicking back on our grandparent's hard work, doing less than the bare minimum, and letting it all decay around us. Kind of like a spoiled kid who inherited the family home but has not bothered to ever clean gutters, do roof repair, hire someone to inspect heating/AC, etc for years.

mlyonsd
08-31-2011, 07:28 AM
Will Rogers once observed and today this seems even more applicable...

"If stupidity got us in this mess, why can't it get us out?"

Would make a good campaign theme for Obama 2012ROFL

Chiefshrink
08-31-2011, 07:37 AM
Oh how we soon forget, IF YOU ARE AN OBOT:rolleyes:

Limbaugh transcript from yesterday Aug 30th

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, I am holding here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers (shuffling paper) a story from the Cybercast News Service, Monday, August 29th of 2011. I take that back! I'm sorry! (stammering) I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen. August 29th, 2011? What am I saying! One year ago yesterday: "President Barack Obama, in an Aug. 29, 2010 interview with NBC's Brian Williams, said he would propose a plan for jobs and economic growth when he returned from his summer vacation," one year ago. I am not making this up. Don't you think the way I just did that was pretty clever? I sucked you all in, did I not?

Folks, we are getting instant replay here one year later: August 29th, 2010 (for those of you in Rio Linda, that's last year), Obama conducted an "interview with NBC's Brian Williams, said he would propose a plan for jobs and economic growth when he returned from his summer vacation, the same claim he made after returning from his vacation this year." Now, they're out there saying that Rick Perry is dumb. The Politico had a story yesterday: "Is Rick Perry Dumb?"

How smart is it for Obama to repeat the same pledge two consecutive years -- actually, one year apart -- that he would have a jobs plan after returning from a Martha's Vineyard vacation? He went to Martha's Vineyard last year. He told Brian Williams he was gonna have a jobs plan and he was gonna announce it to the nation when he gets back from vacation. One year later, almost to the day, Obama says, "I'm gonna have a jobs plan when I get back from vacation." So the question is, how did last year's jobs plan work? In fact, does anybody even remember what it was?


The full story:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/flashback-obama-2010-new-jobs-plan-after

mlyonsd
08-31-2011, 07:41 AM
Oh how we soon forget, IF YOU ARE AN OBOT:rolleyes:

Limbaugh transcript from yesterday Aug 30th

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, I am holding here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers (shuffling paper) a story from the Cybercast News Service, Monday, August 29th of 2011. I take that back! I'm sorry! (stammering) I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen. August 29th, 2011? What am I saying! One year ago yesterday: "President Barack Obama, in an Aug. 29, 2010 interview with NBC's Brian Williams, said he would propose a plan for jobs and economic growth when he returned from his summer vacation," one year ago. I am not making this up. Don't you think the way I just did that was pretty clever? I sucked you all in, did I not?

Folks, we are getting instant replay here one year later: August 29th, 2010 (for those of you in Rio Linda, that's last year), Obama conducted an "interview with NBC's Brian Williams, said he would propose a plan for jobs and economic growth when he returned from his summer vacation, the same claim he made after returning from his vacation this year." Now, they're out there saying that Rick Perry is dumb. The Politico had a story yesterday: "Is Rick Perry Dumb?"

How smart is it for Obama to repeat the same pledge two consecutive years -- actually, one year apart -- that he would have a jobs plan after returning from a Martha's Vineyard vacation? He went to Martha's Vineyard last year. He told Brian Williams he was gonna have a jobs plan and he was gonna announce it to the nation when he gets back from vacation. One year later, almost to the day, Obama says, "I'm gonna have a jobs plan when I get back from vacation." So the question is, how did last year's jobs plan work? In fact, does anybody even remember what it was?


The full story:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/flashback-obama-2010-new-jobs-plan-after

Note to Obama....if he waits until August 29, 2012 it will probably be too late.

Donger
08-31-2011, 07:43 AM
$20B/year is not even close to enough. One thing people need to remember is our federal gas tax hasn't changed since the early 90's. The inflation on the cost of construction certainly is not zero, and the federal funding was inadequate even back then.

We built the entire interstate highway system for $425 billion, but $20 billion per YEAR isn't enough?

HonestChieffan
08-31-2011, 08:13 AM
We built the entire interstate highway system for $425 billion, but $20 billion per YEAR isn't enough?


Cannot be built big enough, complex enough, or expensive enough. Its a creed of engineers. My dad, rest his soul, was a bridge design structural engineer for 42 years. I can remember so many times those discussions of why the highway departments seem to need to re do the last redo to fix a previous redo.

That said, we need engineers. We need good ones. And they need better management to help direct that creativity and energy. They do what some politician tells them to do.

In Missouri, we have mile markers every 2/10 of a mile on the highways...and MoDOT when asked about the cost said it didnt cost any more than one every mile. Such logic cannot be argued with.

alnorth
08-31-2011, 09:47 AM
We built the entire interstate highway system for $425 billion, but $20 billion per YEAR isn't enough?

Infrastructure != "roads". It is roads, bridges, dams, airport runways, sewer, water works, schools (dont know why schools, but they throw that in there for some reason. Ignore that one if you want), levees, etc etc etc.

But yes, it obviously is not enough. If it was enough our roads, dams, and bridges would not be in disrepair.

It is like following a football team that ends the season 4-12, and you say in complete amazement "this team was not good enough to win the super bowl?!?" Well, yeah, they aren't, the results speak for themselves. If they were a super bowl quality team you'd think they would at least make the playoffs.

vailpass
08-31-2011, 10:11 AM
Any plan that has obama's name on it has to be a winner.

patteeu
08-31-2011, 10:36 AM
Infrastructure != "roads". It is roads, bridges, dams, airport runways, sewer, water works, schools (dont know why schools, but they throw that in there for some reason. Ignore that one if you want), levees, etc etc etc.

But yes, it obviously is not enough. If it was enough our roads, dams, and bridges would not be in disrepair.

It is like following a football team that ends the season 4-12, and you say in complete amazement "this team was not good enough to win the super bowl?!?" Well, yeah, they aren't, the results speak for themselves. If they were a super bowl quality team you'd think they would at least make the playoffs.

Why are these things federal issues?

alnorth
08-31-2011, 09:22 PM
Why are these things federal issues?

because they always, partially, have been federal issues. It used to be a 50/50 split, but now with negligence it has become a 25/75 fed/state split where the whole pie is nowhere near enough.

The feds also have a far superior capability of securing financing than any state, and there are many lightly-populated states that have a lot of infrastructure used by people outside that state but not enough local tax revenue to support it without help.

You can't divorce the feds from the responsibility of repairing our crappy infrastructure.

HonestChieffan
08-31-2011, 09:39 PM
We built roads designed for semi trailer trucks half the weight we allow today, traveling at 50-55 mph, not 75, and we wont tax them at a comparable rate to the damage they cause. You cannot divorce exceeding design limits from the decline the government has allowed to take place.

But then the unions and truck lobby has nothing to do with that.

re: Mr. alnorth's comment "The feds also have a far superior capability of securing financing than any state... So very true. Lets get those presses running overtime.