Good News: Obama Proposing New Stimulus

[red states rule]

If at first you don't succeed - spend spend some more. The plan Obama made us wait over a month for looks like more of the same failed policy we had to live thru (and pay for) before





Hurricane Irene persuaded President Obama to cut short his vacation on Martha's Vineyard, where he worked on the job creation plan he'll unveil after Labor Day.

Most of the president's plan for jobs is still being developed -- except for one idea he's been pushing hard and pushing in public, reports CBS News White House correspondent Wyatt Andrews.

"Let's rebuild America," the President said in a recent speech.

The President wants to spend big on the nation's roads and bridges, starting with a two-year, $109 billion spending package that's been stalled between the House and the Senate -- but which he argues -- will put tens of thousands of people back to work quickly.
But the roads bill is controversial, because its not all paid for -- and would involve new borrowing. Some economists say it's worth it.

When Moody's studied the 2009 stimulus package, infrastructure spending rated high. For every dollar spent, $1.44 was returned to the economy.

"Infrastructure projects have a large bang for the buck because they employ a lot of people, they require a lot of material and inputs, so a lot of economic activity is generated by those projects," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's.

House Republican Leader Eric Cantor has already told members to resist new borrowing even for new jobs to "(stop) the discussion of new stimulus spending with money that we simply do not have."

But another part of the infrastructure package will encourage businesses to retrofit their buildings to become energy efficient. The proposal would give tax breaks to those who retrofit, but would not involve direct spending.

"This helps to employ workers particularly unemployed construction workers, but also helps with respect to energy independence," said Zandi.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/27/eveningnews/main20098307.shtml?tag=stack

[J.T]

Given his record, I'm rather skeptical.

I expect much wasteful spending and zero meaningful investment.

To be honest, I'm not sure he grasps the difference.

[red states rule]

Given his record, I'm rather skeptical.

I expect much wasteful spending and zero meaningful investment.

To be honest, I'm not sure he grasps the difference.

The first question he should be asked is why do need more "stimulus" to fix our roads and bridges when we already had a trillion dollar "stimulus" we were told was going to do just that?

The second question would be, where will he get the money to pay for it?

[J.T]

The first question he should be asked is why do need more "stimulus" to fix our roads and bridges when we already had a trillion dollar "stimulus" we were told was going to do just that?

The second question would be, where will he get the money to pay for it?

The answer to the first question is because what they said and what they did were two very different things. They said they were going to invest in infrastructure. Then they built a bridge to nowhere, neglected our real infrastructure concerns (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/), and managed to throw away all the money with nothing to show for it but a bill.

As for the second question: who the hell knows anymore. We can't afford more deficit spending or any more loans, they insist on getting involved in more global conflicts, HCR appears to be a huge love cluster, nobody's willing to increase revenue (restore the pre0-carter tax rates, close tax loopholes, disincentive outsourcing, crack down on tax havens...) or consider the viability of our current entitlement programs and grossly mismanaged social safety net... The whole system needs a massive overhaul, but I don't see that happening without there first being a significant collapse of the system which demands it all be rebuilt from the ground up...

The forecast is grim indeed

[red states rule]

The answer to the first question is because what they said and what they did were two very different things. They said they were going to invest in infrastructure. Then they built a bridge to nowhere, neglected our real infrastructure concerns (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/), and managed to throw away all the money with nothing to show for it but a bill.

As for the second question: who the hell knows anymore. We can't afford more deficit spending or any more loans, they insist on getting involved in more global conflicts, HCR appears to be a huge love cluster, nobody's willing to increase revenue (restore the pre0-carter tax rates, close tax loopholes, disincentive outsourcing, crack down on tax havens...) or consider the viability of our current entitlement programs and grossly mismanaged social safety net... The whole system needs a massive overhaul, but I don't see that happening without there first being a significant collapse of the system which demands it all be rebuilt from the ground up...

The forecast is grim indeed


I have to laugh as I watch the media (all of the media) talk about how much money Irene will cost the country in lost productivity, jobs, and property damage

No matter what the final amount is, it will pale in comparison to the amount of similar damage Obama and his polcies have cost the country

Obama is a Cat 7 storm and we have another year and half of it

[J.T]

Can we please not politicize Irene, the 28 deaths, or the suffering of those effected? Please, can we- just this one time- stand together as a nation and provide any help the effected areas need to rebuild without politicizing it or using it as a tool to bash one party or another?

[red states rule]

Can we please not politicize Irene, the 28 deaths, or the suffering of those effected? Please, can we- just this one time- stand together as a nation and provide any help the effected areas need to rebuild without politicizing it or using it as a tool to bash one party or another?

Read the OP link JT. It is Obama who is using Irene as the excuse to spend more moeny we don't have

I stand by my post that Obama has caused more damage to the country than Irene could ever inflict

We have a record number of poeple on food stampts. 9.1% unemployment. Over 20% real unemployment when you include those who have gave up looking for work and those wanting full time work. Record number of people losing their homes, and those who still have a home are underwater on their loan

This is Obamanomics and only a partial list of the suffering Obama has caused the nation. Irene does indeed pale in comparison

[red states rule]

JT, I found this gem in the Washington Post. Again, who is using Irene to push a political agenda?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hurricane-irene-and-the-benefits-of-big-government/2011/08/29/gIQA4bnEoJ_story.html?hpid=z2

[ConHog]

It seems to me that the BEST stimulus is going to be to kick Osama Bin Spendalot out of office. That should stimulate the economy.

[KartRacerBoy]

The first question he should be asked is why do need more "stimulus" to fix our roads and bridges when we already had a trillion dollar "stimulus" we were told was going to do just that?

The second question would be, where will he get the money to pay for it?

The first stimulus bill only had $70 billion devoted to infrastructure, and 40% hasn't been spent.

[ConHog]

The first stimulus bill only had $70 billion devoted to infrastructure, and 40% hasn't been spent.

Exactly, spend THAT money, don't appropriate MORE.

[KartRacerBoy]

Exactly, spend THAT money, don't appropriate MORE.

Not so many "shovel ready" projects. We have laws regarding engineering reviews, environmental reviews, etc. The state govts were not expecting Manna From Heaven (feds). If you are going to do a stimulus correctly, you need to have a PLAN. Not ad hoc, politicized budgets and bills. Plan for 3-5 years out, and gradually increase spending as state projects can come online EXPECTING federal money. Throwing the money at the states all at once for infrastructure is stupid, but that's how Congress is designed. That's why a large bulk of the last stimulus went to paying state employees so states wouldn't lay them off. No long term planning needed.

State projects that need funding? One of the biggest is for sewage projects so runoff during rain storms (with all the street and sewage pollution from combined sewer/drainage systems that flow into rivers during big storms with untreated sewage) can hold the untreated runoff. It's been mandated for 20 years but big municipalities haven't ponied up the bucks to comply. It's expensive. Use fed stimulus to do that. Plans are often in the books (perhaps not reviewed). That will take up a LOT of money and it will hugely increase water quality.

[fj1200]

Not so many "shovel ready" projects...

That may all be well and good but you ignore the stimulus is supposed to happen NOW and those projects will not come on line in time to give benefit NOW. More stimulus is just cover to the real failure that has been interventionist policies. This blither is not worth the time to talk about because it ignores previous government failures at jump starting anything. Infrastructure is nice and needs some upgrading but let's get real.

[KartRacerBoy]

That may all be well and good but you ignore the stimulus is supposed to happen NOW and those projects will not come on line in time to give benefit NOW. More stimulus is just cover to the real failure that has been interventionist policies. This blither is not worth the time to talk about because it ignores previous government failures at jump starting anything. Infrastructure is nice and needs some upgrading but let's get real.

I don't ignore it. I think that since everyone expects a prolonged economic slough that we should plan several years ahead for INFRASTRUCTURE. On the other hand, federal spending going to states so they can keep state/local employees employed (rather than becoming unemployed and further slowing consumption) would be smart.

Your blither is inane as all you can think about is pumping money back to business so they can sit on it. Say's Law. How can you buy into that drivel? Supply does not create demand. The man was a crank.

And I've been punched by Hayek. The sucker couldn't punch. :poke:

[KartRacerBoy]

Did you see what I did there, fj? :beer:

[red states rule]

The first stimulus bill only had $70 billion devoted to infrastructure, and 40% hasn't been spent.

So we were lied to by Obama - what a shocker

This sums up Obama, the stimulus, the bailouts, and the $4 trillion in debt that has been added in a mere 2 1/2 years

<IFRAME height=345 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zhhkF3dqXR0" frameBorder=0 width=560 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[red states rule]

I don't ignore it. I think that since everyone expects a prolonged economic slough that we should plan several years ahead for INFRASTRUCTURE. On the other hand, federal spending going to states so they can keep state/local employees employed (rather than becoming unemployed and further slowing consumption) would be smart.

Your blither is inane as all you can think about is pumping money back to business so they can sit on it. Say's Law. How can you buy into that drivel? Supply does not create demand. The man was a crank.

And I've been punched by Hayek. The sucker couldn't punch. :poke:


Yea, we see how well all that "stimulus" money was used to keep government workers on the payroll. It does not matter the states could not affford to keep those workers on the payroll - they put off the day of reckoning by screwing the US taxpayers with a one time influx of cash. When that cash was gone the workers were let go

Which should have been done in the first place

The main reason companies are sitting on their cash is Obamacare, and the coming tax increases set for 1/1/12. Why hire someone now if you are not sure what the cost of the employee will be next year?

[fj1200]

I don't ignore it. I think that since everyone expects a prolonged economic slough that we should plan several years ahead for INFRASTRUCTURE. On the other hand, federal spending going to states so they can keep state/local employees employed (rather than becoming unemployed and further slowing consumption) would be smart.

Your blither is inane as all you can think about is pumping money back to business so they can sit on it. Say's Law. How can you buy into that drivel? Supply does not create demand. The man was a crank.

And I've been punched by Hayek. The sucker couldn't punch. :poke:

So you're in essence saying that we should expect failure so as not to be surprised when failure is here. :clap: BO is getting your vote in '12 isn't he? Infrastructure spending is fine and if we can accelerate it, great but don't expect that the small bump is going to change anything. And I also disagree with priming the states with cash so that they can keep some likely useless state employees from being downsized.

Business is NOT going to sit on cash once they see certainty in future fiscal policies. Based on your limited worldview you wouldn't EVER expect business to make investments but yet they somehow do. I say again, Say's Law b!itches. But for those who think demand magically creates supply; well I'm not surprised you ignore Keynes' shortcomings.


Did you see what I did there, fj? :beer:

You're not that clever. :slap:

[KartRacerBoy]

So you're in essence saying that we should expect failure so as not to be surprised when failure is here. :clap: BO is getting your vote in '12 isn't he? Infrastructure spending is fine and if we can accelerate it, great but don't expect that the small bump is going to change anything. And I also disagree with priming the states with cash so that they can keep some likely useless state employees from being downsized.

Business is NOT going to sit on cash once they see certainty in future fiscal policies. Based on your limited worldview you wouldn't EVER expect business to make investments but yet they somehow do. I say again, Say's Law b!itches. But for those who think demand magically creates supply; well I'm not surprised you ignore Keynes' shortcomings.



You're not that clever. :slap:


You're not that pretty and yet I give you a semiannual hair dyes. Despite that, you're semio-pretty even when you're wrong.

[J.T]

Where the fuck did all the money he already spent go?

[Gaffer]

Where the fuck did all the money he already spent go?

To the states so they could keep their union do nothin's working for another 6 months. Gotta keep the union dues coming in.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb0830cd20110830024815.jpg

[red states rule]

Where the fuck did all the money he already spent go?'


Here is where some of the money went





102: Protecting a Michigan insect collection from other insects ($187,632)
101: Highway beautified by fish art in Washington ($10,000)
100: University studying hookup behavior of female college coeds in New York ($219,000)
99: Police department getting 92 blackberries for supervisors in Rhode Island ($95,000)
98: Upgrades to seldom-used river cruise boat in Oklahoma ($1.8 million)
97: Precast concrete toilet buildings for Mark Twain National Forest in Montana ($462,000)
96: University studying whether mice become disoriented when they consume alcohol in Florida ($8,408)
95: Foreign bus wheel polishers for California ($259,000)
94: Recovering crab pots lost at sea in Oregon ($700,000)
93: Developing a program to develop "machine-generated humor" in Illinois ($712,883)
92: Colorado museum where stimulus was signed (and already has $90 million in the bank) gets geothermal stimulus grant ($2.6 million)
91: Grant to the Maine Indian Basketmakers Alliance to support the traditional arts apprenticeship program, gathering and festival ($30,000)
90: Studying methamphetamines and the female rat sex drive in Maryland ($30,000)
89: Studying mating decisions of cactus bugs in Florida ($325,394)
88: Studying why deleting a gene can create sex reversal in people, but not in mice in Minnesota ($190,000)
87: College hires director for a project on genetic control of sensory hair cell membrane channels in zebrafish in California ($327,337)
86: New jumbo recycling bins with microchips embedded inside to track participation in Ohio ($500,000)
85: Oregon Federal Building's "green" renovation at nearly the price of a brand new building ($133 million)
84: Massachusetts middle school getting money to build a solar array on its roof ($150,000)
83: Road widening that could have been millions of dollars cheaper if Lousiana hadn't opted to replace a bridge that may not have needed replacing ($60 million)
82: Cleanup effort of a Washington nuclear waste site that already got $12 billion from the DOE ($1.9 billion)
81: Six woodlands water taxis getting a new home in Texas ($750,000)


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/blog/2010/03/12/waste-102-the-final-list/#ixzz1WhEUQAOZ

[J.T]

Protecting a Michigan insect collection from other insects

The fuck?



Police department getting 92 blackberries for supervisors in Rhode Island ($95,000)

Should Rhode Island be funding their police department? Seriously, who put this in what bill? Did they just sneak this in somewhere so the police ccheif would endorse their re-election campaign or something?


Foreign bus wheel polishers for California
Wait. What? What does that even mean? Like... they hired Mexicans to polish the bus?


86: New jumbo recycling bins with microchips embedded inside to track participation in Ohio

They can't just look at see whether the bins are full? Honestly, I don't understand the reasoning behind this.


Retrofitting light switches with motion sensors for one company in Arizona

I thought the company could already write that off on their taxes somewhere? Can't they just call it an energy-saving measure? I'm pretty sure there's a tax break buried in the code for that somewhere already.


Removing graffiti along 100 miles of flood-control ditches in California

Honest question: do they even try to justify federal funding for these things, or they just do it any trust that the public is too tired to complain anymore?

Hosting events for Earth Day, the summer solstice etc. in Minnesota
Those are government events now?


University in California sending students to Africa to study why Africans vote they the way they do in their elections
Planning for his re-election campaign? Is he allowed to do that?


Bridge built over railroad crossing so 168 Nebraska town residents don't have to wait for the trains to pass ($7 million)

Now I remember why I stopped reading congressional bill and budget information whenever it was published. Now my head hurts.


New spring training facilities for the Arizona Diamondbacks and Colorado Rockies
What? We have two fucking stadiums already- in one city. And why is the fed involved in the first place? The whole league's a private business thing, isn't it?

meanwhile...

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/

Good to know they have their priorities

[red states rule]

So why not have another "stiimulus" package? The left and liberal media will tell you the first one was not big enough and the ONLY way to "jolt" the economy is too have more government spending

Obama will probably have a want list of over a trillion when he makes his speech next week, and the liberal media will be waving the pom poms for it

and they will not mention the examples of where the money went in the first stimulus bill

[J.T]

I refer you back to my first two posts in this thread.

None of our current political leadership can be trusted.

The entire system needs a massive overhaul. You can't 'tweak' or 'reform' our way out of it. We need revolutionary, sweeping change on numerous fronts. It's time for some serious and long-overdue cleaning out of the tax codes, farm subsidies (which Bachmann will oppose if POTUS, since her family benefits from them), foreign policy and military bases and deployments, the social safety net (we can't just keep patching it; 'tis time for a hard look at what can and cannot feasibly be sustained)...

[red states rule]

I refer you back to my first two posts in this thread.

None of our current political leadership can be trusted.

The entire system needs a massive overhaul. You can't 'tweak' or 'reform' our way out of it. We need revolutionary, sweeping change on numerous fronts. It's time for some serious and long-overdue cleaning out of the tax codes, farm subsidies (which Bachmann will oppose if POTUS, since her family benefits from them), foreign policy and military bases and deployments, the social safety net (we can't just keep patching it; 'tis time for a hard look at what can and cannot feasibly be sustained)...

Seems to me Obama and the Dems have never had a serious plan to grow the economy and put people to work - only how much moeny they can spend and "transform" America into another Europe

R's have come out with a list of cuts (real cuts) but they are not enough




➢ Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings. ➢ Save America’s Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.

➢ International Fund for Ireland. $17 million annual savings.

➢ Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.

➢ National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.



➢ National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.

➢ Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings.

➢ Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.

➢ Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.

➢ U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.

➢ Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.

➢ Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.

➢ John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.

➢ Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.

➢ Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.

➢ Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings.

➢ Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings


http://sandiegopatriots.com/2011/07/25/republican-study-group-issues-proposed-budget-cuts/

[J.T]

Seems to me Obama and the Dems have never had a serious plan to grow the economy and put people to work - only how much moeny they can spend and "transform" America into another Europe


Nor have the Reps. Two heads, same beast.



R's have come out with a list of cuts (real cuts)

Did they even bother mentioning out continued occupation of Germany? Did they mention the military at all? Military benefits? Socialized Medicine (TriCare)? Taking Bachmann's farm subsidies away? Letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire?

Or did they babble on about Sesame Street, NPR, and the usual one-sided partisan lines?

When one side or the other mentions cutting congressional pay, maybe I'll consider the possibility that they're serious. Until then, I smell the same old partisan shit from both sides.

[red states rule]

Nor have the Reps. Two heads, same beast.



Did they even bother mentioning out continued occupation of Germany? Did they mention the military at all? Military benefits? Socialized Medicine (TriCare)? Taking Bachmann's farm subsidies away? Letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire?

Or did they babble on about Sesame Street, NPR, and the usual one-sided partisan lines?

When one side or the other mentions cutting congressional pay, maybe I'll consider the possibility that they're serious. Until then, I smell the same old partisan shit from both sides.

As I said the cuts are not nearly enough and even DOD needs to cut. At least some R's are talking baout REAl cuts and not just reductions in the rate of growth of programs

[fj1200]

... farm subsidies (which Bachmann will oppose if POTUS, since her family benefits from them)...


Taking Bachmann's farm subsidies away?

Did someone find a new talking point to overuse? How cute.

[fj1200]

You're not that pretty and yet I give you a semiannual hair dyes. Despite that, you're semio-pretty even when you're wrong.

Wrong eh?


A single number tells us most of what we need to know about the recession and prospects for recovery. That number is gross private domestic investment. It averaged 16% of the GDP in 2006-7, 11% in 2009, 12.4% in 2010. For the first half of 2011, it was 12.6%. This decline is large enough to account for most of the increase in unemployment. It must be reversed; there is no other way of returning to high employment.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/...e_numbers.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/recovery_by_the_numbers.html)

[KartRacerBoy]

Wrong eh?

You quote an article that makes an unsupported bare assertion on private investment and expect me to jump ship? The article is written by a supply sider and you agree with him. I don't.

[fj1200]

You quote an article that makes an unsupported bare assertion on private investment and expect me to jump ship? The article is written by a supply sider and you agree with him. I don't.

Granted, he made an extension. You doubt the stat?

It's all the other evidence that should make you "jump ship"; you're close though, I can feel it.

[KartRacerBoy]

Granted, he made an extension. You doubt the stat?

It's all the other evidence that should make you "jump ship"; you're close though, I can feel it.

Show me data on a strong correlation between private investment (whatever that means) and employment numbers and you have an argument. I'm not saying there isn't a correlation. Of course there is. But do they move in lockstep? I doubt it. You can have increased investment and still not have higher employment.

My greatest doubts about Keynesian policies isnt' the policies themselves. It's how politicians implement them and how such policies get bastardized in the process of making the political/economic sausage.

[fj1200]

My greatest doubts about Keynesian policies isnt' the policies themselves. It's how politicians implement them and how such policies get bastardized in the process of making the political/economic sausage.

So your doubts about Keynes is that it doesn't work because the politicians can't get it right yet Supply Side works even in the face of politicians' fail. Interesting.

[red states rule]

So your doubts about Keynes is that it doesn't work because the politicians can't get it right yet Supply Side works even in the face of politicians' fail? Interesting.

Just look at the latest jobs numbers to see the results of Obamanomics. Not only were no net jobs added but last months numbers were revised DOWNWARD

As DNC Chairwomen Schultz correctly said (the only things she has ever said that was correct) Dems own this economy

[KartRacerBoy]

So your doubts about Keynes is that it doesn't work because the politicians can't get it right yet Supply Side works even in the face of politicians' fail. Interesting.

Your assumption is that supply-side works. I say not.

And politicians can get it right. Look at teh 90s when Washington (under a Democratic president!!!) managed to pay down the national debt.

[red states rule]

Your assumption is that supply-side works. I say not.

Take a look at the 1984 election results and get back to me

[fj1200]

Your assumption is that supply-side works. I say not.

And politicians can get it right. Look at teh 90s when Washington (under a Democratic president!!!) managed to pay down the national debt.

Yes, I assume it because the evidence is there. Excuses must be made for Keynes.

The 90's weren't Keynesian. Did you miss the '97 Cap Gains cut and the Republicans holding down the growth of spending? Where do spending bills start?

[KartRacerBoy]

Yes, I assume it because the evidence is there. Excuses must be made for Keynes.

The 90's weren't Keynesian. Did you miss the '97 Cap Gains cut and the Republicans holding down the growth of spending? Where do spending bills start?

You make the classic mistake of mistaking correlation with causation.

And supply-side economics works so well that the first decade of the 21st century was BOOMING! :rolleyes: Or do you have some excuse?

And yes the 90s were Keynesian. It was the part about countercyclical fiscal behavior.

[fj1200]

You make the classic mistake of mistaking correlation with causation.

At some point there is causation to the correlation ;) but I might grant you your point if there was EVER correlation with Keynesianism.


And supply-side economics works so well that the first decade of the 21st century was BOOMING! :rolleyes: Or do you have some excuse?

Did you pay ANY attention to the unemployment rate during most of the 00's?
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate


And yes the 90s were Keynesian. It was the part about countercyclical fiscal behavior.

No.

[KartRacerBoy]

Yes.:dance:

[truthmatters]

When in history has austerity ended an economic downturn?

[red states rule]

When in history has austerity ended an economic downturn?

When has any country ever taxed and spent their way to prosperity?

[truthmatters]

You can not answer my question can you?

[red states rule]

You can not answer my question can you?

That is my answer. When has ANY nation ever taxed and spent its way to prosperity? We have had over 40 years of social spending which total over NINE TRILLION DOLLARS and all we are told is that poverty has never been worse

Liberal programs are set up to reward failure and punish success

We are now seing the end result of those policies. They are imploding under the crushing debt libs have ran up with their ever increasing costs and taxes required to try and keep up