world

Obama outlines plans to create 2.5 million jobs

120 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

120 Comments
Login to comment

President-elect Obama already acting as a president should. Best transition team ever.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good Luck Team Obama !

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good Luck Team Obama !

I agree, he is going to need it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits,

I was particularly impressed with President-elect Obama's idea of building and utilizing wind generators to take lessen the need for foreign oil while creating jobs at home.

That's a win/win for America.

I sincerely pray that President-elect Obama can undo the damage bush did to this country but I believe it a job too big for any one man to accomplish. I also think it will take generations, not years, to fix the nation. Too bad bush's dad and his saudi friends can't and won't bail out bush again, like they have every other time he's failed in life.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"create 2.5 million jobs by rebuilding roads and bridges and modernizing schools"

As if we haven't rebuilt any roads or bridges or modernized any of our schools.

"These are the long-term investments in our economic future"

Translation: We're gonna spend, spend, spend.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I sincerely pray that President-elect Obama can undo the damage bush ( President Bush ) did to this country"

I sincerely pray that the next president can undo the damage President-elect Obama is going to do to this country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge, its beneath you to stoop to their level. your previous comment was spot on though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR - You're right. It's possible that Obama, even though he is a radical leftist, will see the light and see that free markets and capitalism is the driving force behind our economy, and that going after terrorists and not appeasing them is the path to peace and security. It's possible. He may reverse himself and not do untold damage to the country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

modernizing schools !?!?

this has got to be a joke, right? even in my short life I have seen the "modernization" of the US school system, interference from the Federal Gov. has ruined the school system in the US. Local teachers spend all their time trying to meet requirements dumped on them by the Feds and are left with no opportunity to teach the basics. (the ol' 3 R's) If the Federal Government demonstrates it's own success, then I might listen...

as for the roads and bridges... fix 'em all!!! so we can drive our 100 mile per charge cars across the nation... after they build the charging stations and hotels, since it has to charge overnight.

While I was visiting home this summer I drove all over my home state, since the gas was soooo cheap, less than $4 a gallon, ( Tokyo was at about double that, at that time).... the roads were fine and they were working and building new roads and bridges... of course my home state is a "tourist" state and knows the importance good roads for it's economy... doesn't need the Federal Gov. dictating how to do things.

so after all the roads bridges and schools are modernized, what do we do with all the unemployed?...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As if we haven't rebuilt any roads or bridges or modernized any of our schools.

No, not as if we haven't rebuilt any or modernized any. As if we haven't rebuilt enough or modernized enough. For example, the Minnesota bridge collapse.

FDR's CCC was not something that pulled us out of the depression. However, even that program put some people to work and resulted in projects whose results we still enjoy today. Obama's is somewhat more ambitious in its aim.

Yes, we will spend money. We will also get something for the money we spend. We've given $700B to Bush and Paulson upon their urgent demand and have as yet got nothing from it--except the increasingly clear realization that Paulson has not a clue what to do with the money he asked for.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hereandthere makes a good point. just what kind of infrastructure upgrade is really necessary. I just relocated back to the United States and there is a ton of infrastructure construction already going on. Is Obama talking about bridges and highways to nowhere just for the sake of putting people to work. they tried that in the soviet union and it didn't work.

building bigger shinier schools may also look impressive but it does little in the way of improving education.

if this turns into some massive spending program, i hope the media watches very carefully who is getting the contracts, the legitimacy of the work being performed and how much it is costing each individual taxpayer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Building infrastructure can create some jobs for limited time only. It can stimulate the domestic demands however huge spending required. US has already mountain of debts & further plunging into more debt is unwise. It can not solve the long term economic problems. Obama needs to realize that the root cause of the financial & economic problems.

One is loosely regulated wild fiancial market & institutions. One is excessive spending & borrowing of the government & public. US has both budget deficit & trade defict. Tax needed to be raised or huge spending cut are only options. Someone who got the cancer, he or she needed to be amputated. Otherwise life will be extinct.

The main priortiy is balancing the account from red to black. Firstly it needs to ban the short selling & credit default swaps from stock market. Slowly deregulation does not work anymore. The fundamental structure of financial system needed to be fixed. All public servants needed to accept the pay cut. Including the president. Defence & other huge expenditure needed to be cut. Government needs to take over the weak companies. Weak will die. Strong will survive.

Free trade with other countries cause more pain & unemployments. If it is possible, reverese all agreements. Protect the domestic industries for a few years unitl it is getting stronger. Then it will go back to normal business. More social security safet net required as long term for rising army of unemployment.

It is sad however employing unproductive workforce cause more pain to economy. Economy is based on the demand. If no one come and eat in my restaurant, I have to restructure or close the restaurant business. I have to find the alternative way for attracting the customers. Keep decorating the restaurant is just the waste of money. Because customers no logner afford to come & enjoy here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge: 'You're right. It's possible that Obama, even though he is a radical leftist, will see the light and see that free markets and capitalism is the driving force behind our economy, and that going after terrorists and not appeasing them is the path to peace and security. It's possible. He may reverse himself and not do untold damage to the country.'

Buttamimi: Civillian deaths due to the war in Iraq: approx: 90,000. The economy under Bush: The worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Mr. Obama is going to have his work cut out to repair the damage left by the present incompetent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The economy and country was way more screwed up when Reagan took over from Carter and he turned the country around. It was his successors; Bush I, Clinton and Bush II (along with both political parties) that have collectively got us where we are today.

Obama talked a good game to get elected now lets see if he can deliver. It would be conjecture on my part to say why he and his propaganda machine are trying to downplay expectations but all he has to do is follow the Reagan model, lower taxes and free trade.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Speaking about "spend, spend, " please remember that Clinton balanced the US budget. It was Bush who spent, spent, spent the US into a deficit with his useless and immoral wars and phony "war on terror" which included the gulag in Cuba, torture, "rendition" and spying on millions of innocent Americans. And there was "no child left behind" that worsened the US's already dreadful school system.

Really don't know at this point what Obama will do besides inspire people. His domestic agenda mentioned here does not sound bad, though it is vague. Getting out Iraq sounds good. Staying in the Afghanistan is a big mistake.

The best thing so far about Obama is that he is not Bush or McCain or a Republican. Those of us who belong to the Rest of World and are affected by US policies are breathing a collective sigh of relief.

I truly think that the best way Obama can modernize the America is by bringing its public transportation up to date with the rest of the industrial world. The only way to modernize American schools would be to have them financed by something other than property taxes.

And, yes, its time to fix America's bridges. What happened in Minnesota may well repeat itself. Fix the bridges by all means.

Wind power is a great American resource and should be utilized.

Universal health care is of utmost importance, even if it does not create jobs.

From what I've seen of Obama I believe that he will be a middle of the road Democrat, probably popular enough to be reelected, but not a great changer. But you never know. Circumstances change leaders. FDR was at best only a moderately liberal Democrat when he took office; the Depression changed him. One way or another the current recession (or depression) will make Obama whatever he will be once he takes office.

Meanwhile, good riddance to Bush and his dog too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Boy this has got the righties up in ire -- becase they have NOTHING to be angry about! They can't rail against Obama because unlike their hero bush, Obama has actual ideas, aside from wars, that are going to work. It's infuriating that their ideals have been proven to be folly, and so naturally they rail against the things they themselves actually desire because it's brought to them by someone they so desperately want to hate.

sarge: bush has done more damage to your country than any single human being since the country's creation. Obama reversing himself on his already superior policies would only mean going to back to the same destruction bush wrought on the once great USA. Fortunately, he doesn't have to listen to your advice/predictions ("get ready for McCain/Palin in the White House!" We know how your beliefs turn out!), and already he's improving things in your land.

Little children, like the people who still believe that bush has done good for the US, sometimes need to be shown what is good for them, despite the tantrums the throw to prevent hearing it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka313,

I am convinced that President Obama and his team can undo a lot of the damage caused by Mr. George W. Bush and the misguided Republican policies that have helped drive our nation's economic system to the brink of the abyss.

We see the words here from so many who don't have an iota of wisdom or common sense. It's comforting to know that those types have to use these forums to get anyone to listen to their pointless mumbo-jumbo.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sez,

You bring up a point that is very sensitive to me. My niece took the 35W bridge daily. Thankfully, she wasn't on it when it collapsed. The thing about the infrastructure is, it's far worse than it appears, especially our nation's bridges. But...it's a problem that is easily ignored and if there is anything we've learned about neo-con rule, ignoring real problems to focus on lunacy is their stock and trade.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jeancolmer; you forget that the United States is a representative democracy and no president has dictatorial power. Obama will have the most power ever handed to a modern president but nothing close to a dictatorship as the founding fathers so wisely made sure would never happen.

With that said, Clinton was the president when he and a Republican congress worked together to balance the budget. Both get equal credit and some might argue the Republicans get more because they led Clinton down the path. Clintons foreign policy, restrictions he placed on the CIA and FBI and his failure to respond responsively to terrorist attacks against the United States played a major role in the Sep 11,2001 attacks which in case you didn't notice ultimately put this country on war footing. Placing all the blame on Bush may feel nice and cajole your feelings of superiority but it does nothing in repairing the deep divide which you definitely contribute nor does it make the people you vote into office accountable for their actions. Grow up and start putting your country first for a change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So...the republican Congress under Clinton gets the credit for the balanced budget because they lead him down the right path (hello revisionist history).

What I don't get then is why they did such a bad job of leading bush down the wrong path.

Was bush just that darn stupid or did Congress become dumber after Clinton left office?

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whoops.

I meant that the republican Congress that apparently guided Clinton toward a positive economy did a poor job of leading bush down the right path.

Sorry, I'm multi-tasking.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka313,

I hope you weren't thinking that my "as if we haven't done enough" was meant to imply that we had. My meaning was that Obama has created this program not in response to our not having done any maintenance but in recognition of the fact that we haven't done enough. The I-35W bridge is a testament to that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hey taka no revisioning required. its fact that the legislative branch and the executive branch work together that sometimes moves the country in the right direction and sometimes moves the country in the wrong direction. Placing blame or sole credit on one or the other just shows ignorance how our government works.

blaming bush solely for the country's ills relieves a lot of other elected officials; both democrat and republican of their responsibility and people such as yourself who are partisians who care very little about living up to the ideals of our founding fathers.

its okay to defend your guy/gal and its okay to support the direction in which you want your politicians to go but when you demonize the other party and their supporters you are only contributing to the current sad state of affairs. when you point your finger,there are three pointing back at you.

Its time to quit blaming Bush and advance the dialogue on how to move this country in the proper direction. Are Obama supporters big enough to do that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Are Obama supporters big enough to do that?

I think they probably are, but it would help if Bush supporters would stop blaming Clinton, who has been out of office for almost 8 years, and Obama, who hasn't even taken office yet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka313,

Thank you for pointing out the Republican, mentally-skewed rewrite of history and the basic facts. Anyone can go back to the Democratic convention of 1996 and look at the record that President Bill Clinton pledged that he would work with Congress to balance the budget by the end of his second term. The US budget is formed first by the president's Office of Management and the Budget (OMB) and then passed to Congress. Therefore, for budgetary matters, it is the president who leads.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sez,

First off, I understood your meaning.

Secondly, regarding your latest post: BING!!! We have a winner.

vor,

It's pretty funny to hear someone claim that those of us who oppose bush aren't living up to the ideals of our founding fathers. Yeah, we really oppose the founding fathers when we complain and protest the bush administration's abuse of the Constitution, their (the founding fathers) most important contribution to America and the reason they ARE referred to as "the founding fathers."

Wow. Really.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits,

You are welcome and thank you for the nice words.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Free trade isn't free, it costs the USA alot of jobs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

President-elect Barack Obama promoted an economic plan Saturday he said would create 2.5 million jobs by rebuilding roads and bridges and modernizing schools

This sounds like a good plan to get people to at least start back working, but it seems that the majority of these jobs will be in the constrution sector. This is vital, but I have a few issues.

First, what happens when the bridges and schools are completed? Will they continually go throughout the country rebuilding bridges? Will America become the same as Japan where every night, I see workers building and rebuilding the same patch of road?

Also, part of the problem in the recent past in the US construction industry was that skilled American labor was replaced by cheap illegal alien labor. So now, contractors who get the gov't contract to work on these bridges and schools will seek out the cheapest labor source in order to maximize profit, so we will start right back again with a flood of illegal immigrants, and industries starting up again to make sure that they will be able to get loans, use the "universal health care" that Obama promises, and stress the all ready overburdend school systems in some areas.

This was done before with FDR and his WPA programs. It did help get the US out of the Depression in the 30's, but also, so did WW2. You can only build/rebuild so many times, and other sectors of the workforce will need to get revitalized also.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama:"Our crumbling roads and bridges"

To hear Obama talk, you would think the U.S. is a third-world country.

Obama: "building wind farms and solar panels"

How about drilling for oil, which is going to be the main source of power for years to come no matter how many wind farms and solar panels we build? Nah...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yes and Clinton had to submit a budget that the Republicans would pass and by that time in the Clinton presidency and to his credit he heard the opposition and did the right thing. C'mon guys quit being rubes for the democrats and rise above partisian politics. Isn't that what our dear leader has promised the nation?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka,opposite points of views is what makes America great, it partisians who lie and twist the truth that is damaging the nation. Can you honestly say you are not partisan?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Clintons foreign policy, restrictions he placed on the CIA and FBI and his failure to respond responsively to terrorist attacks against the United States played a major role in the Sep 11,2001 attacks which in case you didn't notice ultimately put this country on war footing.

VOR, I would really like some details on this. Especially clarity on the restrictions that placed on the FBI and CIA and HOW exactly that played a MAJOR role in 9/11.

Its really easy to make these accusations. A little of this, a little of that, and voila, it almost sounds legit. Links, proof, details...please.

Moderator: Back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have to say I am a little disappointed in Obama's words. Rather than talk about wind farms and solar panels, which really are not going to do much for us, I would rather hear that all those energy saving patents the big 3 bought up and promptly moth-balled will be made open license to any American company who wants to use them.

And rather than modernize our schools, I think I could I go for some of what we had in the past...and lost.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Vor,

Absolutely, I am partisan. I am pro-Constitution, pro-rule of law, pro-American and anti-neo-con.

You know what I think is really funny. Had I supported bush the way I support Obama, I would have been declared a patriot. Now..."partisan."

You guys just LOVE to have it both ways.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hmm... I think that USA can modernize the raillways system. There is more than enough higways and airports.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

taka, funny, I am to. the only thing that seperates us is that i think that both the democratic party and the republican party are self serving and do not look out for the best interest of the American people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mcheeky you can do your own research if you are interested. plenty of arguments that argue both sides of it. a simple google search to obtain analysis from sources other than the main stream media are readily available. you'll have to pick and chose from the ones you find credible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mcheeky you can do your own research if you are interested.

Smells like a cop out. You have not provided nearly enough info to begin a search, unless I am going to be at it for weeks. If you know no more, then I think you should be more careful what you claim next time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

not a cop out at all. you seem more than capable to go out and get both sides of the story if that is indeed what you are interested in doing. I can give you sources and you can come back and tell me you don't like my sources so I leave it up to you to pick and chose what you deem credible.

googling 911 intelligence failures would be a good start.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Economics 101: During the good times, governments save big surplusses. In bad times, governments spend these surplusses. Considering that Bush spent massiving during the good times and now Obama has to spend stave off a depression, isn't the US totally screwed?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Real low on actual details. Have to hammer it out with Congress. Though what I gathering so far with his broad proposal doesn't give me much hope that this will have any meaningful effect on job creation in the short term and may actually do more harm then good.

Without corresponding suspension of the massive amount of regulations that a contruction firm has to go through (EPA environmnetal impact studies etc) and a complete overhaul of the bidding process as to who to award these projects to, along with the massive layer of local state and city bureacracies just to get permits to begin. It can take up to seven years before one foot of concrete is even poured. Net job creation when you need it most which is now isn't going to happen.

Also this proposal reeks of pork. The projects will be awarded to districts with the most political clout during the horse trading to get their votes to support the package, both Republicans and Democrats will wallow in it as they always do and the infrastructure that needs repair the most will be neglected because junior congressman man Smith from Backwater town hasn't mastered the good old boy network in Washington yet.

Obama isn't going to change his stripes that I can tell as far as spend, spend, spend. Though a better way to try to promote real job growth and improve infrastructure at the same time would be to have a bi-partisan commission first to determine what projects are critical to the safety of the citizens in whatever area of the country they live in our great union. And then award the contracts on the basis of their recommendations.

Keeping pork and lobbyists out of it entirely. Then we would see a real long term economic benefit and some real help in areas of the country that really needs it instead of building bridges to nowhere.

Two things have to happen in my opinion to if this is really going to help. Streamline the process for awards of the projects to get them started as fast as possible and keep Congress out of it as much as you can in pork earmarks to get the goodies for their own districts so they can get their butts re-elected by bringing home the bacon.

I'm pretty sure Obama and his team though will really turn out as business as usual in Washington instead of "change" that he ran on.

Wish I wrong on that, I really do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind

Obama isn't going to change his stripes that I can tell as far as spend, spend, spend

I agree. One has to wonder if Obama knows that government doesn't create wealth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Our crumbling roads and bridges"

And what is NOT true about this statement? At least he's not being a hypocrite like Palin when it comes to Socialism.

The US DOES have a large crumbling infrastructure, the Minnesota bridge collapse last year was just the tip of it. There are over 150,000 bridges in the US rated structurally deficient or obsolete.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The government does not create wealth. (Creating "wealth" is not even necessary with a static population--except to replace wealth that is destroyed.) However, the government can help to create conditions that create wealth and it can help to retard conditions that destroy it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2

the government can help to create conditions that create wealth and it can help to retard conditions that destroy it.

True. Government can affect the conditions, such as creating a pro-business and entrepreneurial environment which does create wealth for the country. But the government itself doesn't create wealth, it only spends it. So let me rephrase my statement: One has to wonder if Obama knows that creating a huge government-funded jobs/works program doesn't create wealth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is absolutely hilarious to listen to bush supporters chant 'spend spend spend' in relation to Obama when their hero GWB spent more than any other president in history and has guaranteed your country will be owned largely by others while your grandchildren's kids struggle to survive. Hilarious.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

its absolutely hilarious that the focus of obama supporters is on blaming bush. i guess that will continue until obama finally comes clean on how he is going to fix things. poor things.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"spend spend spend"

Again, this coming from bush supporters is absolutely hilarious. There's a HUGE difference between dumping money down the toilet for wars, etc., as bush has done, and INVESTING money in the future, as Obama plans on doing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"its absolutely hilarious that the focus of obama supporters is on blaming bush. i guess that will continue until obama finally comes clean on how he is going to fix things. poor things."

HAHAHahahaha!! You guys SURE are bitter. I bring up some valid points of comparison and illustrate the hypocrisy of many of you on here, and all you can do is try to deflect from owning up to the truth. 'Coming clean'?!? You've got to be kidding! This coming from a guy who supports suppression of all sorts of records by bush/cheney/gonzales about just about anything. That's off topic, but again points out the hypocrisy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

its absolutely hilarious that the focus of obama supporters is on blaming bush. i guess that will continue until obama finally comes clean on how he is going to fix things. poor things.

The problem is GWB has two months in office, during which time things can continue to deteriorate rapidly. The lesson he's learned from the financial crisis is that "we don't need more government but smarter government." OK, but where's the policy prescription in that?

Obama has thus far assembled an impressive economic team, if only they could start next week! The one bright spot evident in this downturn is that it's wholly internally generated rather than, as was the case in the 1970s, the result of an external shock, specifically OPEC's quadrupling of the price of oil. We have much greater control; but realignment will be painful. Gone are the days of cheap credit that resulted in great private and public indebtedness (which many people mistook for wealth generation).

Today I paid less than two bucks a gallon for gas, the last time I remember the price being so low was back in 2003. But I'm all for investing in alternative energy, though the jobs created will go mainly to the better educated (no shortage of those receiving unemployment checks). But the benefits will accrue to everyone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah there's going to be a lot of spending. A damn lot.

The difference here is that the spending will be on the American people out of work and not on no-bid contracts and a war of choice.

The spending will be on American interest and not the personal interest and goals of a want-to-be war president.

The money spent will be on roads and bridges and not on bombs and tanks.

The money spent will be spent on helping Americans and not killing Iraqis.

Yeah there's going to be a lot of money spent. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is all nice and dandy, but we'll all have to withhold our enthusiasm until we see this plan of his is actually working.

As with all things, some work out differently than you plan them out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“We’ll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges,

Nice, but without proper oversite and management you end up with nothing but a boondoggle and a situation made even worse than before.

You end up actually making people poorer and saddled with more debt in the long run.

Prime example...........

Big Dig's red ink engulfs state Cost spirals to $22b; crushing debt sidetracks other work, pushes agency toward insolvency

Price of Boston's Big Dig project continues to rise

The cost of Boston's massive Big Dig highway project is going up, again. The interest is adding billions of dollars to the price tag and it will be years until the state pays off the debt.

Massachusetts residents got a shock when state officials, at the peak of construction on the Big Dig project, disclosed that the price tag had ballooned to nearly $15 billion. But that, it turns out, was just the beginning. Now, three years after the official dedication of the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel, the state is reeling under a legacy of debt left by the massive project. In all, the project will cost an additional $7 billion in interest, bringing the total to a staggering $22 billion, according to a Globe review of hundreds of pages of state documents. It will not be paid off until 2038.

Contrary to the popular belief that this was a project heavily subsidized by the federal government, 73 percent of construction costs were paid by Massachusetts drivers and taxpayers. To meet that obligation, the state's annual payments will be nearly as much over the next several years, $600 million or more, as they were in the heaviest construction period.

Big Dig payments have already sucked maintenance and repair money away from deteriorating roads and bridges across the state, forcing the state to float more highway bonds and to go even deeper into the hole.

Among other signs of financial trouble: The state is paying almost 80 percent of its highway workers with borrowed money; the crushing costs of debt have pushed the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, which manages the Big Dig, to the brink of insolvency; and Massachusetts spends a higher percentage of its highway budget on debt than any other state.

http://www.boston.com/news/traffic/bigdig/articles/2008/07/17/big_digs_red_ink_engulfs_state/

I hope Obama is smart enough to know throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it. I hope he demands accountability before he spends one dime. Until I see more details his plan I think is a horrible idea, so far not one word from him or his team about accountability or who will see that the money will actually spent where it is needed, I see Pork and waste and business as usual.......See BIG DIG.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One has to wonder if Obama knows that creating a huge government-funded jobs/works program doesn't create wealth.

A panel discusses that very issue.

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=JnX-D4kkPOQ

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Are we trying to create wealth or stave off a depression?

Are we trying to create wealth or just trying to give people jobs so they can feed their families?

Are we trying to create wealth or are we trying to employ people so they can pay their taxes and help pay back into the treasuries?

First you have to get the country back on it'e feet. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind,

It's no surprise "public endeavors" often exceed the initial price tag given the way they are sold to the public. (By the latest reckoning, the Iraq War has cost more than ten times the original estimate--makes the Boston tunnel dig amount to chump change by comparison.)

But let's remember the public works program under Roosevelt was not primarily intended to generate wealth but to put people to work. Many of those endeavors, however, certainly have generated wealth. Among them is the Big Sur coastal (cliffside really) highway which created the basis for a thriving tourism industry that is the number one source of revenue for many central coast communities in the Golden State:

The Bixby Creek Bridge of Highway 1 is California's favorite coastal bridge. The bridge is technically sound, but more than being thoughtfully planned and well constructed; it is socially purposeful and symbolically important to its travelers. Building the bridge and Highway 1 were important public works projects which brought relief to California's unemployed during the Great Depression, and which today connects travelers though this dramatic coastal region.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind: "Nice, but without proper oversite and management you end up with nothing but a boondoggle and a situation made even worse than before. You end up actually making people poorer and saddled with more debt in the long run. Prime example..........."

.... would be the Bridge to Nowhere, which Sarah Palin wholeheartedly endorsed; and this was the person whose party you wanted to win!! And now you're on here talking about potential boondoggles when the person you admire now (bush) and the person you wished to win (McSame) GUARANTEED boondoggles??

Anyway, unlike some of your more bitter posts full of misdirected anger and purely unwarranted speculation and hysteria, this one had a bit of logic in it. Well, until the end, that is:

"I hope Obama is smart enough to know throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it. I hope he demands accountability before he spends one dime..."

If you subsitute Obama here with GWB and change everything to 'I wish' and the past tense 'he had/n't', you might have saved your country a WHOLE lot of grief. As it is, bust still remains the president who put your country in the biggest whole in history, as well as miring it with the current financial crisis (biggest since the Great Depression, anyway), and in his 'midnight hour' laws is granting all sorts of contracts to dig up precious environmental habitats for what little oil he can suck out of them.

I think Betzee summed up a good enough retort as to the positive aspects of Obama's plan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Helter Skelter,

A pro-business and entreprenuerial atmosphere doesn't necessarily create wealth. I think we're seeing that right now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Smith,

This is about Obama and his plans. Where is Bush mentioned in the article? You really should get over it, the election has been over for quite the while now.

Please stay on topic and discuss how Obama's plan won't turn into another Big Dig disaster instead of a Bixby Creek Bridge success. You haven't exactly showed me being the taxpayer that is going to get stuck with the bill with his plan shouldn't question as to how my money is going to spent or is it going to be wasted and in the long run make the problem worse?

That is the real issue here, not your obsession with Bush.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

when the person you admire now (bush) and the person you wished to win (McSame) GUARANTEED boondoggles??

I have never admired Bush and McCain's reputation agaisn't earmarks and pork barrel spending is impeccable. I know he would have made sure the money will be spent where it was really needed and not on another Big Dig project.

Can you say the same here about Obama's plan????????

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It may be that the money that Obama spends on the reconstruction projects--if in fact Congress grants him the funds--will not make things better. However, the $5T of deferred taxes that Congress granted Bush has not made things better either.

It hardly makes sense to give Bush and Paulson nearly a trillion dollars and let them dither with it and expect Obama to have a fully formed plan of what he is going to do. It is difficult to prove that the as-yet-ungranted and un-numerated funds that Obama now says he will seek will not result in waste. However, if they are spent to upgrade failing infrastructure the funds cannot be completely wasted.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You can't just create jobs during a recessiojn, that is daft.

I thought Obama had some brains. You have to wait for the recession to finish first, blimey i learnt that from political debates with my peers in the 60's.

Seem like America may have yet another president living ina fantasy world. Oh gawd! What is going to happen next?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree with sailwind for his wisdom. If the infrastructure projects are not properly managed or planned it will become nighmare or disaster. Budget will be blow out. Project will not go any further. My memory of cyclone katriana rebuilding project revisted. Some collasped infrastructure are still on the ground.Some of the cyclone victims have not got the benefit from it. Incompetency, corruption and mismanagement were sad stories.

Projects planning was complex, rigid and bureacratic. However I wish that new administration will learn the lessons from past mistakes. Congress needed to concern about the national interest rather than their electoral interest. Reps or Dems they needed to be united and competent for the sake of the economy.

During the 1990s, US enjoyed the golden age of prosperity. I think it is not impossible for revisiting that golden era. Obama may be second Cliton who reformed & rebuilt the successful economy of USA.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind: "This is about Obama and his plans. Where is Bush mentioned in the article? You really should get over it, the election has been over for quite the while now."

Where is bush mentioned in the article??

"In a slap at President George W Bush, Reid added, “We will soon finally have a leader and partner in the White House who recognizes the urgency with which we must turn around our economy, and I look forward to working with him and the new Congress to do so.” This quotation starts at the 14th line from the bottom.

Did you even read the article, sailwind, or did you just come on here to bash Obama because you're still upset about the election? I can also point out at least one or two parts of the article which state 'highest unemployment levels since...' and so on, which are still occurring on GWB's watch... or did you forget he is still the US president for a month and a bit?

Geez, sailwind... this is about the fifth time you've come on here to ask, "Where does this mention bush" or, "This has nothing to do with bush" and have had it come back and slap you in the face. Quite humourous that you can say to me, "Please stay on topic" with a straight face when what I talk about is a very integral PART of the topic. Once again, did you even read the article in its entirety? You cannot, my friend, talk about change without discussing WHAT it is that is being changed, ie. what currently exists and why.

If my son is marvelling over the change from a caterpillar to a butterfly and asking questions about it, I'll be damned if I'm going to say, "It's a butterfly already, forget about how it got there".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind: "You haven't exactly showed me being the taxpayer that is going to get stuck with the bill with his plan shouldn't question as to how my money is going to spent or is it going to be wasted and in the long run make the problem worse?"

Admittedly, I can't show you how much of a bill you're going to be stuck with. I CAN show you that it will be in addition to at least one war of choice which has cost trillions, and all sorts of losses based on the economic meltdown, and I can guarantee that if Obama doesn't make things better you'll be saddled with a whole lot more. That whole lot more is not dependent on Obama, it's a fact regardless of whom the president is. The thing here is that Obama is taking positive steps to remedy the situation. ANYTHING done to affect what's happening with unemployment and the economy is going to take money -- that's a fact. But the fact that, as I said, Obama is investing as opposed to blindly spending, like previous leaders, is a step in the right direction.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

whats obama going to do? no one seems to know, not even the people who voted for him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR: "whats obama going to do? no one seems to know, not even the people who voted for him."

He's not president, now is he? No one knows what you're current president is going to do with his remaining time either, to try and get his name in the record books beyond embarrassment, but that doesn't seem to bother you at all. Had McCain been elected, are you trying to tell me you would have known EXACTLY what the man was going to do in a month and a half? The guy couldn't even say during his campaign what he was going to do for the country.

As usual, VOR is grasping at straws to bash a good man.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

last week to the highest level since July 1992, providing fresh evidence of the weakening job market.

Which Bush are your talking about Smith since it is so "Integral" to this article. Wanna talk about Bush the elder in 1992????

That whole lot more is not dependent on Obama,

Agreed as President he doesn't have any real influence on the direction of the country (hard to type that one with a straight face).

The thing here is that Obama is taking positive steps to remedy the situation.

Getting the Federal Government under some sort of fiscal sanity might be a good place to start first before embarking on more spend and borrow. How do you think we got into this mess in the FIRST PLACE?

But the fact that, as I said, Obama is investing as opposed to blindly spending,

Yup....he really clears up what exactly he's investing it in and how much he is planning to spend.

Oh and Bush is bad really bad......Both of em.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Another "Cherry Picked" instance posted by Sailwind. Big surprise there. However, if someone were to do the same thing, let say, for a sailor who commits a crime and they say it represents all the Navy, he bawks like a chicken making noise on the thread until the other person will no longer respond. We won't get any comment on how Clinton had the most successful economy that he has ever seen; which is an overall view. We don't get an analysis on how Bush's trickle down economics, tactics that go back to long before any of us were born and have never been the answer (I don't need anyone to explain reagonomics to me; Volcker tightened the Fed which made inflation sore downwards).

So long after Obama improves the economy we will still be hearing cherry-picked articles that "prove" some falsehood about Obama's success. Anyone who denies that this is the worst financial crisis they have ever seen in their entire life will have to convince me that they are over 70 years old. Nearly every Republican will tell you that this crisis is enormous. Anyone saying that Democrats are making excuses by pointing out the current devastated economy is very deep and bound to get worse are liars. Economist expect unemployment to reach 7% - 9.5%.

I want to know whether the NeoCons/conservatives are going to give Obama credit if the economy turns around or give Bush the credit if it turns around. If the economy continues to tank will they blame Obama or will they say Bush is at fault for his hand in destroying our economy. I predict it the economy gets better they will say it is because of Bush. But if the economy gets worse they will say it is because of Obama. They can't have it both ways and I want to hear which way they are going to claim it - now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We won't get any comment on how Clinton had the most successful economy that he has ever seen;

Clinton lost both houses of Congress in his 1996 Mid-terms. His economy was the best we had ever seen because the Republicans and their "Contract with America" forced him to be a Fiscal Conservative.

Talk about cherry picking history or did you forget that little fact? Clinton had to enact a Republican driven agenda to remain relevant and that is exactly what he did after he got his butt handed to him in after his first two years in office by a really angry electorate who washed out the Democrats after 50 years in power.

I never thought I had to point out the obvious when it came to how Clinton's economy was because of a Republican congress he helped elect by his own inepitude.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan if you paid attention to the election, Obama won because he represented change. The American public voted against McCain because they knew what he would do; he was McBush-lite remember?

Obama talked about change,welllllllllllll, noone know seems to know what that means and this uncertainty is contributing to this severe economic downturn.

I'm not bashing Obama, I as an American citizen want to know what my president is going to do. What business is it of yours anyway, your Canadian.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonk; you have a tremendous amount of faith in Obama. Besides liking his party affiliation what is he going to do to turn this economy around.

Obama can only be judged on what he eventually decides to do. if the economy tanks further the Democratic controlled house and senate and the Democratic President should indeed be held accountable.

What is he going to do?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind: "Clinton lost both houses of Congress in his 1996 Mid-terms. His economy was the best we had ever seen because the Republicans and their "Contract with America" forced him to be a Fiscal Conservative."

Hey, bud... I thought you didn't believe in talking about the past and that people should just 'get over it' as though it never existed and played no importance. You asked me where the article mentioned bush, I showed you, and then pointed out that in many other cases the article talks about 'change', which means a change from the past wasteful (without any return) tendencies of bush. You then jump on to talk about 'history' yourself, and in pointing out how Clinton lost both houses seem to have forgotten how bush ALSO lost both houses and yet only reversed Clinton's record economy into a record deficit. Oh, but wait... I guess we should only talk about history when it benefits your argument.

Anyway, sailwind, you cutting a mere fraction of a sentence from my post and trying to spin it into fact is as bad as sarge when it comes to cutting and pasting, and it's rather sad.

As I have said before, and I'll say again, Obama being elected has really made people like you, VOR, and a mere few others really bitter, and you're simply lashing out in any way you can at Obama. Try to grow up a little before coming back and posting. Or at least, try to read the article that the thread is about instead of just the headline and then assuming no one else has read it either.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonkey: "I want to know whether the NeoCons/conservatives are going to give Obama credit if the economy turns around or give Bush the credit if it turns around. "

Are you kidding? Hell, when Obama announced that he was going to reverse bush's moronic stem-cell research veto the die-hard righties STILL came on here and defended bush, and yet said they are for stem-cell research. Obamas many victories to come will simply spur more pointless drivel from the right on any small failures that come up along the way. Meanwhile, when you point out bush's failures and the fact that they lead to the current economic crisis among other things, people like sailwind simply come on here and first say, "get with the times, former presidents don't matter" and then start talking about the presidents BEFORE former presidents when you prove them wrong (at which point they forget that they called you up to mention 'where' the former president is integral to the argument).

They will NEVER look at Obama's victories in a positive light.... never...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Smith,

Could you point out anywhere I said I was agaisn't his plan?

Thanks

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind said:

His economy was the best we had ever seen because the Republicans and their "Contract with America" forced him to be a Fiscal Conservative.

Like I didn't know you would say that. You have no idea what cherry picking is. A broad statement like I made can never be cherry picking. This is not some instance of pork. This is not some article of a survey (faulty as it may be). This is not a newsbusters.org reference.

It was Clinton's economic diplomacy initially featuring United States Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown that significantly opened trade up until his tragic death. It was the positive view of America the world took and purchased our products like never before. When it comes to the budget it was very mush Clinton budgets that were the success. Clinton won the showdown of 1996 and congress wrote the budgets like he wanted in fear of another country wide blame they took in the 1996 standoff. Those were success years because of Clinton. Gingrich had no grand ideas; he just wanted to push your version of morality on the rest of us.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR

if the economy tanks further the Democratic controlled house and senate and the Democratic President should indeed be held accountable.

Then I will expect you to give Obama credit for any improvement in the economy. If you care to do some research you will find that this is the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

By the way I am for massive spending right now. We need to buy up the toxic loans, bail-out the auto industry and stabilize banks to the level of a return to credit fluidity. I think Timothy Geithner was wrong in his input to not bail out Lehman Brothers. Mortimer Zuckerman, a conservative, said that it could cost as much as another 900 billion dollars after the auto bailout and after the unemployment and after the current stimulus package but he says it is the right direction. Others balked at that comment saying our dollar would be devaluated. He pointed out that no country is in good shape. We have lost over 8.5 trillion dollars in value that cannot be restored any time soon. We need to stabilize the economy and say screw the deficit for a few years. We are talking survival here. As soon as we can I want to get back to balancing the budget (there is no such thing! - either a deficit or a surplus).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonkey

Clinton's 1996 State of the Union Address differs and his own words differ with your version of events.

We know big government does not have all the answers. We know there's not a program for every problem. We have worked to give the American people a smaller, less bureaucratic government in Washington. And we have to give the American people one that lives within its means.

The era of big government is over. But we cannot go back to the time when our citizens were left to fend for themselves. Instead, we must go forward as one America, one nation working together to meet the challenges we face together. Self-reliance and teamwork are not opposing virtues; we must have both.

I believe our new, smaller government must work in an old-fashioned American way, together with all of our citizens through state and local governments, in the workplace, in religious, charitable and civic associations. Our goal must be to enable all our people to make the most of their own lives -- with stronger families, more educational opportunity, economic security, safer streets, a cleaner environment in a safer world.

To improve the state of our Union, we must ask more of ourselves, we must expect more of each other, and we must face our challenges together.

Here, in this place, our responsibility begins with balancing the budget in a way that is fair to all Americans. There is now broad bipartisan agreement that permanent deficit spending must come to an end.

I compliment the Republican leadership and the membership for the energy and determination you have brought to this task of balancing the budget. And I thank the Democrats for passing the largest deficit reduction plan in history in 1993, which has already cut the deficit nearly in half in three years.

Since 1993, we have all begun to see the benefits of deficit reduction. Lower interest rates have made it easier for businesses to borrow and to invest and to create new jobs. Lower interest rates have brought down the cost of home mortgages, car payments and credit card rates to ordinary citizens. Now, it is time to finish the job and balance the budget.

Though differences remain among us which are significant, the combined total of the proposed savings that are common to both plans is more than enough, using the numbers from your Congressional Budget Office to balance the budget in seven years and to provide a modest tax cut.

These cuts are real. They will require sacrifice from everyone. But these cuts do not undermine our fundamental obligations to our parents, our children, and our future, by endangering Medicare, or Medicaid, or education, or the environment, or by raising taxes on working families.

I have said before, and let me say again, many good ideas have come out of our negotiations. I have learned a lot about the way both Republicans and Democrats view the debate before us. I have learned a lot about the good ideas that we could all embrace.

http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/New/other/sotu.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind: "Could you point out anywhere I said I was agaisn't his plan?"

So are you saying you're for it, then? From the tone of your posts, and your constant arguments and complaints against Obama, it certainly doesn't SOUND like you're with him on this... so, are you for or against his plans?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind: "Agreed as President he doesn't have any real influence on the direction of the country (hard to type that one with a straight face)."

Geez, that sure sounds like you're against him, given that you took about a third of my sentence and twisted it to make it sound like I said he has no influence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan

I definitely know what you are talking about. I have seen many issues go silent when hard core proof is provided. They try to say that Clinton's reduced military budget was this terrible thing. He saved hundreds of billions of dollars. They say we were unprepared. How many more fighters, bombers and missiles did we need to stop Osama bin Ladin from attacking the World Trade Center. We did an excellent job in Afghanistan until we diverted our attention. The truth is that Clinton reduced military spending and still defended our nation adequately.

I don't expect Obama to bring us back to the glory days. Bush has spoiled that for some time to come. I just want us to be lowing unemployment in two years and increasing our GDP. Modest estimates put our recession at about about two years. This is shared by conservatives and liberals alike. If we had not spent the cash we did on one extra war and tax cuts for the rich we would have been far better prepared to deal with this crisis of greed. However we cannot expect to punish the greedy and everything will work out. Take a page from the Great Depression when so many of the rich fell. It devastated the average Joe for over a decade and so many people had nothing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind: "Obama isn't going to change his stripes that I can tell as far as spend, spend, spend."

Sounds like you're for his policy here, too! haha.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

GoodDonkey: I agree with you 100%, but the righties on here don't want to hear of any logic; they simply want to lash out at Obama before he's even begun his presidency. Once he proves to be more than competent, and a far better leader than bush (won't take much, if anything!), they'll find new ways to hate him and fulfill their misery. It's really a sad state of affairs, watching these guys find new ways to hurt themselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes Smith,

Obama isn't going to change his stripes that I can tell as far as spend, spend, spend. Though a better way to try to promote real job growth and improve infrastructure at the same time would be to have a bi-partisan commission first to determine what projects are critical to the safety of the citizens in whatever area of the country they live in our great union. And then award the contracts on the basis of their recommendations.

Sounds like I'm really for making sure we are spending money WISELY on public work projects during these difficult times. Instead of wasting it on pork that might very well make the situation even worse in the long run. Silly me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind: "Instead of wasting it on pork that might very well make the situation even worse in the long run. Silly me."

Again, it's funny to hear you try to use lines from McCain/Palin campaign speeches when both, and in particular Palin, have been supporters of and participated in pork barrel spending. The folly of believing McCain's record against pork barrel spending was shown clearly during the campaigns, to which he was too busy trying to make up dirt on Obama to bother to refute.

Obama is making some tough decisions which are going to have a very positive effect on your country, and all you can do is speculate that they will not, again using the propaganda that lost McCain the election, and insisting on bipartisan commissions that will not only waste the money you seem so concerned about, but will come up with no solutions.

If you say you want to wait and see more details and more of the plans before saying it's a good idea, I can buy that; but by saying such you cannot take the opposite road and assume that it's pork-barrel spending until 'proven otherwise'.

But hey, you guys never have been much on giving proof towards your assumptions, and when you ARE given proof you aren't much for bothering to show up and apologize for being wrong.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I compliment the Republican leadership and the membership for the energy and determination you have brought to this task of balancing the budget

Yeah for doing it his way. Are you trying to rewrite history? Aren't you aware that the Republicans totally caved in? Can't you see he was trying to be kind and end division? He was successful; he submitted a budget every year after that and got most of what he wanted.

Furthermore on Tuesday, April 30, 1996 there was a budget "agreement." Wow social spending and a successful economy. Goes right against what you are now saying on JT every day.

Congress passed a budget last week that restores $5.1 billion in 1996 for health and social services, education and training, law enforcement, the environment and other key priorities.

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/1996pres/960430.html

The congress wanted $245 billion in tax cuts. The economy continued to improve without the congressional tax cuts. Clinton had proposed a more modest $60 - $70 billion in tax cuts.

Obama has some of the best economic advisers in the world. He will not deliver a plan that is not subject to change. He will not "hurry up and get one out" to appease some NeoCons that want answers now. He has learned from Clinton not Bush. He will methodically evaluate and make decisions on how to proceed. No one has the answers yet. Again, do I have to remind you guys that THIS IS THE WORST ECONOMIC CRISIS SINCE THE DEPRESSION!

THE REPUBLICANS FLINCHED IN 1996 - THEY BACKED DOWN !

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The folly of believing McCain's record against pork barrel spending was shown clearly during the campaigns,

Not if you fact check it Smith.

Sen. John McCain has a long reputation as an opponent of pork-barrel spending, those billions of dollars for local projects earmarked quietly every year into massive federal spending bills.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/743/

I pretty sure your not going to apologize when you are given proof about your assumptions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sounds like I'm really for making sure we are spending money WISELY on public work projects during these difficult times.

I can see why Republican backers are so keen on wisdom on spending for public works and other things. After all, we've seen so little of it coming from their party over the past 30 years. (And we see so little of it coming from their backers now.)

Over that period, however, they did talk a good game, but you can only fool so many people for so long. It still amazes me how many people would vote for a man whom they'd most like to have a beer with, despite the fact that he'd steal money from them and their grandkids.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan writes: "But hey, you guys never have been much on giving proof towards your assumptions, and when you ARE given proof you aren't much for bothering to show up and apologize for being wrong."

If there is an ideology behind liberalism it is to seek out and follow the truth wherever it leads. Reality will win in the end. If those people could actually do what you so correctly pointed out they cannot, they would be taking the first step on the road to liberalism.

We've seen the reality of the ideology behind much of conservatism, and it is based upon blind beliefs: a blind belief that tax cuts will bring economic prosperity and balanced budgets; a blind belief that an "unseen hand" of an unfettered and unregulated "free" market will bring general prosperity; a blind belief that it is better to allow temporarily failing though strategic assets (such as the auto manufacturing) to go completely under and throw millions out of work, than it is to lift a hand to help; a blind belief that government is always the problem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

badge123: "there are over 150,000 bridges in the US rated structurally deficient or obsolete"

There are only about 600,000 bridges in the U.S. You're saying one out of four are rated structurally deficient or obsolete. You sure about that? I think you may be exaggerating.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As of 2003, 27.1% of the nation's bridges (160,570) were structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, an improvement from 28.5% in 2000.

Old data but it is a higher number than the 150,000 that badge123 quoted and it is from the American Society of Civil Engineers.

http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=22

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind: "I pretty sure your not going to apologize when you are given proof about your assumptions."

Why on earth would I apologize over proof that I'm correct, except to say, perhaps, I'm sorry you've been so utterly beaten down. Proof 'against' my assumptions? might apologize then, and I have willingly before. You, on the other hand, have already been shot down a dozen times on this thread and are still grasping for a way out.

I see you've found the 'politofact' site... that one always gives me a good laugh when it comes to 'real' politics, and it never surprised me when people like you come on here and quote it as the source of your wisdom. Anyway, I find it interesting that you would choose to take a statement by McCain on another's policies as proof that the himself has not had anything to do with supporting pork-barrel spending projects. Saying that McCain claims Obama is for pork-spending means is proof that he himself is not is just ludicrous. I said McCain himself was for more pork-barrel spending than you let on by saying he has an impeccable record for being against it, and that's all you've got as proof? You may as well say you have proof McCain's a good guy because McCain said Obama's not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Donkey - "structurally deficient"

I betcha that means, in many cases, the bridges are only 95% as strong as they were when they were new. Heck, if 27% of U.S bridges are "structurally deficient or obsolete," I betcha a higher percentage of bridges in virtually every other country are also "structurally deficient or obsolete."

Donkey's probably never going to drive over another bridge, heh heh.

sailwind - You didn't actually expect smith was going to apologize, or admit he's wrong, did you? Heh heh.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why just 2.5 million jobs? Since he is the chosen one, I'm sure that he could just as easily create 10 million new jobs? He obviously could care less about those other millions of people. Some great leader he turned out to be...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can give you sources and you can come back and tell me you don't like my sources so I leave it up to you to pick and chose what you deem credible.

VOR, if you have so little faith in your sources, then why would you believe them? Why even bring it up?

googling 911 intelligence failures would be a good start.

Like I said, I could be at it for weeks. You are making clear and specific allegations yet providing nothing of substance to support it. Might I not be better off googling John Ashcroft? It does sound like some of the excuses he made for what happened on his watch. Not that I have much faith in his predecessor Janet Reno either (point a finger her way and you might have something). But you cannot blame the actions of either on the president above them. All you can do is blame the president for appointing them, or even failing to pull the plug on them when their mental health is clearly in question.

Here is to hoping that Obama will appoint neither a man who lost a senate election to a dead man nor a sufferer of Parkinson's disease who is obviously "prioritizing" as a symptom.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why just 2.5 million jobs?

He did not say "just". He said the jobs could be created in the areas he outlined in this speech. Nowhere is it suggested that there were no other areas to be worked on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heck, if 27% of U.S bridges are "structurally deficient or obsolete," I betcha a higher percentage of bridges in virtually every other country are also "structurally deficient or obsolete."

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, your 2008 American neo-conservative.

sarge,

In one sentence, you summed up all that is wrong with neo-conservatism. Never mind doing what's best for the country, just be better than someone else, no matter who that someone else is. As long as there is a target you can point a finger at, to avoid accountability, it's all good.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As long as there is a target you can point a finger at, to avoid accountability, it's all good.

You neglected to mention the need for simple proof to back up random statements borne of superiority complex and over-wrought nationalism, another facet of what is wrong with neo-conservativism, at least at the follower ranks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When there's a depression, or the very real prospect of one, deficit spending by the government is necessary to prevent total economic contraction (or collapse).

The unemployed are neither spending nor paying taxes so a public works job program will enable them to do both. When the economy recovers they should seek work in the private sector, once again hiring, while the government should take in more than it spends during good times to draw on in the bad. The old "save a little for a rainy day" philosophy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tom Friedman, NYT's columnist who visited China during the Olympics got some sense of how far America has fallen behind as far as infrastructure investment is concerned:

Just compare arriving at La Guardia’s dumpy terminal in New York City and driving through the crumbling infrastructure into Manhattan with arriving at Shanghai’s sleek airport and taking the 220-mile-per-hour magnetic levitation train, which uses electromagnetic propulsion instead of steel wheels and tracks, to get to town in a blink.

Many improvements could be made which would put the unemployed to work while providing long-term benefits to specific communities (and the country).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This just in, it seems... stocks are already soaring over Obama's choices, which is proof that people believe in them... a few JT viewers aside, and we all know how valid THEIR choices are! haha. Good job, Obama... the world is a better place for what you are doing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As the LA Times notes the new Secy of the Treasury has a challenge that "will be nothing short of monumental: end the credit crisis, keep the economy from careening into something much worse than a typical recession, and restore confidence in the stock market, which despite Friday’s rebound still is down 48.9% from its 2007 peak, as measured by the S and P 500."

Based on the market's Friday rally, he may just be up to the job. Too bad he has to wait until January to start.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

taka: In one sentence, you summed up all that is wrong with neo-conservatism. Never mind doing what's best for the country, just be better than someone else, no matter who that someone else is. As long as there is a target you can point a finger at, to avoid accountability, it's all good.

That has absolutely nothing to do with neoconservatism. I mean not even in the slightest way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I support the plan. But yeah, I know the federal government is really good at wasting things and I am concerned that there will be a lot of waste in the project. I'd like to see how he's going to keep oversight on this issue. I think someone like McCain could offer some ideas.

I don't see this as some kind of permanent shift in US fiscal policy. It's something that needs to be done to keep people working during the crisis, plus we get the benefits of the projects that will be completed. I like the sound of that a lot more than I like the sound of another hundred billion going to Wall Street. And the US isn't going to turn into Japan overnight where we're suddenly paving our entire coastline to create jobs. I just don't think that's going to happen long term.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You neglected to mention the need for simple proof to back up random statements borne of superiority complex and over-wrought nationalism, another facet of what is wrong with neo-conservativism, at least at the follower ranks.

I like the transformed you! So much better than the cranky, angry guy (with no sense of humor).

As for modernizing schools, I believe the junior high in the Minnesota town where I went to college was built as a public works project under Roosevelt. Many generations of kids have now passed through it hallowed halls.

Public works money can be used to modernize schools, many of which desperately need it. But as Obama pointed out, student performance won't improve unless more parents limit TV time and instill a love of learning at home.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think someone like McCain could offer some ideas.

He does but there's no follow through:

Responding to a question about the controversial awarding of no-bid contracts to Halliburton in the documentary film Why We Fight, McCain concedes, "It looks bad. It looks bad. And apparently, Halliburton more than once has overcharged the federal government. That's wrong." When pressed on how he would tackle this problem, McCain boldly declares, "I would have a public investigation of what they've done."

Yet he never launched such an investigation into what Americans, or Iraqis, were getting for all the US taxpayer's money which was spend. We certainly can't afford a public works program run like the reconstruction of Iraq, that's for sure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib, It may have nothing to do with their political views, but it has everything to do with who they, in large part, are. You may now knock yourself out screeching about broad-based generalizations.

I can take that hit and stand by my words.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka why not just take a few minutes to read this. I've given you the link before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

I've seen you throw around the word "neocon" so loosely that now the word really has no meaning for you anymore, it's just used to define anyone you don't like.

Betzee, you're giving anecdotal evidence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee, you're giving anecdotal evidence.

No, I provided an illustrative example of McCain's commitment (or lack of it) to ferreting out federal government waste. Bottom line, it was lower on his list of priorities than supporting the war. His staff made more inquiries on how Eugene Jarecki, the director of Why We Fight, was going to use that interview than the Senator did investigating cost overruns in Iraq.

This is an example of using anecdotal evidence to support a point of view (extracted from one of VOR's posts):

I just relocated back to the United States and there is a ton of infrastructure construction already going on.

Presumably he's referring to infrastructure he's noticed under construction wherever he lives, unlikely to constitute a representative sample from around the nation. By contrast, I've never seen a shred of evidence McCain was actually able to reign in pork barrel spending, only that he talks about.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, I provided an illustrative example of McCain's commitment (or lack of it) to ferreting out federal government waste.

By contrast, I've never seen a shred of evidence McCain was actually able to reign in pork barrel spending, only that he talks about.

You didn't look very hard. The New York Times your favorite was all over it as to McCain's ability to reign in the bacon.

That posture led to his frequent criticism of pork-barrel spending, a McCain target not confined to military budgets but one where the Pentagon figured large. He tangled with Speaker Newt Gingrich, Senator Trent Lott, the majority leader, and even the Appropriations Committee chairman, Senator Ted Stevens, over money matters they had slipped into bills.

Mr. McCain has not won any big floor fights over pork. But even Mr. Stevens says his opposition can be used to scare off some greedy members with warnings like, ''If you do that, McCain will be after you.''

But it is not an issue that wins him friends.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01EFD81738F937A35750C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind,

McCain is hardly the first senator to make an issue of pork barrel spending. William Proxmire had his "Golden Fleece Awards" which were listed in the Congressional Record. Yet what, in the end, does shaming colleagues by exposing projects of little public value accomplish? Not much given the need to keep important constituents happy when it comes time for reelection.

By contrast, someone who convenes hearings on cost overruns in the no-bid reconstruction contracts would have performed a real public service. Could this service be delivered more cheaply? Does this project provide value for money? These are questions which should be asked when public money is being allocated for any purpose. The GWB administration's response was, "In a war we don't have time for that." I think most Americans would beg to differ.

Moderator: Readers, please keep the discussion focused on Obama's plans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

taka313 - What it is, is, I'm disputing the 27% ( of U.S. bridges are structurally deficient or obsolete ) figure. If that were the case, U.S. drivers would be avoiding driving over a quarter of the bridges in the country, and - get ready - they're not!

Sarge

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"We must do more to put people back to work and get our economy moving again."

I like the whole "get our economy moving again" part, but the part about going back to work to get that to happen is not very attractive to me, though necessary.

What I'd like to see is the implementation of other systems that aren't dependent upon the current monetary system. I mean...they say money isn't everything but I'm not seeing any other options to accrue wealth and well being. Such a notion would impress me...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This plan will never create 2.5 million private sector jobs. 2.5 million government jobs maybe. But then that's the goal here - make government bigger and more intrusive.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee,

Here in Shanghai which in my opinion is in many ways far more capitalistic than America, the average worker makes a smidgen over a dollar an hour. In New York, the lowest level unskilled manual worker is going to make over 32 bucks an hour. Long story short: New York's problem isn't the need of public works, or other government bail outs, but unions, onerous taxation, and stifling regulations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

a buck an hour? trump it up to communism that you could earn nothing. but i'll still consider the lower costs to live there as an offset to earning only a buck an hour. yet, i don't think the world envies China and her well known reputation as a poor country. may be someday it'll change, but only after a long time because a buck an hour has a long way to go...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

2.5 million jobs is much less than what is generated during a typical recovery. If he really walks on water, he should shoot for 25 million new jobs. That would be change we can believe in. Nah, let's just low-ball it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do these roads need rebuilding? Creating jobs is one thing but the money could be used in other areas, but I'm glad to see big business isn't getting the money

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites