SOTU (State of the Union)

[Palerider]

Well the answer I hear all the time is there are lots of jobs and if they dont have one it is because they need to get up off their lazy bum and get one. Of course that is from the party I dont love so I pretty much discount it.   I am curious how you respond on a political post without being political, palerider?

You have to be very sneaky and careful....

[Litzy]

Not to get political here....but I know a lot of unemployed people that have not been motivated by him or uplifted.

 

 

Well the answer I hear all the time is there are lots of jobs and if they dont have one it is because they need to get up off their lazy bum and get one. Of course that is from the party I dont love so I pretty much discount it.

 

 

What's the democratic response to those who haven't found jobs or been motivated, then?

[FunkyTown]

Didn't we allocate, like $800 billion for that kind of thing back in 2009 and also divert a few billion from TARP for these supposedly "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects?  That kind of money could have given $2700 to every man, woman, and child in the United States.

 

Where are the results?

 

That's a great question. Eisenhower(Who was one of the best Presidents of all time in my opinion) did exactly the same thing Obama did: He created an infrastructure project and generated the Interstate Highway system.

 

Republican investing in infrastructure. It ushered in half a century of prosperity and helped provide job mobility for millions.

 

£288 billion went to scientific research. Good on him - I agree with that sort of thing and DARPA is a modern world wonder that the US should be proud of.  DARPA(Also created by Eisenhower, by the way - A Republican) deserves investment.  (Although not all the money went to DARPA, but projects like it).

 

£231 billion went to tax incentives for individuals.

 

£51 billion went to tax incentives for companies.

 

£100 billion went to education, of which £53.6 billion went to preventing layoffs of existing teachers - This is a problem. Shoring up existing shortfalls is not a solution. It's short-sighted, harms families who save and causes long-term problems.

 

£105 billion went to infrastructure. £1 billion went to the Bureau of Reclamation, which is a water purification program. Considering the amount of fresh water in the US that's been destroyed and rendered undrinkable, this and the £4 billion going to improving water waste treatment was important.

 

The long and short is: Obama had some good ideas and some terrible ideas: Improve water treatment facilities, fund scientific advancement, etc. Unfortunately, the good stuff was packaged with pork projects.

 

He should have stuck to something with a coherent benefit to the US rather than a whole lot of smaller projects that are easily sidetracked.

[bytor2112]

Funny quote from the former Governor of New Mexico during a debate..." my neighbors two dogs created more shovel ready jobs than Obama did...: Bwahahaha...funny stuff.

Edited January 27, 2015 by bytor2112

[Palerider]

Funny quote from the former Governor of New Mexico during a debate..." my neighbors two dogs created more shovel ready jobs than Obama did...: Bwahahaha...funny stuff.

Very very true.....Lol

[Guest]

That's a great question. Eisenhower(Who was one of the best Presidents of all time in my opinion) did exactly the same thing Obama did: He created an infrastructure project and generated the Interstate Highway system.

 

Republican investing in infrastructure. It ushered in half a century of prosperity and helped provide job mobility for millions.

 

The difference between the IHS project and Obama's roads and bridges is ginormous.  The IHS boosted economy because of its instantaneous contribution to interstate commerce.  Obama's roads and bridges plan cannot show an uptick in commerce because he puts a ton of cement around the neck of commerce at the same time that he offers roads and bridges.  Let's take his derailed high-speed rail project - it is not a system that can boost commerce within the next 50 years.  American culture was set by the IHS tied to the American airplane invention.  So you will see sprawling urban areas within driving distance of an airport.  It will take a big cultural shift to re-organize American neighborhoods to the thick pockets of population like NYC and Tokyo to make high-speed rail show commercial benefits.  So yeah, it is all mostly fossil fueled.  But, if the objective is to get out of fossil fuel, a better project would be to convert cars and planes to alternative fuel than building trains.

 

So yeah... Eisenhower versus Obama is basically the difference in understanding the American way of life.  To find solutions to American problems, you don't go look at Europe... or even Canada.  You look at America.

[FunkyTown]

The difference between the IHS project and Obama's roads and bridges is ginormous.  The IHS boosted economy because of its instantaneous contribution to interstate commerce.  Obama's roads and bridges plan cannot show an uptick in commerce because he puts a ton of cement around the neck of commerce at the same time that he offers roads and bridges.  Let's take his derailed high-speed rail project - it is not a system that can boost commerce within the next 50 years.  American culture was set by the IHS tied to the American airplane invention.  So you will see sprawling urban areas within driving distance of an airport.  It will take a big cultural shift to re-organize American neighborhoods to the thick pockets of population like NYC and Tokyo to make high-speed rail show commercial benefits.  So yeah, it is all mostly fossil fueled.  But, if the objective is to get out of fossil fuel, a better project would be to convert cars and planes to alternative fuel than building trains.

 

So yeah... Eisenhower versus Obama is basically the difference in understanding the American way of life.  To find solutions to American problems, you don't go look at Europe... or even Canada.  You look at America.

 

 

Eisenhower gets a bum rap. The difference between his and Obama's plan is that Eisenhower had a very distinct vision for America. He spent money to attain that vision. Obama is spending money to... What? Increase jobs? Those jobs will always be dependent on more spending. Increase infrastructure? To what end? What, specifically, is he hoping to attain with this additional infrastructure?

 

I apologize if I wasn't clear: I don't think Eisenhower and Obama's plan are similar. Eisenhower's choices ushered in a new era of prosperity because it was forward thinking and specific. Obama's plan is less so.

 

I don't disagree with the idea of increasing infrastructure. It's worked well in the past. I disagree with the vague feel-goodist promises and political porkage in this.  Heck - I even agree with some of the spending. I think his push for clean water is smart. I like what he's thinking about scientific investment - DARPA's new research projects are mind-blowing in scope.

 

Sadly, there's a lot of fat around the meat.

[Just_A_Guy]

I agree, FT.  The stimulus was sold as an $800 billion Keynesian program that would increase spending that would "trickle down" through the entire economy, giving us an immediate shot of stability--and lots of nice new roads and bridges, to boot.  Instead, it looks like we got about $100 billion of the sorts of "infrastructure" we were promised, and $700 billion of handouts/preferred contracts to the President's core constituencies in the form of academic research grants, goodies for teacher's unions, refundable tax credits to the segments of society that largely don't pay income tax anyways, and corporate welfare; the tangible benefits of which still seem to be quite vaguely defined. 

 

Meanwhile, our President gets up at the SOTU and apparently tells us that we've still got craptastic infrastructure and we need another few hundred billion dollars to fix it.  Uhh . . . Okay, Mr. President; but you made the same argument six years ago, and Congress--over some of our objections--gave you precisely what you wanted.  So if our infrastructure is still falling apart after all of that--whose fault is that, exactly?

Edited January 27, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Windseeker]

Okay, Mr. President; but you made the same argument six years ago, and Congress--over some of our objections--gave you precisely what you wanted.  So if our infrastructure is still falling apart after all of that--whose fault is that, exactly?

 

I'm pretty sure according to Democrats the answer is, and always will be....Bush

 

[Guest]

Eisenhower gets a bum rap. The difference between his and Obama's plan is that Eisenhower had a very distinct vision for America. He spent money to attain that vision. Obama is spending money to... What? Increase jobs? Those jobs will always be dependent on more spending. Increase infrastructure? To what end? What, specifically, is he hoping to attain with this additional infrastructure?

 

I apologize if I wasn't clear: I don't think Eisenhower and Obama's plan are similar. Eisenhower's choices ushered in a new era of prosperity because it was forward thinking and specific. Obama's plan is less so.

 

I don't disagree with the idea of increasing infrastructure. It's worked well in the past. I disagree with the vague feel-goodist promises and political porkage in this.  Heck - I even agree with some of the spending. I think his push for clean water is smart. I like what he's thinking about scientific investment - DARPA's new research projects are mind-blowing in scope.

 

Sadly, there's a lot of fat around the meat.

 

 

I agree, FT.  The stimulus was sold as an $800 billion Keynesian program that would increase spending that would "trickle down" through the entire economy, giving us an immediate shot of stability--and lots of nice new roads and bridges, to boot.  Instead, it looks like we got about $100 billion of the sorts of "infrastructure" we were promised, and $700 billion of handouts/preferred contracts to the President's core constituencies in the form of academic research grants, goodies for teacher's unions, refundable tax credits to the segments of society that largely don't pay income tax anyways, and corporate welfare; the tangible benefits of which still seem to be quite vaguely defined. 

 

Meanwhile, our President gets up at the SOTU and apparently tells us that we've still got craptastic infrastructure and we need another few hundred billion dollars to fix it.  Uhh . . . Okay, Mr. President; but you made the same argument six years ago, and Congress--over some of our objections--gave you precisely what you wanted.  So if our infrastructure is still falling apart after all of that--whose fault is that, exactly?

 

Obama's infrastructure project can be summed up as:

 

"I will build a bridge.  It will be a strong bridge that will be the envy of nations and give thousands of jobs and boost the economy!  If there's no river to build that bridge over, I will build the river too!".

[Palerider]

Obama's infrastructure project can be summed up as:

 

"I will build a bridge.  It will be a strong bridge that will be the envy of nations and give thousands of jobs and boost the economy!  If there's no river to build that bridge over, I will build the river too!".

I think right now those who are still looking for jobs or gave up looking for work would take any type of bridge .....

[Guest]

I think right now those who are still looking for jobs or gave up looking for work would take any type of bridge .....

 

We need to be careful with what jobs we provide.  Because... as it is with bridges without rivers, taking this job could mean somebody else loses theirs.

[Palerider]

We need to be careful with what jobs we provide.  Because... as it is with bridges without rivers, taking this job could mean somebody else loses theirs.

Right now all I see is more people losing their job. Yet the media tries to feed me how wonderful it's all getting and then some guy in front of a camera giving a speech says something like, the worst is behind us....things that make you go hhhhhmmmmm