• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Economic Recovery

RicoSuave

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
3,041
Reaction score
339
Location
Georgia
I've very fiscally conservative but somewhat moderate/liberal on social issues. But I was wondering what you guys think about Obama's economic recovery plan. During the Great Depression, FDR started a number of beneficial public works projects that benefitted the population at large, and in the process put lots of unemployed people to work. I haven't seen anything similar from Obama. Rather than putting the unemployed to work, he has encouraged the unemployed to stay unemployed by extending their free money for another 13 months, and changed the residential foreclosure laws to make it much more difficult for banks to foreclose on deadbeats. Do you guys think that FDR-type public works projects would work today?
 
We could do that but it wouldn't pass Congress.
 
Let's not compare any President to FDR. That was almost a hundred years ago, this is a different country now.
 
We could do that but it wouldn't pass Congress.

You mean during the two years when the Democrats completely controlled the federal government. Why didn't they pass this legislation back then? Oh yeah they were too busy wasting their political capitol on socialize medicine and union kickbacks.

That being said I still would support some large scale public service projects. It seems like the entire nation agrees on an updated power grid and infrastructure improvements, but these projects seem to exist sparingly.

In fact I've got a great infrastructure project that ties in with another problem our nation has. Build a wall on our southern border and grant amnesty to everyone here. Start tomorrow, the project would employ tens of thousands, and finally secure a border that is now threatened by the broken state that is Mexico.
 
You mean during the two years when the Democrats completely controlled the federal government. Why didn't they pass this legislation back then? Oh yeah they were too busy wasting their political capitol on socialize medicine and union kickbacks.

That being said I still would support some large scale public service projects. It seems like the entire nation agrees on an updated power grid and infrastructure improvements, but these projects seem to exist sparingly.

In fact I've got a great infrastructure project that ties in with another problem our nation has. Build a wall on our southern border and grant amnesty to everyone here. Start tomorrow, the project would employ tens of thousands, and finally secure a border that is now threatened by the broken state that is Mexico.


Fence?
 
We could do that but it wouldn't pass Congress.

I thought this is what the Stimulus Package (which had no problem passing Congress) was supposed to do. But Obama screwed it up and nothing got built. Shocking. I-485, the outer loop around Charlotte (shovel-ready and under various stages of construction for over 20 years), is still not complete.
 
I thought this is what the Stimulus Package (which had no problem passing Congress) was supposed to do. But Obama screwed it up and nothing got built. Shocking. I-485, the outer loop around Charlotte (shovel-ready and under various stages of construction for over 20 years), is still not complete.

Revisionist history. You might want to look back at how this bill passed the Senate.
 
Verbal criticism is not the same as effective action (except in the case where the criticized party cuts off its own dick because it is more scared of criticism than it is convinced of its own fortitude). The bill passed the Senate 61 to 37.
 
The problem with Bill Brasky's comment is the Democrats didn't hold ultimate power for two years. It was only a few months.

The new need to have sixty votes in the Senate to pass anything kicked in as soon as Ted Kennedy got sick. For many of those months Sen. Johnson also missed votes.

The GOP dramatically changed how the Senate had done business.
 
The private sector is starting to slowly add jobs. The time for a WPA-like program was last year. I like the idea of having a program for the chronically unemployed as long as they are doing something beneficial and not just "make work".
 
I've very fiscally conservative but somewhat moderate/liberal on social issues. But I was wondering what you guys think about Obama's economic recovery plan. During the Great Depression, FDR started a number of beneficial public works projects that benefitted the population at large, and in the process put lots of unemployed people to work. I haven't seen anything similar from Obama. Rather than putting the unemployed to work, he has encouraged the unemployed to stay unemployed by extending their free money for another 13 months, and changed the residential foreclosure laws to make it much more difficult for banks to foreclose on deadbeats. Do you guys think that FDR-type public works projects would work today?

Hurray, 66 is in da house!

Where's his boi rulz?
 
Verbal criticism is not the same as effective action (except in the case where the criticized party cuts off its own dick because it is more scared of criticism than it is convinced of its own fortitude). The bill passed the Senate 61 to 37.

What the fuck are you talking about?

60-38. Only 3 republicans voted for the bill, Snowe, Collins and Specter. To get those votes huge changes were made in the bill The bill was also smaller than it should have been to have a great impact, but was likely as large was would pass at the time
 
61-37.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/washington/11web-stim.html


So, even if it was smaller than originally intended (though still by far the largest bill of its kind in history), where are our $820 billion of capital improvements? I haven't seen jack shit.

There never was $820B in cpaital improvements. What kind of BS are you trying to spew.

First of all the bill was under $800B. Next 1/3 of the bill was tax cuts. About $100B were grants to states to keep state employees on the job.

Under $100B was set aside for infrastructure.

But other than those facts you were correct.

I'll break it down for you, Your post was completely BS.
 
So under your analysis and using your numbers, we got less than $100B of results for $800B of expenditures? Good enough for government work, eh?
 
The final bill was 60-38

And the reason you've not seen all those infrastructure projects is because the largest element of the bill was tax cuts

That rationale makes no sense. So if 1/3 of a SPENDING bill was tax cuts for which no benefits were contemplated/received, please explain why that amount would be included in a spending bill, or anywhere else for that matter. If I'm cutting $275B of revenue, and I'm also not getting $275B of additional infrastructure, that means a net change of $0 occurred. Why would it be included?
 
So under your analysis and using your numbers, we got less than $100B of results for $800B of expenditures? Good enough for government work, eh?

$260B was TAX CUTS to EVERYONE in America. You must subtract that number from the total.

What part of ALL the projects aren't infrastructure don't you understand?
 
No, that number does not get subtracted from the total. If there are $260B of "tax cuts" to the American people (that presumably relates to $260B of committed expenditures), those $260B of expenditures still must be paid by the government, which is the American people, so the net change is $0.
 
Johnny, let's see if I can explain it it to you. The Stimulus Bill had $787B in government spending. About $260B of that amount was in the form of tax cuts to all Americans.

This left about $530B to be used for many different expenditures. Some of which were infrastructure.

This is how it happened regardless of how you think it did.
 
Back
Top