29 total posts
Ask yourself which team...
...has been blocking the infrastructure rebuilding ideas of the left & our current president(?)
The House usually nukes all such proposals unless they involve indirect monies for military bases & related industries in the southern United States.
where are the proposals?
I've not seen such proposals from the left. All I have seen is request for more funds for social programs apart from such.
which team actually said that a good percentage of the original stimulus money five years ago was to go to infrastructure for 'shovel ready jobs', then spent it on other stuff (mainly green energy jobs that all failed and wasted the money) saying they weren't as ready as they believed.....and then began campaigning on wanting to 'invest' in infrastructure again, which means asking for more revenue (taxes) to pay for it or create more stimulus money for it. And they've known since day one that the roads, bridges, etc. were ALL shovel ready and ignored it all and those jobs are still waiting.
Let's keep up with the facts Pepe......
Well, I'll agree much more of stimulus should have been
spent on real infrastructure, roads, rails, airports, ports, esp bridges given all the reports of how many are substandard right now.
There was a golden opportunity here
following the credit collapse to offset deflationary forces by creating jobs and helping expand the money supply again, not by borrowing from the Federal Reserve, but by having the treasury print up extra dollars and use them to pay for the infrastructure which would put the needed funds into the economy where it was needed, near the bottom, at the wage level. But no, history taught these idiots nothing, instead they feel they must follow the early failed policies of the FDR regime and toss money at the useless bankers and expect them to somehow make it happen. Even FDR later admitted that was a big mistake and moved toward infrastructure and jobs therein to help fight deflation at the bottom of the economy where it was needed.
Yes, but FDR did put a great deal of money into Back to Work
and Jobs. The CCC, the Dam named for Republican intransigance and hoarding, The Hoover Dam, and many other projects including extensive Interstate roadways.
You talk as though FDR did nothing for infrastructure or direct employment. If you think that you're wrong.
Yes, FDR did plenty
regarding infrastructure.....because he actually USED the money for that purpose instead of PROPOSING and ALLOCATING funds for it and then doing nothing and spending it elsewhere like BO has done. And, as with BO, all of the jobs that FDR put into place were UNION jobs, Rob....it helped the economy only to the point where there was plenty of money for all the welfare programs he ALSO put into place. The non-union workers really didn't get any jobs until long after.
back then we were a country that dominated the world in manufacturing jobs so although union workers were on the crews rebuilding the infrastructure, the manufacturing jobs increased because of the production needed for that massive infrastructure. There isn't anything like the Hoover Dam project or massive highway new construction going on here, and the materials needed to fix our infrastructure wouldn't necessarily project manufacturing jobs here in the USA...much would be shipped in from overseas, just like the housing industry used cheap and unsafe drywall not too long ago that came from China rather than from here.
But to Bush1, Bush2, and Reagan0 throwing money at the top
was policy. It was their plan. It made perfect sense according to their delusion of "trickle down economics", and curiously instead of expansion there followed the Reagan Recession and Bush 1's sluggish economy (despite his deft handling of the Iraq Kuwait situation) and it took Clinton to resurrect the economy.
Mr. Cashin (gee, what a fortuitous name) avoids all that messy Republican history having caused the Depression and immediately starts in on the Democratic attempts at solution by Blaming It All On the Democrats. But the Depression began in September 1929, one year into the Republican term under Hoover, and following 25 years of Republican Administration interrupted by 8 years of Wilson. Wilson was the only Democrat in the 36 years preceding Roosevelt's
accession in March 1933, so the Depression derived entirely from
Republican fiscal plans and mis-management, but was because of broadly spread over-extension of margin purchases and negative fundamentals in the economy. Then came 3 years, also under Hoover and Republican management of the economy, during which hoarding did begin to occur.
On March 4, 1933 Franklin Roosevelt, winner of the 1932 election, took office and busily started to try to correct the disaster he had inherited (the 100 days). The one thing he was not guilty of is going into Financial Institutions or to the Private Sector or to Private or Public Savings Institutions and confiscating the hoarding which had been going on. Instead he attempted to put people to work while being opposed by those clever Republicans who made the mess in the first place aided and abetted by a profoundly conservative Supreme Court (is there an echo in here or am I having an episode of deja vu). The Supreme Court busily attempted to declare unconstitutional every attempt at fixing the economy that could be brought before them by well-heeled Republican interests (remember all that hoarding?). Roosevelt was forced to find "work-arounds" for all of his plans to put people back to work.
Now if at the present time the Republicans could agree to putting people to work on infrastructure, it would make an enormous difference the over all health of the American economy, and since Bush had no compunction about hand-cuffing the succeeding regime with his own bad ideas (the continuing revenue shortfall known as the Tax Cut), I think it only fair that Obama handcuff subsequent regimes with Back to Work legislation and Infra-structure Revitalisation based solely upon completion and not deadline. Finish it early fine, drag your feet, and there's no benefit.
You forgot conveniently
that Bush 1 had CARTER's mess to clean up....where BO gets a pass from you for the sluggish economy trying to 'clean up' what Dems constantly blame Bush 2 for, you criticize Bush 1 for having to do the same thing regarding a Dem president before him. And Clinton only had a good economy AFTER Gingrich and the Rep lead House and Senate took control and got the money back on track during Clinton's second term. The one thing that they didn't clean up and SHOULD have at that time was the bad housing policy Clinton expanded on from Carter which finally caught up with itself and collapsed during Bush 2's second term.
Something else you forget is that FDR made such a mess of the economy, even after THREE terms, that even the Democrats were forced to admit that a new Amendment to the Constitution had to be made to limit the Presidency to only two terms. FDR had turned into a king in his own half crazed mind, and in your own words, like BO, kept working around Congress and the Supreme Court to keep pushing his social agendas.
Uhh, Sorry, but Reagan followed Carter, not Bush.
My, my, how soon you forget. Reagan was in for 8 years, the economy was sound when he started and by the time he finished we were in Recession. He was followed by Bush 1, who suffered from the fall out from Reagan's bad economy. Bush1 was followed by Clinton who fixed the economy who was followed by Bush 2 who wrecked it again.
It's alright though, you have so many untrue ideas to keep track of that forgetting that Reagan and his hench men organized the release of the hostages only after Carter actually left the White House must have slipped your mind.
Oh, and FDR was elected to 4 terms, 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944. The stretch was 1940 but he didn't think he could trust anyone else to aid Britain in their hour of peril, particularly after Selective Service in July 1940 passed by a single vote between Isolationist Republicans and Isolationist Dixiecrats. What bunch of idiots knowing the situation with Japan, and knowing the situation in Europe could vote against the US Army but they did.
So that's two massive mistakes about history in one short post. Congratulations, it's time to go back to school.
OK...you pointed out
my error....however, you made a couple of your own, Rob.....Reagan came after Carter but we were in a terrific 'malaise' (Carter's description of HIS economy) and things were really, really bad when Reagan came into office.
Reagan did not negotiate the release AFTER Carter left office....The day Reagan was taking the oath, Carter was already on a plane and in Iran picking up the hostages (he was NOT allowed to go to the inauguration as part of the deal). The deal was made BEFORE Carter left, by Reagan and his new team being put into place. If Carter had won a re-election, the hostages would have still been there for another four years. Iran didn't want to take the chance that Reagan would do nothing where they knew Carter wouldn't so the deal was made, but only if Carter could be humiliated at the same time. It was one last slap in the face to Carter but it was made public enough that they wouldn't even wait until the day after the inauguration to release them or even the day before to give Carter the credit for the release. Carter was a joke as a leader and until BO the worst President we've had in history...including Woodrow Wilson who did tremendous damage. Every President we've had that was firmly entrenched in the Keynesian theory of economics has failed our country horribly and a Republican has had to pull it back from the brink every time, and it will happen again after BO is gone. When you don't understand or appreciate history, insanity prevails and you repeat it over and over.
As for the war situation....he ran stating/lying to the people that we would never be involved, knowing all along that we were going to enter it once he was elected. The deal was made with Churchill ahead of time and in secret. As for the Selective Service.......I've always been a firm believer that every student (male and female) upon graduation from High School should be required to serve in the military for at least two years......in some capacity. I've had this discussion before here in SE over the years.
FDR served three full terms...I didn't count the fourth, only because he died three months into it. Sorry. It still doesn't alter the fact that even Democrats recognized that the presidency is NOT a kingdom and it had to be stopped with a new amendment to the Constitution to avoid it from ever happening again.
Bring back the WPA program
At least you've see a direct involvement and know where the money is being spend plus the public at large can benefit directly or from its end result. We're still depending on the bridges, art work, land clearing, road building, etc., that got us through a rough US period. This also produced the CCC = civilian conversation corps. and it did its job. If you're going to throw that kind of money around its time to manage it better and show the public, you have this because they did this like the TVA project. Having electrical in rural USA became a reality and its still in use. You can't hoard money if you directly manage it and not just give it away. -----Willy
I do like the concept of the Civilian Conversation Corps
but in fact it was really called the Civilian Conservation Corps, and their concern was to employ people to clean up potential forest hazards which promoted wild-fires, to clear streams and rivers of flood producing clutter and to open up woodlands for new growth by taking out deadfalls and diseased trees.
Congress on the other hand is the Civilian Conversation Corps, Talk Talk Talk Talk, but ask them to do anything, and the room clears as if by magic.
Much like the Senate where
Reid clears the room by pocketing bills from the House and not allowing them to come up for an honest vote?
Nobody wants to vote on House bills because...
...they resemble random mutterings from the Reps who were voted in by trailer trash districts in the south.
Trailer trash? Really?
As opposed to the 'elite' that you hate so much from the Democrat regions in the NE, like Mass, Maine, Vt., Conn., DC, MD, and CA and NV?
When you actually have something to say, come back. I noticed you didn't deny that Reid won't allow honest voting on bills......if they're so bad, why would so many have Dem support in the House and why would Reid be so afraid of the Dem vote in the Senate since, after all, he does have the majority there?
I didn't catch that...
You know that really got by and using the same letters in a different place it looked right. dang!
Anyways, it seems right were heading for a more direct involvement of management by the govt. at least it would be better provided those that managed actually did that and didn't profit from it in *any way*. One lesson learned from Katrina was the money really didn't get to where it was suppose to go. Sure, lots of it went to relief but overall, those that did real rebuilding seemed to get pushed to the back of the line. Even now, some areas aren't still cleaned or cleared of all the crap around. Ward 9 should have been condemned right away as a relief zone(flood zone) area right next to the walls. I just can't see building a disaster waiting to happen. Here, I don't think having federal control on such a large project not help in the long run, NOT the short view. -----Willy
"tossing money at the top does little ... for the economy"
You mean to say that giving money to the Job Creators and depending on supply side economics really doesn't work?
Not in a bad economy
In a good economy people are making investments, in a bad economy they are holding it close to their vest instead.
Don't look now James, but Job Creators are HOARDING big time
Yet Job Creators make more money now, than they...
... ever have before.
So much for "trickle down"
Why should they invest
when this president has made it very clear that if they do, they will be penalized at every turn? He's destroying our coal industry but made it clear that he would when he said 'build a coal fired plant and we will destroy you by making it so expensive it's not going to be worth the effort'.
If the companies would proactively....
...address their emissions technologies, then I bet BO would be more apt to play ball.
Truth be told, the coal industry's on the way out with natural gas being plentiful here now.
Truth be told
the companies are already at 90% of the emissions technologies....this administration is demanding them to be at 98% which means extremely expensive upgrades that won't benefit the air anymore than it already does, but will cost the consumer a fortune in higher costs to the companies who would bill it all back to them.
Also, truth be told.....tell the thousands of people being put out of work in the coal industry that Pepe7 says "f... you". Conversion to natural gas as quickly as this administration wants to have happen is costly and not necessary at this time in our economy. We aren't going to croak by staying with what we have for the next ten years while those conversions take place.
This administration also is demanding that cars and trucks get to 50MPG in the next four years (by 2017), which is also driving the cost of those vehicles so high as to be unaffordable to the people who need the vehicles the most....the middle class. This administration also wants to increase the amount of ethanol (made from corn and short supplying it as a food source here now) in gasoline higher than the 10% that is already in it, which not only drives the price of gas higher, but it also interferes with the engines in most of the products that run on gas (cars, trucks, generators, lawn mowers, farm equipment, etc) and causes those engines to break down faster and need major overhauls or causes them to stop running completely requiring new engine replacements.
When this administration stops putting the screws to the country, things might be able to turn back around economically.....until then, we are stopped cold, which is his agenda.
You're wrong on a couple of counts
yet accuse ME of using inaccurate information?
Yes, that coal plant opened two years ago....because it was already in the building status at the time that BO took office the first go-round and couldn't stop it. That doesn't mean that he hasn't deliberately forced the shut downs of at least ten others in WV, KY, and PA in the last four years, putting thousands out of work (you are forgetting all the "aside" business that were forced to close when they could no longer service those miners and those mines, grim).
Thousands more will lose their jobs as time goes by because of this administration's overreaching EPA Executive Orders. You live in WV, so you know there are still more mines being forced to shut down one at a time now. And none of those men and women are trained to move right into natural gas or other similar type jobs.
Making a job more efficient doesn't mean deliberately eliminate it and the industry completely and leave whole towns to die, Grim.....this from a president who claims to care about the middle class?
Drilling and fracking takes less training than mining
Believe me, I live smack dab in the middle of the largest drilling area on the east coast. The amount of high school dropouts with drilling jobs is astounding. They all come from Oklahoma and Texas. Why don't the companies coming into the area hire locals? Just another wave of carpet baggers once again coming into Appalachia to take its resources and leave. Natural gas consumer prices have gone up in this area 14% yet gas is so a indent it is being pumped back underground for storage in this area. As for power generation plants in WV being shut down due to EPA? That is nonsense. Look at American Electric Power. A company who claims it isnt worth upgrading plants because of costs and flat demands. However they don't mention that electric companies in Ohio are soon to be moved to compete on the open market. Less supply and more demand equals being able to charge higher prices. Thus, these companies get rid of the flat. Market by shutting down plants and increasing profits while blaming it on Obama. Pretty clever lie