Obama Should Commit to a Trillion-Dollar Infrastructure Plan

[leftstreet]

—By Kevin Drum
| Fri Jul. 26, 2013 11:27 AM PDT

Barry Ritholtz passes along the chart on the right from the McKinsey Global Institute. It shows how much various countries spend on infrastructure compared to future demand. On the far right, Japan is spending a lot more than it needs. On the far left, the United States is spending a lot less.

McKinsey figures our shortfall at about 1 percent of GDP. That's $160 billion. So a five-year project to build out our decaying infrastructure would cost roughly a trillion dollars. It would create jobs now; it would be ultra-cheap at current interest rates; and it would promote growth in the future.

That would be for roads, bridges, airports, rail lines, local transit, electrical grids, gas pipelines, internet backbones, water projects, and much more. A trillion dollars for infrastructure. That's what he should be fighting for.




http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/07/obama-stimulus-infrastructure

[geek tragedy]

1. Now if he could only appropriate the money for it. nt

[elehhhhna]

38. we already have. we "rebuilt" Iraq and Afghanistan, remember?

(cries bitter tears)

[DJ13]

81. Theres the answer

DC should declare** war on the US, then spend a trillion to rebuild it.


** Unlike their current war on the country that remains an undeclared skirmish.

[elehhhhna]

82. Hey, wasn't Vietnam a "police action" versus a "war"???

B/c the US is surely a victim of US police actions and we citizens are evidently a threat give the spying etc.

[jtuck004]

42. We "appropropriate" $85 billion a month to the banks now, money that supports the wealthiest

Americans, the banks (which reported a $20 billion profit this year), and largely those who borrow that money to buy up homes and rent them back to people who have lost their jobs and now find that the only thing available pays $13, $14, $15/hr. If anything.



Here.

Yeah. Back to 1996 levels for the primary investment that most Americans had, but with ~47 million more people,

That $85 billion/mo, touted as being good for "everyone" is in reality much, much better for people with lots of assets, a hell of a lot less so for at least 200+ million other people.

Move it to infrastructure building, maybe figure out something for the millions who need a job and are not going to get crap since they are now damaged goods, having been out of work for 6 months to 5 years.

That would provide us more of that "sustainable" economy we are being told is the ideal, less increases in pay for CEO's, and better than the McJobs that tens of millions of people are fighting over...

[SMC22307]

2. Obama should have opened with jobs/infrastructure...

to get economy rolling, then let the Bush tax cuts FULLY expire, then focus on "health care reform" when the country was headed back to fat and happy. Now I hear he's saying he'll "do stuff" without Congress. Guess there was a magic wand after all...

[leftstreet]

9. +1

That's what most voters expected him to do

[Hekate]

45. He did. But in our form of government, it's Congress that has to pony up the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Have they done so yet? Is Obama sitting on piles of cash appropriated by Congress and unused by him?

Let me know.

[former9thward]

70. He didn't do any of those things.

What specific proposal did Obama make that is unfunded?

[Hekate]

79. Just about every damn thing he has wanted to do. Remember the GOP Leadership Oath?

I've been paying attention. Apparently a whole contingent here has too much steam coming out their ears to see what's there.

[frazzled]

3. And you should probably apprise yourself of how the government works.

Obama has made repeated attempts to get increased infrastructure spending from Congress, from his initial stimulus bill (in which he actually got some, in the form of the American Recovery Act) to his Jobs Act (which Congress rejected), to every State of the Union speech ... to his series of economic speeches just this week. All he does is propose increased infrastructure spending. And all Congress does is reject it. Got that?

So don't be telling Obama to do what he's already been doing, consistently. And it doesn't matter what amount he asks for: the Republicans will prevent it from happening, whether it's $300 or $3 trillion.

[leftstreet]

4. Meh. Obama & the Dems had 2yrs to get whatever they wanted

No Prez in our lifetimes came into office with as much political capital as Obama. He could have mobilized millions of voters to put the screws to their elected reps - Dem or GOP.

But he didn't

[joshcryer]

6. Obama had 39 days at most.

I'm not saying he shouldn't have done it, I'm saying that the meme that he had power to do anything that whole time is misleading at best. He should've pushed a massive package through during that time, it should've been written up in the span of a week, no sleep, dozens and dozens of people writing the legislation, he should've passed it, and dismissed the Congress (when Congress is divided, which it was after Ted Kennedy died, the President has sole discretion to disband it).

Sadly he didn't do it because he promoted himself as an uber-bipartisan saint and that would've been kinda hypocritical of him to do.

[ProSense]

24. He tried to push one through

September 2010: Obama Offers a Transit Plan to Create Jobs

MILWAUKEE — President Obama, looking to stimulate a sluggish economy and create jobs, called Monday for Congress to approve major upgrades to the nation’s roads, rail lines and runways — part of a six-year plan that would cost tens of billions of dollars and create a government-run bank to finance innovative transportation projects.

With Democrats facing an increasingly bleak midterm election season, Mr. Obama used a speech at a union gathering on Labor Day, the traditional start of the campaign season, to outline his plan. It calls for a quick infusion of $50 billion in government spending that White House officials said could spur job growth as early as next year — if Congress approves.

That is a big if. Though transportation bills usually win bipartisan support, hasty passage of Mr. Obama’s plan seems unlikely, given that Congress has only a few weeks of work left before lawmakers return to their districts to campaign and that Republicans are showing little interest in giving Democrats any pre-election victories.

Central to the plan is the president’s call for an “infrastructure bank,” which would be run by the government but would pool tax dollars with private investment, the White House says. Mr. Obama embraced the idea as a senator; with unemployment still high despite an array of government efforts, the concept has lately been gaining traction in policy circles and on Capitol Hill.

<...>

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/us/politics/07obama.html

Obama kicks off campaign with infrastructure plan
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/06/us-obama-economy-idUSTRE67O4WF20100906

Civil Engineers Respond to President's New Infrastructure Plan

RESTON, Va., Sept. 6 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Response from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) to President Obama's new transportation infrastructure investment plan:

"Out nation's economy can't survive without the stable foundation infrastructure provides. It allows goods to move across the country, water to flow from our taps and energy to be accessed with the flip of a switch. But, for decades, we have allowed that foundation to crumble," said Patrick J. Natale, P.E., F.ASCE, CAE, ASCE executive director. "The solution to reversing the trend, and creating a better reality for our children and our grandchildren, requires that we have a dedicated source of funding and an increase in federal leadership to actually put it into use. The President's new investment plan has the potential to be a real part of such a solution. We applaud him for taking a leadership position, and we encourage Congress to work with the administration on this critical national issue. We also look forward to learning more about the details of the plan, in particular, whether or not it will be paid for by the users, as has successfully been done since the beginning of the interstate system in the 1950s."

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/civil-engineers-respond-to-presidents-new-infrastructure-plan-102305564.html

[SunSeeker]

57. Obama only had 24 working days of a filibuster-proof supermajority.

Summary:

1. 1/07 – 12/08 – 51-49 – Ordinary Majority.
2. 1/09 – 7/14/09 – 59-41 – Ordinary Majority. (Coleman/Franklin Recount.)
3. 7/09 – 8/09 – 60-40 – Technical Super Majority, but since Kennedy is unable to vote, the Democrats can’t overcome a filibuster
4. 8/09 – 9/09 – 59-40 – Ordinary Majority. (Kennedy dies)
5. 9/09 – 10/09 – 60-40 – Super Majority for 11 working days.
6. 1/10 – 2/10 – 60-40 – Super Majority for 13 working days

Total Time of the Democratic Super Majority: 24 Working days.

http://mauidemocrats.org/wp/?p=2442

[joshcryer]

66. Thanks for the clarification.

[Wounded Bear]

69. And even in those periods...

the "super majority" depended on unreliable blue dog democrats that weren't very cooperative either. He still only had maybe 55-57 reliable votes.

[SunSeeker]

73. Good point. nt

[DonCoquixote]

8. No he did not

Because the MSM made damned sure that political capital was gone before he was even sworn in. Yes, he should have avoided the bi partisan morass, but the idea that the masses would have turned left if only Obama did it is a lie, because those same worthless jope sixpack types like the GOP message, and only turned it down because Mitt was a clod who was so worthless, he could not even buy an election.

[leftstreet]

11. The voters were already on the left

[SMC22307]

19. The voters would have "turned left" for JOBS.

Banks were failing and the country was hemorrhaging jobs prior to Obama taking office. He, and the Democratic Party, blew a golden opportunity. And look where we are now: Bush tax cuts not fully expired, sequestration, budget showdowns (with substantial layoffs), confidence low. Republicans have him by the nuts. What a colossal waste.

[leftstreet]

21. +1

A waste indeed

[SMC22307]

27. Even the aforementioned Joe Sixpack needs a job.

Sort of a no-brainer, eh? Instead, we're stuck with what I mentioned above, and shitty "health care reform" and talk of entitlement reform. My husband is a civil engineer and we've been having the same damn infrastructure jobs discussion over and over and over... for 17 years! There's a really good PBS special on the CCC and it really saddens me to think of then and now.

Sigh.

[liberal_at_heart]

34. it will take several bridges going down and killing people to get action.

We had a bridge go down in norther WA a couple of months ago. Turned out there was no clearance sign and trucks had been scraping the top of that bridge for a long time. Well someone finally hit it one too many times and it came down. Luckily the few that went in the water were okay, but it will takes deaths and many of them to get Congress to fund infrastructure. And both parties will be to blame when it does happen.

[Hekate]

61. Sadly, the decay of our infrastructure falls out of people's memory even faster than gun deaths

I seem to remember a quite major bridge in ... Saint Paul, was it? ... major commuter line. Crack, boom, splash, and a lot of people swimming for their lives.

The attention span of the average American has become that of a gnat, and now that we have Twitter, it has become even worse.

About 28 years ago I worked for my County's Public Works Director, may he rest in peace. Great guy. One of my jobs was to sort through piles of trade journals for him. One article really stuck with me -- it had to do with how the bridges in this country were not being maintained and how the majority of them were quite a bit worse for the wear.

25 years ago civil engineers knew this. It was not a secret. So where was the money? As the good ol' boy I worked for said: It has to come from taxes, and people don't want to pay taxes.

Just sayin'.

[JaneyVee]

80. Ugh. Not THAT rightwing talking point.

[truebluegreen]

5. At this point it doesn't matter whether the Republicans will give him what he wants.

What matters is what he asks for, and how that differs from what they want.

They want less spending on America, he wants more (I hope). They are the Can't Do Party, he needs to be obviously different, even if he can't be successful.

It is not just about how government works, it is also about how things look.

[Recursion]

15. Pushing a politically unpopular bill that can't pass makes no sense

People do not like the idea of fiscal stimulus and don't think it works. The fact that they are wrong doesn't matter. It's an unpopular idea.

Pushing for an unpopular idea that can pass sometimes makes sense. Pushing for a popular idea that can't pas can make sense. Pushing for an upopular idea that can't pass doesn't make much sense at all, particularly if it means dropping an idea that might pass

[leftstreet]

17. He won the WH campaigning on the idea of stimulutaing the economy

The idea was wildly popular!

[Recursion]

18. he didn't campaign on fiscal stimulus

And a lot of voters don't think it works. It doesn't matter that they are wrong. He doesn't gain anything for anybody by playing the minority of us who understand macro.

[ProSense]

7. Republicans

McKinsey figures our shortfall at about 1 percent of GDP. That's $160 billion. So a five-year project to build out our decaying infrastructure would cost roughly a trillion dollars. It would create jobs now; it would be ultra-cheap at current interest rates; and it would promote growth in the future.

...are blocking the Democratic budget that includes $100 billion for infrastructure.

<...>

The budget includes $100 billion of immediate infrastructure spending designed to boost the economy and raise $975 billion over the next decade through tax reform, which would eliminate various loopholes and tax expenditures.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/senate-passes-budget-after-all-night-debate.php

Republican Obstruction Of Budget Process Hits 100th Day
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023147816

[liberal_at_heart]

10. how about a trillion dollar education program?

Actually put money back into the schools. Hire teachers with Masters degrees in education, give current teachers continuing education, create smaller classrooms, give them state of the art technology and textbooks, give all departments funding not just math and science, give more federal dollars to universities, give new graduates more capital for start ups. Can you imagine what an education renaissance would do for this country? Of course all of this means nothing if corporations are allowed to continue to grind wages down to nothing. Congress needs to adopt a living wage that will keep up with inflation.

[leftstreet]

13. That's a good point

Can you imagine what an education renaissance would do for this country?

That would be beautiful!

[Wounded Bear]

74. You don't really have to imagine...

Look at what happened after WWII with the GI Bill. Between that and the Interstate Highway system, the economy was in pretty good shape until Reagan.

[Recursion]

12. Because the smaller one he proposed just flew through Congress

Politics is the art of the possible

[leftstreet]

14. Well, we know he likes to please the Republicans

It's good he went small, so as not to offend

[Recursion]

16. Stimulus is not popular

Why push for an even less popular bill with even less chance of passing?

[ProSense]

29. It's not popular

among small-government conservatives/Republicans, but it is popular among Democrats.

[bornskeptic]

84. He needed two Republican votes in the Senate to pass what he got

because Senate Democrats would not put an end to the silent filibuster. Actually Obama asked for a somewhat larger stimulus than what was passed. It still would have been inadequate, but it was more than would clear the Senate.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

20. We should be looking into the viability of evacuated tube transport.

It's 1/10th the cost of high-speed rail and 1/4th the cost of a freeway. 45 minute trip from NYC to SF.

Car sized passenger capsules travel in 1.5m (5') diameter tubes on frictionless maglev. Air is permanently removed from the two-way tubes that are built along a travel route. Airlocks at stations allow transfer of capsules without admitting air. Linear electric motors accelerate the capsules, which then coast through the vacuum for the remainder of the trip using no additional power. Most of the energy is regenerated as the capsules slow down. ET3 can provide 50 times more transportation per kWh than electric cars or trains.

Speed in initial ET3 systems is 600km/h (370 mph) for in state trips, and will be developed to 6,500 km/h (4,000 mph) for international travel that will allow passenger or cargo travel from New York to Beijing in 2 hours. ET3 is networked like freeways, except the capsules are automatically routed from origin to destination.

http://www.et3.com/

[reformist2]

22. The time for this has come, and gone.

[SMC22307]

37. Sadly, you're right. (n/t)

[Cali_Democrat]

23. Republicans in Congress oppose 1 dollar more in infrastructure spending

How will they agree to one trillion dollars in infrastructure spending?

[liberal_at_heart]

26. now is actually the perfect time to push the republicans. The public knows

the republicans are obstructing every single thing the President proposes. Push the republicans on something, anything until the public forces the republicans to compromise. The democrats missed out on a golden opportunity to make the republicans compromise because the public is sick and tired of their obstructionism. This notion that the president can't do anything because of the republicans is a cop out. Force their hand until the public outcry is so bad they have no other choice. Or is that something you can only do in an election cycle so you can get your team re elected? Is that why we are not hearing anything about the voting rights being rolled back maybe? Nobody really cares until the election right? That is not representation. That is a game. The American people are starving and cannot afford these games anymore.

[leftstreet]

28. At least they opposed Obama's request for chained CPI

For now anyway

[Cali_Democrat]

30. So how do you propose to get 1 trillion dollars in infrastructure spending through the House?

[leftstreet]

31. Start with a Prez who actually wants it

Obama has zero negotiating skills. Zero

He never threw anything HUGE on the table. He raised voter expectations, then did nothing

[ProSense]

33. Wait

"Obama has zero negotiating skills. Zero"

...so your suggestion in the OP isn't because you think he could get it?

"He never threw anything HUGE on the table. He raised voter expectations, then did nothing "

He got health care and Wall Street reforms passed.

[leftstreet]

35. LOL

Privatized mandated healthcare

No Wall Street derivative reforms

[ProSense]

36. Yup

"Privatized mandated healthcare

No Wall Street derivative reforms"

...two massive programs that will help millions of people, much to the Republicans' chagrin.

Maryland Unveils Obamacare Prices - Among Lowest in the U.S.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023349331

Krugman: Republican Health Care Panic
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023345167

Elizabeth Warren: Cordray Vote ‘A Historic Day For Working Families’

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) took to Twitter on Tuesday in praise of the Senate's vote to advance Richard Cordray's nomination to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, calling it a "historic day for working families."

Elizabeth Warren ✔ @elizabethforma

I couldn't be more pleased that Rich Cordray will finally get the vote that he deserves. This is a historic day for working families!
1:11 PM - 16 Jul 2013

47 Retweets 26 favorites

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-cordray-vote-historic-day-for-working

Remarks by Senator Elizabeth Warren on the Re-Nomination of Rich Cordray to be Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Jul 15, 2013

As Prepared for Delivery

Thank you Mr. President. I rise today to speak about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the re-nomination of Rich Cordray to serve as its director.

Several years ago, I began working on the idea for a consumer finance agency because our consumer credit system was badly broken. The laws were inconsistent and often arbitrary, and the basic rules changed for the same kind of product—like a mortgage—depending on what kind of company sold it. People got cheated, and, in 2008, reckless and dangerous mortgage lenders and Wall Street traders who made money off those mortgages nearly brought our entire economy to its knees.

In 2010, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The “consumer protection” part of that was the new consumer agency, the CFPB, which was designed as a watchdog to keep credit card issuers, mortgage lenders, and student loan marketers from cheating people.

There was a lot of negotiation over the structure of the new agency. Hearing after hearing, mark-up after mark-up, floor vote after floor vote. Now the same big bank lobbyists are fighting the same fight and using the same tired old talking points about the consumer agency that they were using years ago. You really have to wonder just how much money the big bank lobbyists have made fighting against this agency for five years now. But one more time, let’s talk about the facts. Congress built in many features to subject the consumer agency to strong oversight. Let me share a few of the many examples:

• The CFPB is the only agency in government that is subject to a veto from other agencies over its rules—the only one anywhere.
  
  
• The CFPB is the only banking regulator that is subject to a statutory cap on its funding—the only one.
  
  
• The CFPB Director is legally obligated to produce regular reports to Congress, to testify regularly to Congress, and to comply with audits. Mr. President, the CFPB has now testified more than 30 times before Congress—30 times.
  
  
• In addition, the CFPB is subject to all the regular constraints in our system of government that constrain every agency – the Administrative Procedures Act, judicial review, and so on.
  
  
• And, of course, there’s the ultimate oversight: Congress can overrule any CFPB regulation.

Since the agency became law in 2010, there have been two major developments.

The first is that Director Cordray has done an excellent job. He has won praise from consumer and industry groups, and from Republicans and Democrats, for his balanced rulemaking and measured approach. Small institutions like community banks and credit unions – the ones that didn’t cause the crisis – think he’s been fair and effective. And other institutions that want a fair marketplace -- and don’t want to cheat – they like Rich too.

And Mr. President, the agency is working. It has already forced credit card companies to refund nearly half a billion dollars that they tricked consumers out of, and the complaint center is giving tens of thousands of people a chance to fight back when they are cheated. The agency has helped out military families, seniors and students. It’s helped a lot of people.

The agency has become the watchdog that so many of us fought for. And Rich has surpassed even the high expectations I had for him the day two years ago that I stood next to him in the Rose Garden as the President first announced his nomination to the CFPB.

There is a second major development since 2010. The need for certainty has intensified. It has been nearly five years since the crisis and three years since the passage of Dodd-Frank. The banks need to know for sure who is in charge and what rules apply. They need to know everyone will be playing by the same rules and what those rules will be.

For example, both lenders and consumer groups have praised the CFPB’s new mortgage rules. Now it is time for everyone to know that these new rules—not the unpopular default rule in Dodd-Frank that the new rules replaced--—are the law. That helps everyone.

The American people deserve a government that will hammer out good rules, enforce those rules, then get out of the way so the markets can work. They do not deserve endless re-litigation of stale political disputes and the uncertainty caused by repeated filibusters of qualified and proven nominees.

I am new to the Senate, but I don’t understand why this body accepts a system where this kind of political stalemate won’t end in more government or less government but just in bad government – government that lacks the consistency, clarity, and predictability that honest businesses and hard-working families need to plan for the future.

And I don’t understand why we would let an honorable public servant like Rich Cordray get stuck in this nonsense. I don’t understand why, when everyone says Rich is terrific, that we can’t just vote on his appointment.

I know that some Republicans and lobbyists think that this filibuster on Rich’s appointment can shut down the work of the agency. They think it can shut down the agency and protect the big banks from any meaningful consumer protection rules.

Mr. President, they can use slogans all they want and talk about things like “accountability.” But outside the halls of this Congress and the fancy lobbyist offices across Washington, no one wants more fine print and more tricks and traps. No one thinks it’s ok to cheat regular people and cut special deals for giant banks. And no one wants to take the cops off the beat so big banks can break the rules without being held accountable.

So let me be clear to those who think this filibuster will shut down the work of the new agency, let me be crystal clear. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the law and it is here to stay. Do your dirtiest with obstructing the confirmation of the Director, but the agency will keep on doing what it does best: fighting for people.

We fought to get the consumer agency. We fought big banks and their lobbying army. We fought hard, and we won. Now we have a strong and independent watchdog to stop the banks from cheating families. We’re not giving up now.

Thank you.

http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=180

[Cali_Democrat]

39. He's already proposed it....many times

What don't you understand about that?

[Drunken Irishman]

40. Do you realize Obama oversaw the largest stimulus program in American history?

He spent more out of the recession than FDR did with his New Deal programs.

[liberal_at_heart]

43. but who did that money go to? It went to the banks. He should have given it directly to the

American people instead of giving the money to the banks. Even now the stock market is doing very well, but the people are suffering under poverty wages. Exactly who did that stimulus help except the banks?

[Drunken Irishman]

46. It went directly to the banks?

No. The stimulus went to infrastructure and American communities.

[liberal_at_heart]

47. yeah, a few pennies here and there. I don't see any FDR sized infrastructure

projects out there. Most of the money went to make sure the banks didn't fail. You know the "too big to fail" banks like Goldman Sachs. and they in return foreclosed on millions of people's homes. And they never once faced any punishment for what they did either.

[SunSeeker]

50. So you got caught in a lie and decide to change the subject and offer another lie.

For fuck's sake, it was not "a few pennies." It was 800 billion dollars, about $200 billion went to infrastrucure and R&D. That's not pennies. And he wanted more, but the Republicans blocked it. I am amazed that he was able to get as much out of them as he did, considering their secret agreement (made at his inaugeration) to block everything he did.

[SunSeeker]

48. No. The stimulus was in the form of unemployment compensation, tax breaks for the middle class

state bailouts and quite of bit of infrastructure spending, but not the trillion needed. It did not go to banks. The banks got their bailout under Bush. Stop repeating bullshit Romney lies. Sheesh. I can't believe the crap I read on DU sometimes.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/27/1114259/-Where-DID-the-Obama-Stimulus-Money-Go-NOT-Where-Lyin-Willard-Said-It-Did-That-s-for-Sure#

[liberal_at_heart]

49. Still just a few pennies here and there especially when compared to how much money the banks got.

You can call me all the names you want. The fact of the matter is the American people are still suffering and will continue to suffer until someone does something about poverty wages, and the bankers and the Romneys of the world who make their income off the stock market are doing just fine.

[SunSeeker]

51. I am not calling you names, I'm calling what you are peddling here lies. nt

[liberal_at_heart]

53. no they are not, but you go ahead and try and placate the masses. I don't care what others think

of my opinion of the stimulus or the banks. You are going on ignore because you obviously cannot accept a different point of view. No you won't be happy until you prove what I say is a lie. Well you go ahead. The fact is millions of people are pissed that the banks got money from the government, foreclosed on their homes, and were never prosecuted for their predatory lending. And those same millions of people that had their homes stolen are now living on poverty wages.

[SunSeeker]

55. Hypocrisy=putting me on ignore while claiming it is me who cannot accept a different point of view.

I can accept a different point of view, but I cannot accept lies. Learn the difference between opinions and facts.

You are now trying to change the subject from infrastructure spending and the lies you said about it to the lack of prosecution of the banksters, which is a different subject and has little to do with infrastructure spending. I guess I'd change the subject too if I were you.

[bhikkhu]

52. BS, at least read where it did go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was the biggest stimulus program, though plenty of economists think it should have been larger. In any case, there's a huge list of where the money went. Just read it and see if you still think it all went to the banks.

[Igel]

68. I think he's thinking TARP.

Perhaps not. Somebody upthread thinks that the $85 billion/month QE is directed towards the banks instead of the Treasuries and bonds markets. Maybe him. But it's a common idee fixe, a sort of mania but easily understandable.

TARP vs. ARRA.

QE versus low overnight lending to banks.

How's a high-information DUer supposed to keep it all straight? I mean, different bills, different words, different intents, different means, at different times. All too similar, it all involves money and government.

[bhikkhu]

75. What frustrates me is that I hear this crap all the time from RW types at my work

people should really know better on both sides.

For about two years here in the pit of the recession the only construction going on was funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and plenty of people here who kept their jobs and kept their houses, and plenty of construction crews that stayed above water owe it to that. Of course, this is a semi-rural right-leaning town, where the majority seem glued to talk-radio for what to think about things, so there's no credit at all given. Some of "the left" (though I wouldn't call it that) is just as bad, with less of an excuse.

[Politicalboi]

67. Obama needs to add a few 0's

After congress signs the check. Just make it a dollar, and he can add Trillion to it.

[Historic NY]

25. He tried...Congress holds the purse strings........

they want him to fail. Get your talking points straight.

[NoOneMan]

32. I guarantee regardless of who is in charge, the US will be putting trillions in infrastructure soon

The only other alternative is that it will decay and cease to exist. Climate change will necessitate increased production, just to keep the water at bay (and to process and move water elsewhere).

You'll get your dikes, levies, bridges, canals, desalination plants, etc.

[RobertEarl]

56. Exactly

What is Obama waiting on?

Is the country worth saving, or not?

Seems some here don't think we can either afford it, or that it is possible.

[liberal_at_heart]

63. the trouble is that our government is very reactionary. They wait until disaster has already

befallen to spend money on those things. So instead of increasing production to keep the water at bay it will be more like the water destroying a community much like Hurricane Sandy destroyed the beaches of New Jersey and then they spend the money to fix what was damaged.

[NoOneMan]

76. Yeah, in any case it will still be spent

Though, it will signal the death of the globe so its not all that much of a wonderful thing. But yeah, Im sure its not exactly going to be proactive

[Hekate]

41. He did. But in our form of government, it's Congress that has to appropriate the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Tell me when they do that, okay?

Also, in our form of government, the POTUS can't MAKE Congress do anything they don't want to do.

Again, tell us all when Congress decides to go along with the MANY plans put forth by the President. We wait with bated breath.

[DevonRex]

44. LOL!!! Oh, so it's that easy, eh? Commit and poof! The Republicans agree?

Stupidest thing I've read in a long time.

[RobertEarl]

54. All he has to do is declare a war!

I guess some people on this thread think Obama might get someone mad at him if he tries to save the country? And so he chickened out?

[DevonRex]

58. "Obama Infrastructure Plan: Senate GOP Blocks $60 Billion Measure"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/obama-infrastructure-plan-senate-gop-blocks_n_1074539.html

House leader says Obama infrastructure bank proposal is ‘dead on arrival’
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/post/house-leader-says-obama-infrastructure-bank-proposal-is-dead-on-arrival/2011/10/12/gIQASlP2fL_blog.html

Back to the economy, Obama pushes infrastructure plan in Miami
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/29/17519065-back-to-the-economy-obama-pushes-infrastructure-plan-in-miami?lite

Etc, etc, etc.

You were saying?

[RobertEarl]

59. You have a point

Obama can't even get all the Democrats to line up with him.

And he is so weak he can't get even 20 republicans to agree that saving the country is the right thing to do.

[DevonRex]

65. Which rather belies a common meme around here.

The one about all politicians are the same. Both parties are the same. They're all in bed with the same corporations. They're all horrible.

There are enough on our side who do want to get things done, as shown by their votes, to say they're not like Republicans. The ones who don't vote with the Dems are from Red states for the most part. Political survival or they're conservative Democrats themselves? Who knows? Maybe a little of both.

With the Republicans, it's a mixture of racism, conservatism, and corporatism. With a good portion it's all three.

Obama being weak? Well, he certainly faces the perfect storm, doesn't he? I don't believe that makes HIM weak. I think it shows that racism added to corporate money and religious zeal has made for a deadly opponent when our own Harry Reid has dawdled ever since President Obama was elected. But then Reid made it clear from the beginning that he doesn't work for Obama. He said that straight up in an interview, January 2009.

People like the image of LBJ getting all tough. But I think we're past the time when presidents physically intimidate other elected officials. And, obviously, PBO hasn't blackmailed anyone with NSA data either. Meme #2 dead in the water.

[blkmusclmachine]

60. I don't think the GOPee will let him.

MUST. HAVE. THEIR. BLESSING.

[Riftaxe]

62. Jobs would be minimal

What little hydraulics did not kill, has been killed by other technology and beuracracy. There will never be a new CCC and president Obama has already had to eat crow with "shovel ready" once for not keeping up with the times..

Not to say investment in infrastructure is not needed, or should be not pushed for, but a Trillion dollars just for politics can never lead to anything good.

[mick063]

64. He should just finish out his term and build a library

I don't look forward to any actions he could possibly take.

He will just make the hole a little deeper.

[ProSense]

71. Enjoy the next three and a half years. n/t

[Igel]

72. Nothing to prevent it from being done locally.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Lawmakers-find-way-to-transportation-deal-4690105.php?cmpid=houtexhcat

That's the transportation infrastructure measure, and it's what the TX legislature's been arguing over since what the rest of the country cared about was passed. One of the three reasons for the special session I, special session II, and if it flubs again, special session III.

It's been discussed since January of this year. Some real conservatives want the money saved instead of spent. A lot of Democrats want the money spent for other things--or tried to hold the transportation money hostage until it got other spending. Looks like it'll go to a referendum, but in 2014.

That's after a lot of nonsense in previous years. Why, the bastards wanted transportation spending to be reserved for transportation. (Some money is, or at least was, reserved for transportation beautification. Those nice state symbols, flowers, and trees that show up along highway ramps. Big state, all those little niceties add up to a project or two.)

There's already a $2 billion water infrastructure measure on the ballot for 2013, so maybe the postponement's a good idea.

What makes it more tempting when done federally is that it can easily appear that people are getting more than they paid for. That's true in some states. Not true in others. Problem is that federal infrastructure spending serves the needs of the federal-level politicians. I-10 in the middle of nowhere would get little funding; the I-95 corridor would get more.

[Laelth]

77. Excellent essay.

While I agree with the author's call for more spending on infrastructure, I'd like to see some workable strategy for getting the Republicans to go along with this plan before I'd be willing to spend a lot of political capital pushing for it.



-Laelth

[ChairmanAgnostic]

78. He could, He should, but Rubin and Summers are against it, because

like other DLC morons, they want to keep their powder dry.

HeyZeus kryst, every time the white house stands up to the GOP, we win. Every time they try compromise and playing nice, they lose. WHEN WILL THEY FIGURE IT OUT? Especially on a critical point like infrastructure investment.

[jwirr]

83. I didn't know that it was Obama who was obstructing a bill like that. Congress is the one that needs

to commit to something.