Did the President just suggest privatizing public functions such as roads and construction??

[Fearless]

I mean seriously what is WRONG with this man?

[quinnox]

1. Seriously?

Speechless if this is true.

[FreakinDJ]

9. Cat Food Commission recomended $0.15 Gas Tax for Highway projects

[swilton]

42. I'm in favor of taxes on petroleum -

people would think twice about buying their SUV's and gas guzzlers and the revenues could be used to subsidize wind and solar, the only viable energy solutions for the future. Energy costs of petroleum in this country are much cheaper than elsewhere on the planet and don't reflect the true costs for sourcing the energy and its inherent environmental consequences.

But I seriously doubt if this is what this commission had in mind and would question anything that they recommended quite seriously.

[grahamhgreen]

69. How bout a tax on oil industry profits, instead?

[SusanaMontana41]

118. Great idea, but this Congress won't even close loopholes

that benefit Big Oil.

[tridim]

2. No.

[Fearless]

4. He said that they need to create a fund for private contractors who want...

To repair roads and bridges and such... that is what he said.

[tridim]

7. Private contractors do all kinds of goverment work.

[Fearless]

12. And we are supposed to create them a slush fund now?

[tridim]

17. Not even worth a response.

I don't get you.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PVnRT]

119. Yes, when they bid on contracts offered by a government entity

They don't just take out a loan and build a road or a post office. Infrastructure development doesn't work that way.

[Skidmore]

11. So do we want jobs, or are we just blowing smoke up everyone's

butt? The highway nearest our home is being resurfaced with stimulus money. It is not being done by the state, but by private contractors hired by the state. I've talked to some of these workers while sitting in the heat waiting for the pilot car to guide me through one lane portions of the construction zone. Lots of them are from one of the hardest hit areas of our state. They are happy to have gotten work and will be employed for a while longer doing this type of infrastructure repair.

I find the outrage in this instance to be hyperbolic and stupid.

[Fearless]

16. How long do those jobs last? Answer: Until the money runs out.

Just like with the stimulus. If the president wanted to make real change, he would have suggested creating a federal program to accomplish these tasks and cut out the middle man, saving this country money and creating full time jobs with benefits at the same time.

[Skidmore]

29. Tell that to the "job creators" who have the money all tied up and will

not invest. It has nothing to do with the president and a whole lot to do with the finance and corporate sectors and the congress they purchased.

[Fearless]

33. And the solution is to put the foot on their necks.

[Bluerthanblue]

36. you're absolutely right-

My oldest works for the highway dept and has for 9yrs. There is often a fair amount of work which is contracted out to local companies who are better equipped to do things like resurfacing, major bridge construction etc. It's the back-bone of much if not most of many independent contractors business.

They are people who are glad to have the job and do it well.

This reaching for ways to attack ANYTHING this President says or does would be funny if it weren't so stupid, and self-defeating.

[arcane1]

13. I would have to hear his exact words

Though I can't say I'm hopeful.

[Fearless]

26. The transcript isn't online yet.

[TreasonousBastard]

51. Private contractors already do almost all the work, and we have the...

federal highway trust fund paid for by a gas tax already. We also have truck taxes paying for a lot of it.

A large problem is that we don't have enough money going to local roads and bridges. Which are also worked on by private contractors.

(Next time you see a road crew, look at the names on the sides of the trucks.)

[phleshdef]

57. Thank you. Many here apparently have no knowledge of who already does what.

[alcibiades_mystery]

62. It's unbelievable! "What, private companies building roads???!"

I'm absolutely astonished by this thread.

[phleshdef]

67. I'm not even sure what the equitable flavor of craziness on the right would be.

I'm tempted to say its "OMGZ a mosque near ground zero?!!" level craziness. If its not that crazy, its fairly close.

[Lasher]

117. So why do we need to 'create a fund' if we already have the highway trust fund?

Don't we just need to build up the existing trust fund? I don't get it.

[TreasonousBastard]

127. Not sure, but I think he was talking about something else...

the highway trust fund is broke and mainly supports highway projects. Obama may have been talking about setting up another fund targeted more at local projects that are sure to be hit by the budget cuts. I have no idea why he wants to lend money to contractors rather than just throw money at the projects.

[Lasher]

128. I don't like the smell of this.

Something tells me Obama in some way wants to further privatize highway construction.

Edit: I must research this when I have more time.

[Donnachaidh]

3. Guess he doesn't feel the need to carry on the charade?

unbelievable.... :puke:

[phleshdef]

63. Whats unbelievable is how misinformed some of you so called political junkies are.

If you were informed, you'd realize that the OP is a bunch of crap and has nothing to do with what the President said. You wouldn't agree with the absurd claim that a self funding government loan program geared toward infrastructure projects is "privatization" and you'd realize that most of this kind of work is already done by private construction companies for a long time and you'd realize there is nothing wrong with that.

[Donnachaidh]

73. :yawn:

struck a nerve, huh? :rofl:

[phleshdef]

78. Please. Don't congratulate yourself for (not really) winning the internet. Its unbecoming.

[TheKentuckian]

124. Who is borrowing the money if this is a loan program?

Of course private contractor put in bids to do such work now but this seems a little different in structure, a public/private partnership is alluded to which seems not quite the same as hiring a contractor through the bidding process we are accustomed to.

I think this could be a great opportunity to educate folks and easily soothe some concerns. How does the funding work and what is the source?

What is up here? Who does the work is obvious as we have no direct hiring nor much in the way (if any) government construction crews. How does the funding work, who decides who gets the contracts, who is responsible for upkeep, and are the results commons?

Flesh out the idea so people understand.

[Enrique]

5. give it to the companies that will run our schools

the kids could pick up a useful trade.

[Bonhomme Richard]

6. Giving loans...I heard that. What the fuck?

I thought the Government decides to fix shit, puts out for bids and the work gets done.

[hedgehog]

27. I'm guessing a loan may allow a small company to buy that road grader

or paving machine it needs to bid on the government job. The multiplier effect is that that equipment is probably made in the USA.

[lumberjack_jeff]

87. This makes no sense.

A company isn't going to buy a road grader (good loan terms or not) unless a government can and will pay to have a road graded.

It's more supply side dumbshittery.

[phleshdef]

56. If you want a self funded infrastructure bank, loans are a great way to do it.

What this means is that companies that would otherwise be doing this type of construction anyway will have access to the capital they need to take on a project, then when they repay the loan, the interest paid on it is a great source of revenue to grow the bank and create solvent fund that is always available to keep our infrastructure from crumbling.

[lumberjack_jeff]

88. This argument is gibberish.

This is a solution in search of a problem. It would only make sense if there are no contractors able and willing to bid on the occasional government jobs.

[phleshdef]

93. Your title accurately summarizes your post. Good work.

Solution in search of a problem, my ass. We have an infrastructure problem. We have a construction industry downturn problem. We don't have a solid system for ensuring consistent maintance of infrastructure. Put those 3 very clear, very existent problems together, and you do something about it. FDR did something very similar to this as part of the New Deal, a program that utilized private companies in the same way.

[lumberjack_jeff]

98. The problems are failing infrastructure and unemployment.

Not a lack of contractors equipped and willing to bid on hypothetical projects.

Supply-sider-ism has permeated our way of looking at the world. There's plenty of cash, sitting in banks. Contractors don't need more money to build stuff for bankrupt local governments.

Like in the rest of the real world, the problem is demand. Local governments can't afford to buy new roads or fix the ones they have. Until that changes, contractors newest, shiniest machinery will sit idle just like the rest of their fleet.

[phleshdef]

109. You are pretending that the entire proposal is just loans to the supply side.

Thats a big part of it. That is not, however, the entire proposal.

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

[lumberjack_jeff]

111. I'm familiar with infrastructure banks

or in my state "public works trust fund".

The have nothing at all to do with loans to private companies.

A revolving fund is created to fund state and local government infrastructure projects which are then repaid over time. The interest in the fund helps build a pool from which more loans are financed.

We also need to give more opportunities to all those construction workers out there who lost their jobs when the housing boom went bust. We could put them to work right now, by giving loans to private companies that want to repair our roads and our bridges and our airports, rebuilding our infrastructure. We have workers who need jobs and a country that needs rebuilding; an infrastructure bank would help us put them together.

Obama is conflating and confusing trickle-down gifts of public funds with the very good ideal of an infrastructure bank.

A contractor with a customer will have no problem getting a loan to perform the work.

[PVnRT]

122. Not really

Once you have a government contract in hand, it is almost always a simple matter to get the capital you need. Banks look at government contracts (or, at least, used to) as safe.

Since I work for a government contractor, here's how the process works:

- Government bids out a project
- Three (or more) companies send in bids
- Government selects a winner (this is where the up-front corruption happens on some projects)
- Company adds the project to their "backlog," if they have one
- Company gets a loan to get the project started, since payment is usually contingent on meeting schedule/quality or other milestones along the way. If it's a small project, they won't be paid until it's over. Even if a company has cash on hand, they usually get the loan anyway, for reasons only an accountant could explain.
- Company does work, gets paid
- Company pays back loan, pockets profits
- Repeat

Having a separate "bank" for infrastructure really makes no sense. If he's talking about having a bank around for low-cost loans for private construction, that's another matter, since those contracts are viewed by banks are somewhat greater risk. However, private construction is not infrastructure.

[Lorien]

8. Isn't it obvious that that was what this whole "crisis" was about all along?

Starve the States of revenue so that every public asset is sold into private hands. The takeover will then be complete.

[Karmadillo]

10. The 12 dimensional chess path to socialism?

nt

[Lorien]

14. No, the 12 dimentional chess path to corporate fascism. nt

[GreenPartyVoter]

70. Yep.

[phleshdef]

15. The idea of the infrastructre bank has always been a public/private hybrid.

It will be partially backed by public bonds but the idea is to organize and loan money to construction companies to work on massive infrastructure projects. So of course it would also be funded by the repayment of those loans.

Its actually a great idea and it would go a long way towards killing crazy earmarks.

[tridim]

20. It's really stunning that people don't get this.

Everything good is now bad? It makes no sense.

[phleshdef]

23. They just hear one phrase and go off half cocked on a bloviating rant.

Reactionary BS.

[KittyWampus]

64. Hence the term "Reactionary Screamers". It's not an insult. It's a very accurate description.

[Itchinjim]

68. DU has been on a month long outrage binge,

You can't expect some of us to sober up right away.

[Bluebear]

114. In you words pfffffftt

[Wait Wut]

107. I'm amazed.

I can't believe how many people here have never heard of a company bidding for a government contract to improve infrastructure. And, now, creating jobs is somehow bad? On top of that, the general teaper statement, "But, these are just TEMPORARY jobs!!!".

I need a vacation.

[Unvanguard]

18. Have construction companies ever been nationalized in this country?

Really, I'm furious about the debt agreement too, but this is getting silly.

[DefenseLawyer]

22. Ever hear of the WPA?

I guess not.

[Unvanguard]

35. Were any construction companies nationalized to form the WPA? n/t

[phleshdef]

41. Why does it matter? There is nothing WRONG or anti-progressive in giving government loans...

...to companies for infrastructure. NOTHING. AT ALL. As a matter of fact, the interest paid back on those loans is a great way to extract revenue from private companies to keep the infrastructure bank funded.

Ya'll are just being ridiculous now.

[Unvanguard]

47. I agree with you. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

112. Wait... what?

Why do private companies need to borrow money to finance their need for infrastructure?

I think what you're saying is that there's nothing wrong with loaning state and local governments money, who in turn hire contractors to build infrastructure.

But that's not what Obama said.

[PVnRT]

125. No

Workers were hired directly by the WPA (and CCC) if I recall correctly.

[quinnox]

24. You have never heard of government workers doing road

maintenance?

[Unvanguard]

32. I didn't say government workers have never done construction work.

I said construction companies are generally private entities. These are separate claims. A lot of government buildings and infrastructure--I'm pretty sure the vast majority, actually--is constructed by private companies.

[quinnox]

44. So what about mail

Do you think it should be privatized as well? Do private companies tend to do better jobs than the "lazy" government workers?

[Unvanguard]

53. No, I don't think mail (or pretty much anything else) should be privatized. That's not the point.

The premise of this thread appears to be that there is something nationalized that Obama wants to privatize. My point is that Obama's proposal doesn't require privatization because the construction industry is already (and has pretty much always been) largely private. This is about government investing in infrastructure by getting private companies to do infrastructure projects--which is how most infrastructure projects are done already, and which, by the way, is an excellent job creation mechanism.

[tridim]

25. Agreed, it's just silly season again.

Off the freaking deep end.

This isn't a fascist country, and I hope it never becomes one.

[paparush]

19. It's all 32 dimensional chess, just not in our favor. Privatization will be one of the long term

results of the sickening, steaming pile of shit.

Mass privatization of public services.

[KittyWampus]

66. Road work is already largely done by private companies, who EMPLOY LOCAL WORKERS.

[TwilightGardener]

76. They're not getting this. They must think that everyone they see on

roads and highways with heavy equipment are state workers.

[paparush]

101. I'd rather not have my public utilities ie, water and sewer , privatized.

[paparush]

103. Not necessarily true. The company that wins the bid can come from anywhere.

Granted most states require road work to be done by in-state companies. But if the company is located in another part of the state, those are not LOCAL workers. Granted, they may stay in local hotels and eat at local restaurants for a while.

[DFab420]

21. I'm pretty sure the words he used were

Giving loans to private companies who want to build and repair our roads and infrastructure.

Which means private sector jobs for the middle class.


Why are you against that?

[Fearless]

31. We're giving contracts to private companies in Afghanistan and Iraq...

Are you for that?


It's the same thing. To a varying degree. I say, cut out the middle man and create a federal work program to fix this nation's roads. Good paying full time jobs with benefits.

[PVnRT]

123. Those contrats were fraudulent from the start and lack oversight

At my project, a DoD one in the U.S. no less, they track and question every fucking dollar we try to spend. It's aggravating and makes things monumentally inefficient (first, our project people require shit, then the government requires shit, two layers of shit for engineering, hooray), though I understand why it's necessary.

It makes much more sense to have construction & engineering companies out there whose sole competency is doing this kind of work. The system isn't perfect, but it works, and it's how it's done over in Europe and the rest of the world.

[readmoreoften]

38. Because those are PUBLIC sector jobs. Why let a company skim profit off the top of our tax purchases

? Because I don't want to see D. O. T. workers privatized into $9 positions with no safety checks. Because I don't want my car to fall into the road when some shitty company cuts corners in the tar compound so they can make a little more profit.

[phleshdef]

50. What he said has nothing to do with "privatizing" anything.

The OP either completely misunderstood what he was talking about or was being blatantly dishonest.

Giving loans to construction companies that ALREADY (and always have) do a good deal of construction for public projects is not privatizing something. It has nothing to do with state road agencies. States can still funds and use their own department of highways as they always have. And private companies can be contracted to use their middle class, blue collar workers and their equipment to help with these projects, like they always have.

And private construction in general is not and never has been a corporate enemy of the left. This is just craziness.

[DFab420]

72. I'm assuming you've heard of the PWA?

right?

Part of the New Deal by FDR?

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

In which the government gave money to PRIVATE firms to hire and build things like DAMS and BRIDGES

But hey, it's ok for FDR to endorse it, but when Obama does ITS EVIL

EVIL AHHHH!H!H!H!!H!!!!

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[phleshdef]

82. Nice catch.

[DFab420]

83. It's amazing what a small level of American History can do to

ones perspective.

[readmoreoften]

86. Corporations during FDR were regulatable and located in the US. They are not comparable.

You can't compare the two paradigms. This is not the 1940s.

[DFab420]

89. LOL by that logic then we should do way with Social Security

since the PARADIGM isn't the same.

this isn't the 1940's after all....

That and how is it that you think they wouldn't hire US workers to work on US roads? What are they gonna do? Fly in people from India to pave roads????

I really dont understand your unwillingness to get JOBS on the market. Pretty sure construction workers are going to be fine if their paychecks come from a French company or an American one, just so long as they come...

[phleshdef]

95. Then based on your logic, FDRs administration should serve as no example for anything at all.

[LTX]

100. Here's 6 pages of road construction contractors --

all regulated, and all located in the US.

http://www.kellysearch.com/us-product-130871.html

[jpak]

28. Obama Derangement Syndrome strikes again

sigh

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

30. Working more ways to steal from our coffers. He is a Trojan horse. nt

[phleshdef]

34. You don't understand what he said or how the infrastructure bank idea works.

Its not fucking stealing anything.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

46. It is more privatization of our government. The more privatization, the more money will be taken

from our treasury. Privatization costs more.

[phleshdef]

55. It is not more privatization of our government. I'm sorry but thats just blatantly stupid.

Loaning money is not privatization. If they were trying to replace every state's departments of highways with private contractors and giving them flat out grants, then that would be privatizing something. What the infrastructure bank does is nothing remotely close to that in the slightest.

I'm sorry, but you are just flat out wrong and you obviously don't understand this. If privatization costs more, then those private companies would just have to borrow more from the infrastructure bank, meaning the revenues gained from interest would be even higher. The more a private company borrows from it, the BETTER. That means the bank grows. It becomes a government owned influence on the construction market.

[VeryConfused]

37. Ahh new roads are built by private companies

there is no new highway construction agency in the federal or state governments

[hedgehog]

39. If people here have so little understanding of what Obama just said,

what hope is there for people who aren't political junkies?

[tridim]

49. The people who don't understand what the President just said aren't political junkies..

They're political hacks.

[elleng]

52. Little hope, I'm afraid.

[Maven]

40. Nothing at all...he's a FANTASTIC Republican president.

[tridim]

45. Republicans are AGAINST EVERYTHING he just said 10 minutes ago.

Obama is a Democrat fighting for Democratic ideals, as he has always been.

Try listening next time.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

48. Kabuki Theater.

[tridim]

54. Define "Kabuki Theater" in the context of the progressive ideals that the President just laid out.

Do you want progress or not?

[Maven]

58. You mean like privatization and trade deals?

:rofl:

You are a riot.

[tridim]

75. No. The question is clear.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

60. He can say anything he wants and when push comes to shove he pushes

aside progressive ideals. He "gave" the repukes 80% of what "they wanted" and for the next round Medicare is on the table. This from a Democratic President? Democratic President, my ass.

[tridim]

74. I asked the question in context of what he just said, not what the terror party did last week.

I don't think you even know what Kabuki Theater means.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

102. Kabuki Theater, as it is all an elaborate play, on both sides. Period.

[jpak]

65. Save your breath - true haters will not be swayed with facts

proven every day here

yup

[Dawgs]

80. "Obama is a Democrat fighting for Democratic ideals, as he has always been"

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[tridim]

84. Did you vote for Obama in 2008?

[Dawgs]

110. I never gave so much or campaigned so hard for any other "Democrat". n/t

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluerthanblue]

43. what a stretch

this OP is.

:thumbsdown:

[former9thward]

59. What a weird OP

Construction is always done by private companies. The government does not have a construction workforce.

[tammywammy]

77. +1 n/t

[ProgressiveEconomist]

71. IMO Infrastructure Banks are a BRILLIANT idea that solves the fundamental problem

that has put our infrastructure in such sorry condition:

Federal, state, and local governments generally have no CAPITAL BUDGETS for infrastructure spending. They usually must appropriate funds from current budgets to "expense" paymnts to contractors to fix falling-down bridges, replace leaking roofs on public schools, repair water-main breaks, and reconstruct unsafe highways. Many of our current public infrastuctures date from the 1930s imply because that was the only time we had a well-funded WPA to fund infrastucture out of curremt-year budgets.

See, for example, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/speeches/2009/0610_national_infrastructure_bank_istrate/0610_national_infrastructure_bank_istrate.pdf

Infrastructure banks would carry governemnt capital sonstruction and maintenance projects on their books, rather than burdening current federal, state and local budgets with one-time construction projects that skimp on routine maintenance until bridges fall down and water-mains break.

Some states and localities have turnpike authorities, airport authorities, and other burdensome single-project structures for capital budgeting. Infrasxtructure banks would allow the professionals who know how to build and maintaiin large projects the flexibility to manage multiple projects year after year, without the politics, incompetence, and corruption that often waste millions and billions in single-project financial structures.

[scheming daemons]

79. What a ridiculous OP. Almost *ALL* "govt" construction is already done by private companies.

...funded by public dollars.


It is amazing how many people work themselves into an outrage over things they have no understanding of.

[salin]

85. go easy... gut reaction and folks are edgy. Think OP confused projects like Mitch Daniel's hwys

and regular construction contracts. My Man (not) Mitch - sold the turnpike to a private corp. They of course jacked up prices, and now lots of folks take other routes - guess the company is still losing $$. That said - I am guessing the poster jumped to that conclusion. ??? But you are right - govt contracts with private companies is long standing practice.

OTOH - the private contracts for highways (or even parking meters in places like Chicago and Indianapolis) another deal (not discussed in the speech) altogether.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[scheming daemons]

94. It's what FDR did too.... it is creating jobs with public money... it's what we SAY we believe in

For chrissakes, are you a Democrat or not?


Who do you think built the interstate highway system? *PRIVATE* companies using *GOVERNMENT* dollars!


This has nothing to do with "Obama cheerleading". This is Ed Rendell's idea, and it is at the very core of Keynesian Economics that every Democrat has endorsed for all time.


It's the kind of thing that Krugman is calling for, for heaven's sake.



Are you really this dense that you don't even recognize DEMOCRATIC principles when they're presented to you?

[SidDithers]

120. It's John Boehner syndrome. If Obama proposes it, it must be bad...nt

Sid

[phleshdef]

96. Theres nothing inherently wrong or evil with private construction companies.

This is a huge chunk of middle class, blue collar America you are talking about here and its an industry that needs the jobs probably more than any other right at this moment. If construction picks up, everything picks up. There is nothing the least bit unprogressive in supporting an infrastructure bank of this nature, nothing.

[Occulus]

105. All I ever see when I go past road construction projects

are state vehicles and state workers.

Maybe it's, I don't know, the logo of the State on all the vehicles that gives me that impression...

[lumberjack_jeff]

113. That's not the issue, and you know it.

The issue is "loans to private companies", not "public works contracts to private companies".

[scheming daemons]

81. Anyone who recced this thread has a very low IQ. n/t

[msanthrope]

97. This thread is so fucking stupid the Freepers are gonna link to it and laugh.

Jeebus.

[phleshdef]

91. You don't understand that its the private construction industry that really NEEDS stimulated do you?

Aside from the fact that your characterization of "privatizing" is wrong to begin with, what really is getting to me is that you completely ignore what an infrastructure bank would mean for the ailing construction industry in general and for the countless blue collar, middle class workers who need work probably more than any other labor demographic in this country.

The fact is, what he is pursuing here is something aimed right at the heart of our jobs recession. Private construction companies basically ARE middle America, at least a good chunk of it. They've always been involved in these kinds of projects. Loaning them money and organizing them into the right projects from a federal level is an idea that bleeds progressive. And FDR worked with private construction companies to do almost the same thing.

I just think you and others are letting your contempt for the President cloud your judgement on everything now.

[msanthrope]

92. This thread hurts to read....

[DevonRex]

99. This is the stupidest post I've ever seen on DU.

:rofl:

[Tx4obama]

106. He was talking about LOANS for construction companies. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

115. 1) How would that help anything?

2) What relationship do those loans have with an infrastructure bank?

[Shandris]

108. I'm upset about what I see as the complete cave on the Ceiling bill...

...but this fails to get any traction with me whatsoever. I thought it was pretty much a given that stimulus money went to private contractors. Maybe I've had a fundamental disconnect in how government money was used, but I'd always thought that it was a block grant to (locale), then the people in locale took the best bids to actually do the work, and those bids were from contractors.

Am I wrong? Did I overlook something?

[ZombieHorde]

116. Isn't this how it's been? What am I missing?

I don't understand your concern.

[SidDithers]

121. Dumb post. Educate yourself...nt

Sid

[deacon]

126. This place has become unglued. n/t