'Obama's "bratty, tantrum-prone child" strategy'

Post #347,120 by Ashton 9/1/11 2:56:04 AM Reply	'Obama's "bratty, tantrum-prone child" strategy' http://www.salon.com...emium%29_7_30_110 It's not surprising that President Obama is getting ready to launch a new job creation push. The economy is showing virtually no signs of life, his approval rating is falling to new lows, and with the next election just over a year away, his chances of being a one-termer are increasing with every piece of bad economic news. So sometime next week, Obama will unveil his plan in a prime-time speech, although some hints of what he may propose are now starting to leak out. What would be surprising -- shocking, actually -- is if his push resulted in any meaningful jobs legislation being enacted. The Republicans who control Congress answer to a party base that is fanatically opposed to Obama and convinced that just one more cent in government spending could destroy the country. Obviously, this means no major new job-creating investments in, say, infrastructure are on the horizon. But it also means that House Republicans will fight Obama even if he proposes ideas that they have previously supported. We're already seeing this, with the GOP scrambling to invent reasons not to extend payroll tax cuts that are on the verge of expiring. Even if Obama and House Republicans ultimately agree on some kind of package, there's no reason to think it will have any significant impact on the economy between now and Election Day 2012. [. . .] Seems a cogent analysis of such a strategy/if indeed, it Is Obama's. Whether or not a 'spoiled, bratty electorate' can be moved by demonstrations--seen already, all-along--via a patently true Larger Example: Actually could change their own perceptions, thus opinions?!? Is that The $40T Question? ..Or will 2015 see Murica's first Quadrillionaire ... amidst the food riots and inner-city flames?
Post #347,144 by dmcarls 9/1/11 9:59:50 AM Reply	There's talk of an 'Infrastructure Bank' A national infrastructure bank that would entice private investors into road and rail projects could be a major part of the jobs package ... http://www.legallang...oems/onehossshay/ [...] You see, of course, if youÂre not a dunce, How it went to pieces all at once, Â All at once, and nothing first, Â Just as bubbles do when they burst. From Wiki: "Today, the Chicago River has 38 movable bridges spanning it, down from a peak of 52 bridges. These bridges are of several different types, including trunnion bascule, scherzer rolling lift, swing bridges, and vertical lift bridges. Better hope that these are well-maintained!
Post #347,145 by Another Scott 9/1/11 10:43:13 AM Reply	Would be good. A "capital budget" as well? It's stupid that we lump annual on-going budgeting in with multi-year projects. Intuitively, we need a "capital budget" if we really want the federal budget to be more like a "family budget". For instance, people who make $50k a year don't suddenly go bankrupt when they take out a $200k 30 year mortgage... Unfortunately, all of the analysis to date indicates that a federal capital budget will create more problems than it solves (e.g. the federal government doesn't own most of the capital stuff it pays for; mixtures of accounting methods; etc.). http://www.brookings...bank_istrate.aspx It's obvious that we need to spend a lot more on infrastructure than we've been doing. There are sensible ways to do so; this is a solvable problem if we have the will... <sigh> Cheers, Scott.
Post #347,195 by jay 9/2/11 9:02:25 AM Reply	Could be good or bad Getting private investing involved in building national infrastructure is dangerous territory. Private companies that get involved in these sorts of things are very good are writing contracts that end up hosing the public in the long run. Jay

Welcome to IWETHEY!