home

Monday Night Open Thread: Obama's Economy Move

Anyone else feel like tonight is Sunday? I'm even doing laundry while catching up on the TV shows I missed the past few days.

I see Obama is proposing a new spending bill to make jobs. (Reuter's Factbox on the proposal is here.] Either I'm still in holiday mode or I don't care much what he does, it's too little too late.

Obama announced a proposal to spend $50 billion in the next year on roads, railroads and airport runways. The modernization plan, a more formal version of a long-standing pledge to improve the nation's crumbling infrastructure, is one of several economic proposals he is to make this week.

[More...]

White House officials said the $50 billion in new government spending would be the first installment of a six-year transportation strategy that would include investments in high-speed rail and air traffic control. To pay for it, the administration would raise taxes on oil and gas companies.

If approved by Congress, the funds would build or repair 150,000 miles of road, 4,000 miles of railroad track and 150 miles of runways, the officials said. The proposal includes the creation of an "infrastructure bank" to prioritize projects and attract private funds.

Here's my take: Republicans are talking about cutting social security, my health insurance premiums are through the roof because I hit a new age bracket, and two months before elections, Obama finally proposes a remedy: a transportation bill. I'm sure that will put a lot of people to work, but what about the people who don't work in construction, engineering, transportation, solar energy or local government? How will they benefit? Not to mention, it's a six year plan. Who can wait six years for the trickle down?

Obama's also proposing businesses get tax relief. That means big business, like those who can afford R&D projects. How about something for the mom & pop businesses? And how transparent, to do it right before the midterm elections.

I may not know much about the economy, but I do vote, and I suspect there are many people out there who know even less than me, who are listening to Obama and scratching their heads. Good thing for the Dems I'd never vote for a Republican, but I'm a dying breed.

Memo to Dems: If you want votes, you need to earn them. Provide us with health insurance. Reduce our tax rate (not those of big business.) Promise us that our social security benefits are safe, we won't have to work to age 70 and we will get our full share. If you can't afford these things, then start chopping to save enough money to pay for them. Need a place to start? Funds for the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war in Afghanistan. Close Gitmo, fold the military commissions and try the detainees in federal court or send them home. Increase federal good time, end mandatory minimums so we pay less for incarceration.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Vanity Fair's New Sarah Palin Expose | Ideally, Dems Would Know How To Negotiate >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    An American hero has passed away (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Dadler on Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 09:53:50 PM EST
    It was a speech to union members (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 10:09:04 PM EST
    and accepted well by them (I was there) in a state in which more than a fifth of construction workers have lost jobs and more than a fourth of factory workers have done so, too.  The link notes the potential for more construction jobs but not also the potential for more factory jobs -- a point that Obama made -- if the parts for these projects are made in this country.

    The crowd also lapped it up because Obama was back in fiery campaign mode, meaning that he was not in a suit but back to rolled-up shirtsleeves -- and some of the best lines were his own, improv-style (btw, the full text is at jsonline.com) and far better than a lot of the scripted stuff.  Especially noticed by several attendees with whom I talked was that he was not at all in the recently more prevalent and formal presidential style but back to a low-key setting, close to the crowd -- mixing in afterward in ways that must have driven crazy the Secret Service detail with him.  (Security also was nowhere near as tight as we had been warned; we went through brief searches similar to but not as rigorous as those at airports, and a lot of stuff got through that was stated on the tickets as banned. . . .)

    But yeh, all the way through, I kept thinking "too late, too late -- this is what was needed two years ago."  Also, this does not hold up to  comparisons I've already seen to the NRA in the New Deal.  This is more like health care reform that became health insurance reform -- that is, this is not the government providing jobs but the government providing funds for the private sector to provide jobs.  

    And no way could this get through Congress in time to make a difference at the polls just 57 days from now.  And a president cannot be on the road every one of those days to whoop up crowds to go to the polls.  After a few more stops in the Midwest, where he and Dems are in a lot of trouble, it's back to D.C. by Friday -- for one of his rare pressers.  Those are too few, too.  

    Sorry, but I don't care about (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 10:30:12 PM EST
    high speed rail or new runways.  Those things won't help my folks get to jobs they don't have.  My folks need JOBS.

    MUCH too little and WAY too late.  

    TLTL (4.50 / 2) (#19)
    by DancingOpossum on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 08:58:08 AM EST
    Or as the country song has it, "I'm a little too late, she's a little too gone."

    Oh, and btw -- the Republicans may be "talking about cutting social security" but it's Obama and the Democrats who have created, staffed, and cheered on the social-security-killing Catfood Commission. You can't see clearly until the blinders come off.

    People need training for jobs that will last a lifetime.

    Like those laid-off manufacturers who all learned high technology, right? HA HA HA. As has been pointed out elsewhere, most American workers are extremely skilled--they freakin' built the high-tech world we're living in. They don't need any more skills and the whole discussion is a nice big boondoggle for the trainers and the pols but not anybody else. People got skills. They need jobs.


    Plant and Equipment Tax write-off (none / 0) (#2)
    by Politalkix on Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 09:59:25 PM EST
    will also be proposed link 1

    link 2

    In many communities (none / 0) (#5)
    by Politalkix on Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 11:08:26 PM EST
    across the country, mom and pop businesses (retail, restaurants, landscaping, legal and tax services, etc) litter the landscape, catering to employees of engineering and manufacturing companies and their families. Many engineering consultancy firms can be mom and pop businesses also. Some precision manufacturing companies may employ just 5-10 employees.
    Many of these people also vote for Democratic candidates!
    For the last 3 decades engineering and manufacturing was neglected in this country (but not in Germany and China). I am very happy that the Obama administration is focussing on science, engineering, R&D and manufacturing. If in the last 30 years we did not get fixated on growing the financial, real estate and legal sectors at the cost of engineering and manufacturing, we would not be in the pickle that we are in now.

    Infrastructure is a good place to start (none / 0) (#6)
    by weltec2 on Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 11:29:59 PM EST
    But such jobs don't last forever. They are projects with a beginning and an end. People need training for jobs that will last a lifetime.

    No job will last a lifetime (none / 0) (#9)
    by Politalkix on Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 11:47:17 PM EST
    unless skills are updated. This is the reality of today's job market (and has been so for the last three decades).
    Investing heavily in science, engineering, R&D, manufacturing and education is the only way to remain an affluent country. No short cuts are possible!

    Parent
    Umm . . . (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 12:43:46 AM EST
    I call bullcrap on that in relation to today's job market . Well, the "job" may not last a lifetime, but a career will. And many "jobs" still can last a lifetime. Staying current/"updated" is the obvious, but as your field changes, you change with it. We've been doing it for the last 3 decades. I know, I've been working them . . . doesn't matter if you're digging ditches, designing product, health care whatever. You advance in skills as your field does.

    Parent
    We went to 'The American' (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 11:32:27 PM EST
    and it was disappointing, what a great trailer though :)  We rented 'Date Night' to attempt to make up for it and it did.  We should have paid bigger money to see 'Date Night' in a theater and rented 'The American'.

    In the end (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 11:37:37 PM EST
    it cost the same and you had a good "date night".

    Parent
    Date night was saved (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 11:48:35 PM EST
    Was trying to find a link to a news story I heard while running around today too, something about an astonishing over 50% of voters are right now claiming identification with Independents now.  I can't find a link though or print on it any place yet.

    Parent
    Pew research poll Aug 10 (none / 0) (#34)
    by hookfan on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 11:45:24 AM EST
    oops that shoulda (none / 0) (#35)
    by hookfan on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 11:48:42 AM EST
    been a question-- and after looking the answer should be nope. . .(sigh)

    Parent
    I don't much care either... (none / 0) (#12)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 01:40:54 AM EST
    Either I'm still in holiday mode or I don't care much what he does, it's too little too late.

    When Gibbs was giving his little tirade about the "professional left",
    he ridiculed those of us who wanted a healthcare plan equal to that in place in Canada. That was telling.

    I have the strangest feeling about Obama.

    I know he is the president, but he seems to have no presence at all.

    More to the point, Obama's 55 years too late (none / 0) (#13)
    by mcl on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 05:09:58 AM EST
    Building enough new highways to circle the earth five times and modernizing America's air traffic control systems would've been a great plan back in 1956. In fact, it was a great plan -- President Eisenhower proposed it when he kick-started the national highway construction program in 1956.

    But oil is headed back to $175 a barrel according to Deutsche Bank analysts, and that means cars and freeways are going to be things of the past. Air travel will become a luxury for the super-rich as jet fuel becomes insanely expensive.

    Obama needs to deal with a world confronted by Peak Oil.  In that world, Americans won't need more highways and better air traffic control systems. In a Peak Oil world Americans will need more bicycles and tougher shoes.

    Obama's proposal shows that he completely, totally does not get it. We can't get anywhere by deluding ourselves that we can continue this 1950s Happy Motoring fanasy in the face of Peak Oil and global warming. We need to face up to those issues squarely instead of living in this kind of lala-land Obama is proposing.

    If Obama had proposed 50 billion gigantic solar electric facilities and electric vehicles (mopeds, not cars), then he'd be getting somewhere. But more freeways and better airports in a world hurtling toward $20 a gallon gasoline is just plain dumb.

    build and repair (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by CST on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 09:04:36 AM EST
    I have a hunch there is a lot of repair in there.  Since as you pointed out these were built in the 50s.  Also, even bikes ride on the road, and there is money for rail in there as well.  Does it say specifically new freeway construction? If not, I wouldn't assume it was all going there.  A lot of our existing ones are falling apart though.  Bridges will collapse again without some serious help.  And there are plenty of roadways that aren't freeways that need help too.  For things like bike lanes.

    Parent
    I hope there is a lot of repair in there... (none / 0) (#23)
    by vml68 on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 09:28:28 AM EST
    many NJ roads could use the help. I don't understand how roads can be closed for 2-3 months for repair and the "new" road is just as bad as the old one!

    Parent
    Oldest scam running... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 10:24:53 AM EST
    fix them roads too well and ya fixed yourself out of a job vml.

    Parent
    I was gonna say.... (none / 0) (#27)
    by CST on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 10:50:22 AM EST
    NJ? Sopranos anyone... I realize this is not the best case to make for "road repair".  But hey, it's a job for someone...

    In a minor defense of this - in the winter a lot of roads will crack, even brand new roads.  Depending on how cold it is, some roads crack every year.  Usually they just fill the cracks.  As far as I am aware, no one has figured out how to solve this problem.

    Parent

    You don't really believe that, do you? (none / 0) (#29)
    by vml68 on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 11:15:46 AM EST
    As far as I am aware, no one has figured out how to solve this problem.

    If we have the technology to build space shuttles that can withstand such extremes in temperature, then someone has definitely figured out how to build roads that can withstand winter. Like Kdog says there is no money in building roads that don't need constant repair!

    Parent

    a few things (none / 0) (#31)
    by CST on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 11:21:29 AM EST
    • It may be possible, that's not the same as cost effective.

    • There is a significant barrier to entry for new ideas in an old industry.

    • An effective alternative just doesn't currently exist.  That doesn't mean it's not possible to create one, or someone isn't working on it, but we don't have it yet.  Not in any real functioning capacity.

    I do agree that there is a protection racket, especially in certain parts of the country.  But roadway cracking in winter is a real issue.  One that a lot of states would love to have solved.  If it were already effectively solved, it would be used.  There's a big enough level of interest by people who matter for it to just disappear.

    Parent
    Or money in cars... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 11:37:42 AM EST
    that go for 500,000 miles, or in refrigerators that last 100 years, or in medical cures as opposed to medical treatments...every sector does this to some degree.  Sh*t some manufacturers I work with price repair parts so high to get you to throw up your hands and buy a whole new valve.  Incredibly wasteful, but profitable.

    Until we live in Star Trek world, this is how it's gonna be...we've got an entire society/economy banking on waste and over consumption.

    Parent

    Ironically (none / 0) (#36)
    by CST on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 11:48:50 AM EST
    technology in roads is actually moving in the opposite direction to some degree.  They are slowly (very very slowly) moving towards permeable pavement in some areas (not really freeways, more like parking lots, city streets, etc...).  That is pavement with intentional "cracks" that allows water to seep through.  It's not really cracked, it's more like brick work, with small gaps between pavers.

    They also have a new rubberized concrete for sidewalks designed to keep them from cracking due to street-tree roots.  It's not widely used in the east yet though so I'm not sure how it holds up in winter.  Or how it might possibly apply to roadways to keep them from cracking.

    Parent

    Sound like great developments... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 12:45:38 PM EST
    in road and sidewalk materials/construction...but there are so many obstacles...codes, what the trades are used to, ignorance.  I've seen it with plastic Pex piping in place of copper in potable water systems in my work...even after the years it took for local codes to accept pex pipe, plumbers still insisted on using copper...it's what they know and trust, despite the higher material and labor costs.  

    Progress...little wonder it is so elusive, we're our own worst enemies.

    Parent

    I think we are "all in"... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 08:54:08 AM EST
    on the petroleum based way of life...aside from a few graybeards it's all we know and all we've ever known...it is certainly all the people in charge know.

    I think we're stuck riding it out till a "Mad Max" type last call on oil...we're not swift enough to change on the fly...we're creatures of habit.  

    Parent

    and (none / 0) (#21)
    by CST on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 09:12:18 AM EST
    I know I will get killed for this by some commenters, but raising the gas tax to pay for it tells me they are trying to be serious about the changing world.

    Parent
    Where do you get that? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 09:27:15 AM EST
    I've seen nothing about an increase in the gasoline tax.  They're talking about paying for it by closing some tax loopholes for oil and gas companies.

    As somebody who lives in a rural area of struggling small farmers, I'm vehemently opposed to an increase in the gasoline tax.

    If idiot suburban and urban people need to have their driving habits changed, somebody needs to figure out another way of doing it.

    An increase in the gas tax would have to be truly massive to have any impact at all on suburban consumption, and a tax that large would literally empty the countryside and shut down the remaining small farms in this country.

    Parent

    yea nevermind (none / 0) (#25)
    by CST on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 09:36:53 AM EST
    I read that wrong.  You are right there is no gas tax.

    It's not just about changing habits although that's a big part of it as well.  It's also just intuitive.  You have the users paying for it.  The people who use it the most pay for it the most.  And it's a lot more "fair" than say a toll or something that only taxes specific roads to pay for all of them.

    If anything I would prefer a gas tax combined with some other tax relief to offset the cost for people with lower-incomes.

    Parent

    do offsets for low income (none / 0) (#28)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 11:02:38 AM EST
    work well enough?

    Parent
    depends (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by CST on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 11:15:56 AM EST
    on how big the offset and how big the gas tax increase.  Devil is in the details.

    I will add two things to this comment though.

    #1 - I don't think it will take a huge increase to get people to rethink their driving habits.  I think when gas was around $4 a gallon you already saw a lot of that.  People have started changing their car-buying habits already now that gas is more expensive.  It's something that is now going to the forefront of people's thoughts when making transportation related decisions.  That wasn't the case for a long time.

    #2 - $4 a gallon gas did not empty out the countryside and cause everyone to go broke.  Because if you look at it over a year, it's not really THAT much money.  It's something that can easily be offset by a reduction in taxes somewhere else.  $1/gallon in a 20mpg car, driving 20,000 miles per year is $1000 dollars.  That's a decent amount of money, but it's not so high an amount that it can't be mitigated in some way.  I realize people are hurting now and it would have to be mitigated.  But as a long term policy, I think expensive oil is a good thing as it will also encourage innovation for alternatives by making those alternatives more competitive.

    Honestly thinking about it, maybe "gas stamps" similar to food stamps could be created to help people who really need it.  And yes, I realize the politics of that might be hard.  But in terms of policy I think it would make sense.

    Parent

    People like me... (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 11:40:57 AM EST
    got by when gas went nuts by not spending money someplace else.  We managed to not go totally broke, yeah...but the butcher, the baker, the grocer all saw a decrease in business (and increase in costs) while their customers put more money in the tank.

    A higher gas tax, though good for the air and government coffers, is bad for the economy and bad for broked*cks.

    Parent

    the problem I see in doing 'taxes' 'mandates' etc (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 01:52:05 PM EST
    where they supposedly look out for the low income folks, is that their ceiling is too low and a large swath of people just enter the black hole. Barely surviving, but making "too much" to qualify for assistance. a gas tax would just be one more hit they are expected to suck up and handle.

    Parent
    You said it (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 02:00:27 PM EST
    What you and others don't get (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 01:59:19 PM EST
    is that there are no "driving habits" in rural areas to change.  The distances are such that even if gasoline was free, we'd still only drive somewhere when we absolutely had to.

    This is a suburban/urban problem, and it's insane to destroy rural communities and economies as "collateral damage" to modify it.

    Keep ratcheting up the CAFE standards and make development of battery power a Manhattan Project.  Heck, ration gasoline in areas where there's a public transportation alternative.  Use your imagination.  There are a lot of things that can be done to change gasoline/oil consumption.  Massive tax hikes are the easy way out, wildly regressive and totally unfair.

    Parent

    i get that (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by CST on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 02:11:48 PM EST
    that's why i am talking about things like subsidies (gas stamp?) to offset that cost for those communities.

    Or maybe not a national gas tax then, but do it on a local level in non rural communities.

    It's not just the "easy" way out.  It also encourages a more open/fair market for alternative fuels.

    At the same time, refusing to look at it because people in rural areas need gas, to me is just like refusing to look at gun control because people in rural areas hunt.  We need to take care of problems in other areas too.  And maybe we need to realize that laws that work for some people don't work for others, and make/allow them accordingly.

    And I am not saying "hang the rural folk" on high gas prices.  I am saying that's something we need to address, but I still think, in principal, a gas tax is a usefull tool to wean consumption.

    Parent

    Then you and I just (none / 0) (#42)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 06:02:39 PM EST
    disagree violently about this.  I can think of a dozen different ways of reducing use of petroleum products just as much as that easy-peasy and grossly unfair big gasoline tax.

    And btw, I need to point out that rural communities already use much less non-renewable energy because so many of us heat our homes with wood instead of heating oil or electricity.

    Parent

    Florida church plans Kuran burning (none / 0) (#16)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 08:25:49 AM EST
    Message from top U.S. commander (none / 0) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 08:42:29 AM EST
    KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warned Tuesday an American church's threat to burn copies of the Muslim holy book could endanger U.S. troops in the country and Americans worldwide.link


    Yep, too bad ... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 09:28:53 AM EST
    ... the fundamentalist wingers who love this kinda thing aren't usually the sharpest knives in the drawer.

    Parent