BOHICA*

" President Obama on Monday is to call for as much as $50 billion in government spending to start up a long-term public works plan emphasizing transportation projects – roads, rail and airport runways – over the next six years."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/us...a.html?_r=1&hp

___________________________
* Bend Over Here IT Comes Again

the relief of it having been out for a few minutes i havent felt..should i have?

Damn right.

Who needs roads, rails, and runways when you guys can just have Scottie beam you up?

Cheers,
Mazo.

Damn right.

Who needs roads, rails, and runways when you guys can just have Scottie beam you up?

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Of course, according to PJ, in another couple of years we'll be able to beam the Obama administration into PJ's living room.

We certainly do have a lot of infrastructure that needs to be maintained, fixed, rebuilt. IF and it is a BIG IF the money is really spent for those needs then we provide employment and have something to show for the money. More of this stuff should have been in the 2009 stimulus package (and as I recall PJ agreed on that point )

So what's the big downside PJ? Put some spin on it for me (not spit).

We certainly do have a lot of infrastructure that needs to be maintained, fixed, rebuilt. IF and it is a BIG IF the money is really spent for those needs then we provide employment and have something to show for the money. More of this stuff should have been in the 2009 stimulus package (and as I recall PJ agreed on that point ) Originally Posted by discreetgent

Word! If the Spendulus had actually been shit like this it might have helped. Spending government money on productive assets has a payback. Borrowing money to keep government employees paid (as was most of the first bill) does not. This reeks of political desperation.

the relief of it having been out for a few minutes i havent felt..should i have? Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

This time he promises to use lube.

More emphasis on projects which create jobs should definitely have been included sooner. Hopefully, this money will really go towards job creation.

I think this is also relevant: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...mqm8-5WbBp5XKA

More emphasis on projects which create jobs should definitely have been included sooner. Hopefully, this money will really go towards job creation. Originally Posted by LaurenLynn

I think it should go to the hobbyists scholarship fund for stimulating (YES!) providers. Now, I know Tiff & Dallas don't wander much into this realm, but they might find the idea has merit.

The phony stimulus package was always meant as a vote buying gimmick for his re-election campaign. So now it starts. Hopefully, to late to get the intended results but maybe not to late to get some infrastructure updated.
Of course, with the requisite waste because of political kickbacks.

I thought most of the the original Stimulus Package was still un-spent. Why not spend all of that money FIRST? Did I miss something? What do I not understand?

What do I not understand? Originally Posted by ICU 812

That this is political theater. It has nothing to do with restarting the economy. If a damn trillion didn't jump start things, a lousy $50 billion isn't going to do squat. This is all about the appearance of "doing something".

The phony stimulus package was always meant as a vote buying gimmick for his re-election campaign. So now it starts. Hopefully, to late to get the intended results but maybe not to late to get some infrastructure updated.
Of course, with the requisite waste because of political kickbacks. Originally Posted by John Bull

Oh, and when the loyal opposition is in power, like measures aren't taken? JB, I never thought of you as so naive.

If you believe the voting public at large is so easily bought, I pity you.

If you believe the voting public at large is so easily bought, I pity you. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
Alexis de Tocqueville