E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
"President Obama called yesterday for Congress to approve major upgrades to the nation’s roads, rail lines, and runways, part of a six-year plan that would seek to boost jobs, cost tens of billions of dollars, and create a government-run bank to finance innovative transportation projects," The Boston Globe reports. "With Democrats facing an increasingly bleak midterm election season, 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."
The New York Times: “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. Indeed, some leading proponents of such a bank — including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican of California; Gov. Ed Rendell, Democrat of Pennsylvania; and Michael R. Bloomberg, the independent mayor of New York -- would like to see it finance a broader range of projects, including water and clean-energy projects.”
The New York Post mocks the president's idea, calling him the "Pothole Prez" on its cover.
The Washington Post notes that Obama also was in campaign mode yesterday. “Obama defended his record and criticized Republicans and his Washington foes as opponents of the middle class ‘who talk about me like a dog.’ He told several thousand cheering labor union members that the Republican Party is peddling failed economic policies, and he vowed to ‘make this case across the country between now and November.’” ‘Their slogan,’ he said of Republicans, ‘is 'No, we can't. No, no, no. No.’” The crowd answered by chanting Obama's signature 2008 slogan, ‘Yes, we can.’”
"The United States expects to spend about $6 billion a year training and supporting Afghan troops and police after it begins withdrawing its own combat troops in 2011," AP writes. "The estimates of U.S. spending through 2015, detailed in a NATO training mission document, are an acknowledgment that Afghanistan will remain largely dependent on the United States for its security."
"A group that opposes secrecy in government says the federal government significantly reduced its backlog of document requests from the public last year, but also slowed its pace of opening previously confidential material to public view," AP reports. "A report Tuesday from OpenTheGovernment.org said the government's record is mixed, but suggested the Obama administration could be less secretive than its predecessor, the Bush administration."
Leave a Comment:
...and the republicans will block it regardless of its merit. Their strategy of 'NO' has worked well so far pandering to the ignorance of most Americans...ideology over country, thats the republican mantra
Scott, the early returns from the Congress suggests that the democrats don't even want him talking about this. It puts them in a very bad position since most of the voters want Congress to get a handle on spending and not spend like a drunken senator with a White House credit card. Now they have to defend something that they don't want to have to defend.
You're right, ScottNatl, that's exactly what they'll do and the Dems would be wise to man up and find a way to pass it.
No matter what President Obama and the Democrats do, even if they cured cancer, cleaned the environment, brought peace to the Middle East, the Repubs would find fault--all those things would "add to the deficit", "raise taxes", "bring socialism". There is NO WAY to win with these people. That being the case, the President and the Democrats need to find the will to master their fear and DO WHAT IS RIGHT for the country. If you're getting criticized anyway, let it be for trying to get things DONE...trying to save jobs, create jobs, jumpstart the economy.
That's it Bo, keep the private sector guessing.
As much as the Republicans wish for the legislation to be abandoned, it will not simply because the elections are near and people want to get back to work... if they keep voting against the president, for whatever reason, then they will lose votes... the few that attend the TEA party will ostricize the people that will make the difference among other factors such as candidate confusion and shear unfavorability to extremists actions. Don't count your bags until they've boiled.
Hey Scott, the Dems have the Prez and both houses and still can't get things done. Stop using Republicans as an excuse and wake up to the fact that Obama doesn't have a clue.
Actually the President and Congress have accomplished more than any Congress and President in such a short amount of time.
It's funny how Republicans pull statements out of thin air and proceed to make them as fact when it's all fiction.
President Obama sought out efforts to include Republicans but they continually stonewalled and turned their back on the people but you fail to see that.
Narrow-minded thinking is never good for the country.
Obama in my view has been a HUGE disappointment, dont get me wrong, but when you have to break a filibuster to go to the bathroom, something is wrong. Thats not an excuse SoFlaJohn...thats a fact. Republicans are the biggest problem. They care more about pushing their ideology than pushing the best interests of this country, and are causing untold pain to so many people needlessly. Take a clue from that.
Both Dems and Republican are the problem. The primaries have given us a clue Scott, if you’re an Incumbent, you are in trouble.
What kills me is the media and how they won't talk about the GOBP obstruction, this congress has moved more bills than any other before only to have them stall in the senate due to the dopes of nope filibusters. A large portion of these bills were about jobs and the economy. I can't wait to hear the media the day after the election explain what happened to their predictions of the death of the dems when it doesn't materialize.
SoFLAJohn - I think you need a new math teacher, when you don't have a fillibuster proof majority the opposition can stop anything they darned well please - take a note, I fully intend to support anyone who will do the same thing to the next repugnant president and their silly minnions in congress. you took george's fuzzy math class, didn't you? wink, wink!
What blows my mind is that in January 2009 we were promised our $860 BILLION must pass (debt) stimulus plan was going to create thousands of shovel ready jobs for infrastructure and put people back to work. Only $860 BILLION later, we didn't do that so we must pass a $50 Billion NEW plan to create shovel ready jobs to put people back to work. And create a new government agency in the process! WHOOPPEEEE, more government workers!
People complain that they don't want to return to the failed economic policies of the Bush Administration. OK, fine, I'll go with you there, but compounding those failures with furthering the abysmal failure of Obama's economic policies and tell me where the improvement is coming in?
Oh no! Facts = Truth from MMFA
Economists say stimulus helped economic recovery
WSJ: 70 percent of economists surveyed said stimulus helped. The Wall Street Journal http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703625304575115674057260664.html blocked::http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703625304575115674057260664.html http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052748703625304575115674057260664.html">reported on March 12 that 38 of the 54 economists it surveyed "said the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act boosted growth and mitigated job losses, while six said the legislation had a net negative effect."
ABC News: Most on panel of economists "think the economy would be worse" without the stimulus. ABC News http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://abcnews.go.com/Business/economic-stimulus-minus-grade/story?id=9867659&page=1 blocked::http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://abcnews.go.com/Business/economic-stimulus-minus-grade/story?id=9867659&page=1 http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FBusiness%2Feconomic-stimulus-minus-grade%2Fstory%3Fid%3D9867659%26page">reported on February 18 that "most" of the economists on its panel "think the economy would be worse today without the big aid package, which totaled $787 billion and was signed into law by President Obama on Feb. 17, 2009."
NABE: 83 percent say stimulus raised GDP. A February http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://www.nabe.com/publib/pol/10/03/index.html blocked::http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://www.nabe.com/publib/pol/10/03/index.html http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nabe.com%2Fpublib%2Fpol%2F10%2F03%2Findex.html">survey of 203 members of the National Association for Business Economics (NABE) http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://www.nabe.com/publib/pol/10/03/fiscal.html blocked::http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://www.nabe.com/publib/pol/10/03/fiscal.html http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nabe.com%2Fpublib%2Fpol%2F10%2F03%2Ffiscal.html">found that "[e]ighty-three percent believe that GDP is currently higher than it would have been without the 2009 stimulus package (ARRA)."
USA Today: Surveyed economists said "stimulus package saved jobs." USA Today http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-01-25-usa-today-economic-survey-obama-stimulus_N.htm blocked::http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-01-25-usa-today-economic-survey-obama-stimulus_N.htm http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fmoney%2Feconomy%2F2010-01-25-usa-today-economic-survey-ob">reported on January 25:
So you're saying a trillion dollars only bought us a million jobs?
Was that "runway" spending or "runaway" spending?
selfemployed, I'd rather see runaway spending on trying to get jobs, and help people get what they need, rather than runaway spending on a failed war on weapons of mass destruction, or giving the wealthy an unfairly advantageous tax break, which fell on the backs of the middle class.
Now lets see: The House, the senate and the President are Dems.
The stimulus and its promises are owned by Dems.
The economics of the govt is owned by the Dems.
Their economists are owned by the Dems.
The Healthcare bill is owned completely by the Dems.
The stimulus of $800B is also owned by the Dems.
The social justice to be implemented is owned by the Dems.
The social engineering to be implemented is owned by the Dems.
The election is won by an overwhelming majority is owned by the Dems.
President Bush is owned by the Dems. Ooops sorry Dems I made a mistake.
Doest make any difference, either we get new people, or the washington politics will remain the same...Both parties are crooks and have deep pockets for themselves...were in this mess because of creed and thinking there above the law........The party of no,,,and the party of spend...wake up Americans get off the couch and go pull a lever for a return of your country instead of changing the channels on your tv and listen to all the fear your being fed.......
That's what I'm talking about. If they are currently warming a seat I'm voting against them. The only way to get DC to change at this point is a revolution. Voting them all out would be the peaceful version of a revolution. If that fails all that is left is the non-peaceful type.
Can anyone help me? $800B disappears into thin air. Can anyone tell me what will happen to $50 B?
BTW Dems, I'm not hearing anything about the Zerobama health care bill. Whatever happened to it? Aren't the Dems going to campaign on their signature achievement? That's pretty cowardly. Here you did all you could to pass a healthcare bill to help the people and you are rejecting it, you are dumping it in the background by not touting its achievement in the coming campaign. That's robbing the people. How will the campaign look without the healthcare bill being brought to the attention of the people for them to analyze?
only because the right has so demonized it, and stupid people believe it. I can say first hand it has helped me. I could not get insurance before and will be able to now (and afford it). The suffering the right will cause (and have caused) in the sake of flawed ideology...and the stupid people who will lose so much believing them...it really is sad
Here is the history of the budgets:
1996 -107 Billion (DEM WH, GOP wins House & Senate for first time in 40 yrs)
1997 -21.9 Billion (DEM WH, GOP House & Senate)
1998 +69.3 Billion (DEM WH, GOP House & Senate)
1999 +125.6 Billion (DEM WH, GOP House & Senate)
2000 +236.2 Billion (GOP WH, GOP House & Senate)
2001 +128.2 Billion (GOP WH, GOP House & Senate , America was attacked)
2002 -157.8 Billion (GOP WH, GOP House & Senate, congress approves 2 wars)
2003 -377.6 Billion (GOP WH, GOP House & Senate)
2004 -412.7 Billion ((GOP WH, GOP House & Senate)
2005 -318.3 Billion (GOP WH, GOP House & Senate, Hurricane Katrina)
2006 -248.2 Billion (GOP WH, GOP House & Senate)
2007 -160.7 Billion (GOP WH, DEM wins House & Senate)
2008 -458.6 Billion (DEM WH, DEM House & Senate)
2009 -1.4 Trillion (DEM WH, DEM Senate & House, national debt explodes)
2010 -1.5 Trillion est. (DEM WH, DEM Senate & House)
2011 -1.3 Trillion est. (DEM WH, Senate? & House?)
2012 -830 Billion est. (DEM WH, Senate? & House ?)
Uncle Sammy,
You have posted this same list a few times yet you still have it wrong.
It might be a little more meaningful if it were accurate.
Every new congress comes in under the budget set by the previous congress. Example: The 2009 budget was passed by congress in 2008.
How much per job will it cost us in deficit dollars?
Ok Suzy...here we go with the numbers games again. The stimulus DID create thousands of jobs...it also SAVED thousands (think firemen, teachers, policemen). The problem was it needed to be larger and politically there wasn't the will amongst those we elected to act in our best interests like Ben Nelson who operated for the special interests instead
Time out Scott........You and Obama are good with saying, "The stimulus package did save jobs"! How can you say that with facts to back it? You can't say teachers, fireman,etc.... because we would still have teachers, fireman, etc.... even without the stimulus package!
That would be like me telling you there is a god. You can't prove nor disprove that....
For all you deficit hawks out there screeching...I suggest taking a basic Macro Econ class. Deficits dont matter right now, and austerity measures will certainly drive us to a second recession...why you ask. I cant spend money I dont have! Well, you also cant print money either (and not go to jail). Our government can (which also knocks the we're turning into Greece argument out of the water...they cant print Euros to inflate their currency...we can print dollars). But then there will be Hyperinflation...OH NO! Wrong again...anyone checked the yield on treasuries lately, and interest rates are effectively at 0% so ...anybody? That should be a big clue that the markets say spend, not save. Deficits should be dealt with long term (10yrs out possibly). Dont forget that an improving economy increases revenue which lowers the deficit as well. Dont believe the KOCH inspired propaganda that the world comes to an end if the upper income Bush tax credits expire, and the small business figures Republicans are throwning out are out of thin air. I dont know many small businesses making enough money to even pay tax (and if they are showing 250,000 in income on an S-corp they need a new CPA). One look at Bohner or McConnel on the Sunday shows try to squirm out of the question on how to pay for them should be enough to convince you
Look I don't believe that will boost the economy per say, but it is possible it could help breifly. My beef with the 50 billion is why not just use 50 billion of the stimulas package money? Why borrow more when you already have the money?