By adding Tax increases there is no way the GOP will vote for this and Harry Reid knows it. More political games from the Democrats. Besides, how is giving money to teachers a jobs bill? Sounds to me like more of the same "created or saved" jobs, which does absolutely nothing for those unemployed. Even Steve Jobs voiced his dissapointment with the President about all the regulatory crap this country has which is why businesses go overseas.

But hey, look out boys and gals...since this bill has no chance in getting passed you may get raped or even killed within the next several weeks.

Get it right, Former White House resident Senor Shrub loved to spend money in other nations, but you'll find that most fiscal conservatives despite the Rethugicans who threw government money away by giving it to other nations.

In fact, that is a huge part of why the Grand Ole Perverts lost so many House seats in 2006. A lot of people who have reason to dislike the Tax and spend antics of Democrats were even more disgusted with the party that held the White House and punished the incumbents for their free spending ways.

And that is also part of why its almost impossible to get any senator with an R after his/her name to vote on any spending increases. Right now the fiscal conservatives have a very large amount of influence in elections and they have made it very clear that they want the spending to stop.

It appears that Reid intends to get nowhere and nothing will get done in the Senate at least until January 2013. The Senate will need to subtract 6 Republicans in November of 2012 in order for anything Reid would propose to get done starting in 2013. Short of that outcome, the Senate will have no hope to get anything done until at least January 2015.

If Harry Reid wants to achieve anything in the meantime, it will have to be legislation that at least 5 Republican Senators or 4 Republican Senators plus one Independent Senator will vote for. It appears Reid is out of ideas what such legislation could possibly be.

Reid may offer up a 16 month long string of unsuccessful legislation in the hopes of affecting the outcome of the 2012 election. Reid may be gambling that un-success will gain the Democrats a large enough Senate majority in a few years to get something done.

That last quote is about as accurate as it gets.

It didn't work the first time, no reason to think it'll work again.

American infrastructure. Jobs. What is the problem? It is like we have a cancer in our congress.

And Mr Reid said he would sumit this bill AFTER the congress (HOUSE) gets back from ANOTHER week long recess??? What are we paying these people to do, take a vacation every month. Working only 17 days out of the month.

Derf, I call them a Part Time Congress. It is unbelievable....

@JFK2112: Why is it that Republicans won't allow tax increases on the wealthiest among us? Their pledge to Grover or the lobbiest that keep their pockets lined? You also said 'created or saved' jobs do nothing for the unemployed. What part of created do you not understand?

Put them all up against a wall and shoot the lot of 'em.

IDO

When country in recession, your idea is cutting budget? that not smart either, that when you spend on infrastructure and economy to bring it up.

Three more bite sized Bills which the Republicans will block and we may have a total landslide in 2012. A Democratic House, Senate and Pesident.....

So after stimulus 1, ObamaCare, Green-job company loans, QE1, and QE2 the economy got better. Biden said after stimulus 1 500,000 jobs a month in 2009. Obama said the Health Care reform bill will create at least a million jobs. I don't think we have hit anything near that yet.

Derf-1791763

And Mr Reid said he would sumit this bill AFTER the congress (HOUSE) gets back from ANOTHER week long recess??? What are we paying these people to do, take a vacation every month. Working only 17 days out of the month.

Ask Mr. Boner. The Majority Party controls the House schedule.

I can't believe some of the comments that I read here, are those people who think that taxing the rich abit more because their neighbors or fellow workers have bitten the bullet for reasons that the last adminastration have caused are total nuts. Lets get these congress employes to do the job the are paid to do. They need to listen to the people who hired them and act accordingly. The fighting must stop and lets put AMERICA back to work

Tron,

The Health Care Bill doesn't take effect until 2014 for the most part. Only a few clauses have been really activated as of now. If congress kills this bill it will be a real setback for working folks, and a real boon to wealthy health insurance CEO's.

If Infrastructure spending is so important to Obama and Democrats.......why have they not renewed the Transportation Spending Bill that expired in 2009.....6 or 7 extensions at current spending levels......but no permanent infrastructure bill.......300+ Billion is already spent each year since 2009 on infrastructure......this is more game playing and showmanship from harry and Co.....

Mickey,

I know you believe that more government spending will fix the economy, but I have to ask why you believe that.

The truth is that the idea that more government spending will fix a broken economy is based on a number of faulty premises and was born during a time when the communications and transportation networks did not allow goods to move anywhere nearly as freely as they do now.

The idea the infrastructure spending is a cureall is even more dubious. Back during the Great Depression, programs like the TVA worked partly because any construction project was manual intensive. The Hoover Dam was built during this time and the project employeed thousands of laborers. Today, that same project would likely employ only 30-50 workers. Machinery has been developed to do the majority of the work.

And that is the flaw in this $60 billion spending plan. Sure it could help by updating a few bridges that are truly falling down, and maybe widen a few interstates that desperately need to be expanded. It might even help air travel if the money is spent to add runways to congested airports. But none of the projects is going to employ many people. The vast majority of htis money will end up in the pockets of government bureaucrats who will keep their jobs to disburge the funds of the people to well heeled companies capable of winning the project bidding war for these projects. And into the pockets of the CEO's who run those companys. In other words, the 1% will get even richer if this bill passes.

This bill is not "Right" for this country. It's not really wrong either. The economy is far too big to be a little lunch bag that can be pissed on. We have a raging forest fire. More governmetn spending is definitely pissing on that fire, but there isn't enough money in the world to put this conflagration out. There are some who advocate cutting off the fire and preventing it from engulfing the few healthy parts of the economy and then working to calm the flames so that the forest can regrow. Perhaps its time we give that idea a chance.

[I know you believe that more government spending will fix the economy, but I have to ask why you believe that.]

Simple answer? The feds are the only ones that have it to spend, or give away. I don't buy in to the notion that "we are broke". If we were truly broke, both parties wouldn't be tacking on riders to bills for pet projects. and both parties get these pet projects approved...make no mistake, I'm not singling out anyone here.

I like your reference to Hoover Dam and the manpower needed to build it. But New York alone has about 17,000 bridges...some State maintained, but there are a lot that are maintained by local municipalities as well. These local munis simply don't have the funds. Repairing or replacing them means jobs...thousands of jobs.

And that's in New York State ALONE.

Point out any Grande ole Pervert who is still earmarking bills to the Tea Party and I cna pretty much guarantee you that he'll be in a world of hurt in both teh primaries and general election in 2012. The Tea Party disagrees with you and wants the earmarking and riders to spending bills to cease completely.

But of course, those earmarks are how our congresscritters earn all those bribes that allow them to ignore the plight of the middle class.

As for your 17,000 bridges. How many do you expect will get $0.01 of the money to be disbursed in this $60 billion spending bill? Are there already plans to do the work? Have the terms of bidding been published?

This bill won't fix a single bridge. Bridge repair contracts take too long to set up. Those have to be planned years in advance and only a few companies have the engineering expertise to do the work, so they can't just hire "thousands" even if they were hired to fix all 17,000 bridges in NY in one year (and do we wnat to talk about the odds of that?)

this bill just sends more money into the pockets of lobbyists and Wall Street. Infrastructure projects take years to approve and throwing an extra $1 bil or $100 Bil won't make the approval process run any faster. The bill won't create more jobs except for government bureaucrats who will help drain mroe money from the economy.

. I don't buy in to the notion that "we are broke".

Mickey,

It's true.....we really are. Why do you think state and local govts of all political stripes are struggling to maintain and getting really creative attempting to raise revenue.

Let's just let our country fall down around us. That is the republicans only solution. We can't invest in our country because the republicans made a promise to Norquist to try and kill America.

Go ahead republicans keep voting against America and jobs. I am sure the public will reward you.

Doug Ponders

Yeah Doug. They're struggling so hard and creatively to increase revenue. Right. That's why all your wingnut congressmen swore an oath to Grover Norquist ahead of their duties to the Constitution and America to never under any circumstances raise taxes.

They haven't done jack sh..... except continue to line their pockets serving the elite wealth of this country and to successfully line their constituent's heads with a load of rhetoric.

The GOP hasn't done anything but block any effort to improve things during Obama's term. We all know it. It's transparent.

Mickey, where on this earth have you been? The feds are the only ones that have money to spend? Have you seen our $14 trillion in debt? Have you seen obama's $4 trillion in deficit spending? Have you seen our credit downgrade because of our spending and debt problem? Have you seen that SSI will be insolvent before 2036 and this year in 2011, SSI is spending more than it is taking in? Have you seen that Medicare is also paying out more than it is taking in and is projected to be insolvent by the year 2017 or before? We do not have the money. Don't you think the billions of dollars we pay in gas taxes on the federal and state level should actually go for infrastructure/roads/bridges like it was supposed to be? We are a country on the path of Greece and the liberals want to play political games with the issues of our spending. They want to use granny to scare people. They want to "DO NOTHING" about SSI and medicare, then wait until it is too late to save it. That's exactly what they are doing. This bill is nothing more than another multi hundreds of billions of stimulus money that is mostly a payback to the unions. The first bill did nothing close to what the democrats and CBO said it would do.

Mark

When were you when Reagon Tripled the deficit? Where where you when Bush increased the deficit by 83%? Our downgrade was due to Republicans put us in this situation. SSI insolvent due to both parties taken money from the trust to pay for something else. Don't blame liberals, your fiscal conservative buddies actually did more damage then anybody else. It not scaring granny, you guys want to destroy SS and Medicare for decades, this is not new. It just now you found new excuse. You want cut deficit, how about closing bunch bases overseas, how about let Bush tax expire (4 trillion savings), there things can be done without touching needy programs.

Well bmax, you want to throw that 83% around like it's a large number. In 8 years as President, George Bush only added 4 trillion to the overall Natiopnal Debit; obama has beat that in less than 3 years. So please don't blame President Bush for your boy obamas mess. Social Security will be broke by the time I get anywhere near using it & so will Medicade/medicare. More benefits are paid out each year on all 3 programs than revnue coming in. It's simple math: If your expense going out are great than your money coming in, the plan will GO BROKE! Republicians don't have to do a dam thing to take your social security away from you: Democraps are letting it go broke! The Bush tax cut WAS SUPPOSe to expire, HOWEVER obama extended it. At that point it became the obama tax cut! Again check you facts before you open that stupid mouth of yours!

Mickey, NY

A good analogy would be that "the economy" is a paper bag filled with crap.

That paper bag has been lit on fire by the democrats and placed squarely upon the doorstep of the GOP/Tea Party.

Now the GOP/Tea Party can do one of two things...stomp the flames out, subsequently getting crap all over their shoes and tracking it into the next election cycle where it will be the death knell for their party;

or, they can actually do what's right for this country and all Americans and vote for this jobs bill, in turn putting out the flames of that burning bag of crap that is our economy...

...bags on your doorstep, GOP... time is running out, both for Americans and YOU...

Great comment but unfortunately the already have a previous commitment...Grover Norquist.

Dave-659903

Well bmax, you want to throw that 83% around like it's a large number. In 8 years as President, George Bush only added 4 trillion to the overall Natiopnal Debit; obama has beat that in less than 3 years.

And Bush was hemorrhaging 750,000 jobs per month before Obama came into office. At that rate and with his track record...no one would be working and we'd be fighting 4 or 5 wars. And he still wouldn't be concerned with Osama Bin Laden's location.

Ol_Doc

And we have been losing about 400,000 per week for about 2 years under Obama. Last time I looked 400,000 X 4 = 1.6 Million.

So which is better 750,000 per month or 1.6 million per month?

Hi N-DFL,

You are correct. The FHWA has indeed classified those bridges as structurally deficient. New York has their fair share as well. NYSDOT can barely keep up with the inspections alone, and we are waiting for the FHWA to act. 21 million vehicles cross deficient bridges in NY every day. Here is a good outline for NY alone...factor in the rest of the nation and you have a real problem

https://www.nysdot.gov/main/bridgedata

New Jersey is in bad shape as well. My collegue at NJDOT has his hands full...

Forrest,

I agree there is no reason to vote against infrastructure, but what reason is there to vote for infrastructure besides putting more money into the pockets of some well heeled lobbyists and their Wall Street handlers.

I find it fascinating that so many of you believe that this money will result in some huge increase in the number of employed workers. Do you watch much construction? Film from the Great Depression does show hundreds if not thousands of man working to build much of the infrastructure we still use, but check out any interstate construction in your area today. Count the workers. Unless its a massive project you'll probably find only 4-6 men working with their equipment. Today the equipment does most of the work. There won't be a huge increase in employment.

But its rather obvious that the falsehoods that John Maynard Keynes came up with during the Great Depression have left a lasting stain in the knowledge of the world, and too many people know "government spending always increases employment." even though that anyone who studies economic history will report that all evidence points to this being 100% false. Government spending is not the driver of employment. (Of course, most economics professors want government grants, and the people who disburse those grants aren't going to take kindly to giving government money to a professor who reports that government spending is a drag on the economy, so you'll find almost no economic professors who'll ever reveal that little fact.)

Even one of hte biggest arguments recently for increased spending is based on that falsehood. Economists will make a big deal about the fact that consumer spending was 70% of the US economy, but they then say that government spending increases will boost the economy. But they don't say that it will change the ratio of consumer/business/government spending. Rather they claim that consumer spending would have to increase to maintain that 70% ratio.

Try using that in any other arena and see how poor that logic is. AFter all its saying that

X (the economy) = C (consumer spending + I (business spending) + G (government spending)
and that C = .7X

Increasing G doesn't have to change C at all.
Say the ratio is 70/10/20 (about what it was historically)
Now increase government spending 25% so that its at 25% of the economy.
X doesn't increase, instead you have a new ratio 70/5/25

And that's what we are hearing about. Business is taking a vacation because they don't feel comfortable with the high government spending.

The government spreading money around has far deeper effects that you'll hear about from the talking heads on any of the TV networks. Think a bit about the claim that this bill will create jobs. I won't say that no jobs will be created, but I am positive that the cost per job wil vastly exceed the benefit, and businesses will not open their walled in reaction to the increased spending.

But bridges are collapsing.

Forrest:

[There is no reason to vote against infrastructure...]

You hit the proverbial rivet on the head...this country's infrastructure is in bad shape.

Forrest,

The one bridge that collapsed did not collapse because of inadequate maintainence. Multiple engineers reviewed the design documents and reported that the design had a severe flaw. There are even government reports that show that several government inspectors were worried about the design.

But the bridge was built despite the warnings and despite all the government infrastructure spending that went on after that, no attempt was made to fix the problem.

And this was a bridge that was known to be a danger.

I can understand that you want to beat the drum about how government agencies now report that 90% of all bridges in the US need major maintainence and upgrades, but I'd be willing to bet you the full $60 billion that if the senate and house both pass this bill less than 40 bridges across the country will see one day of work by engineers intending to get them off the list permanently. Its far too convenient to the bureaucrats who are lining their pockets with infrastructure money every year to keep money from reaching the bridges rather than fix them right. If they had wanted to fix them, they could. We do already have a fairly large annual infrastructure budget thanks to the gas taxes we all pay. Why isn't that money being used to fix these bridges? Think upon that.

Wait, we did done did the Shovel ready thing-y.

It failed to jump start the economy, cause there is no such thing.

Not then, not now, brown cow.

mvargus,

"The one bridge that collapsed did not collapse because of inadequate maintenance. Multiple engineers reviewed the design documents and reported that the design had a severe flaw. There are even government reports that show that several government inspectors were worried about the design."

If you are talking about the bridge in Mpls in 2007 you are wrong.

This bridge in 2007 was 40 years old. It collapsed while a construction company was making surface repairs.

The design flaws was was gusset plates half as thick as they should be and undersized. In the end the State of MN, URS engineer firm which had a contract to inspect the bridge on a regular basis and the Progressive Construction Co. paid the 130 victims and their families millions of dollars in settlement. All three blamed each other. They all settled without saying they were at fault.

The new bridge was fast tracked and rebuilt in three year.

Your other reason for being against the infrastructure job bill is that they are not "shovel ready" and won't give enough people jobs.

I disagree. The 17 bridges that need repair or rebuilt in the Twin Cities where I live could be projects ready for the Spring construction season.

I traveled daily across another bridge that was kept open while a new bridge was put its place. It took three years, and a saw more than 5-6 people working each day. I saw barges, footing being sunk into the river bed, steelworkers, concrete workers, engineers, electricians, bricklayers, landscapers etc.

And finally, the reason we need infrastructure jobs bill is that our government is responsible in providing safe roads, bridges, airport, for all of its citizens.

[Wait, we did done did the Shovel ready thing-y.]

Shut up, Jr...the grown ups are talking...

...now back under the bridge, Troll.

You can argue back and forth that government spending does not create jobs, but if you do any research at all you can't deny that spending cuts cost jobs.

And what would happen to the Republican who goes against Grover's pledge? Would they be black listed or banned from Congress?? Would they be hung out to dry or would they have to become a Democrat? How can you punish some one who wants to think for their self. Don't these Republicans have a voice of their own or a MIND of their own??Why does Grover have to have CONTROL over his people??? Is he their GOD??? Their KING???

Derf, Norquist and his PAC has told each Repub that they would mount a primary candidate to run against them if they broke their pledge. It is all about special interest money and who funds the politicians campaigns.

google Grover Norquist and read all the material.

American: You said 'How cool is it that obama and company wants to borrow against our kids futures to create jobs that the government has already shown us that it cannot create or sustain?' Way to disregard what you don't like. Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest amongst us to pay for these programs. Wouldn't it have been nice if GW and the Republicans in congress would have done the same when they started two wars (the only in American history not accompanied by a tax increase), expanded entitlements the most since the inception of Medicare with Medicare part D and cut taxes without cutting spending. They also used questionable accounting methods to hide the true cost of the war so they could run up this huge deficit. Apparently you had no problem with borrowing against your kids futures when Republicans were doing it because I am sure that you would have mentioned these issues since they are all still ongoing and adding to our deficit everyday. I think it is about time we make sure that our kids have a future!

Melissa, first your democrats supported and backed the Iraq war. Have you seen the deficits under obama compared to Bush?

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/28/the-truth-about-obamas-budget-deficits-in-pictures/

The worst year under Bush, the democrats controlled congress. There is no way you can justify irresponsible spending under obama.

Mark, Haven't you seen the report that said the Bush era lived on borrowed money that we are having to pay back now and that's why the recession happened in the first place. Republicans and democrats living off borrowed money instead of investing in the country they were hired to work for. They gave away so many jobs overseas during Bush's reign. Get your facts straight. We've been paying for Bush's mistakes the past three years and counting.

Mark-384387

Melissa, first your democrats supported and backed the Iraq war. Have you seen the deficits under obama compared to Bush?

The worst year under Bush, the democrats controlled congress. There is no way you can justify irresponsible spending under obama.

Mark, I understand that actual facts don't matter much to Tpublicons but under the Bush Administration two wars didn't show up in the Budget, they do now. The only wartime tax cut in history was enacted and Medicare part D was enacted...all unfunded.

The point is the stimulus costs almost a trillion dollars and the return on the investment was poor at best. The unemployment rate went up and has stayed up. Most of the money was spent by the states, and only served to delay lay offs and cuts due to the need to cut back on spending. That is why this new stimulus, labled a jobs proposal, will not pass in Congress. The national debt is out of control and to keep spending as if there was not a problem is crazy. Obama is out to prove government is the solution even though the example in Europe proves this to be false.

Melissa again, even obama stated there were no shovel ready jobs.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20019468-503544.html

Tony C-2383666

The point is the stimulus costs almost a trillion dollars and the return on the investment was poor at best. The unemployment rate went up and has stayed up. Most of the money was spent by the states, and only served to delay lay offs and cuts due to the need to cut back on spending. That is why this new stimulus, labled a jobs proposal, will not pass in Congress. The national debt is out of control and to keep spending as if there was not a problem is crazy. Obama is out to prove government is the solution even though the example in Europe proves this to be false.

And it's you party that wants to continue shedding teachers and first responders. When the unemployed and desperate head down your block, you'll have no one to call. Maybe you can call the T-Party.

One thing is for sure. Your lack of ability to be civil while disagreeing with other's position on the issues. All the while ignoring and exaggerating the facts. It is great to see liberals show their true colors as this will help independents to see who the real radicals are and that we really need a change, not just "talk" and language that divides Americans next November.

@Tony, I will agree that people name-calling is not a way to win an argument. On the other hand, what have the Republicans done to help anyone since they were elected this last term? They have stopped anything being done to help get more people employed, had to have their hands held by the president during the debt debates, and even said the way the debt debate ended was with their getting 99% of what they asked for. How is that doing any of us any good?

The only jobs I've seen have been from things the president has done to help the nation. I am not saying he is perfect and no I do not worship him either. But I recognize people that try to do things to help and those that stand in the way of a better economy. The president is trying and the republicans are holding the door shut to anything being done.

They represent me.

Go USA-851295

They represent me.

Good luck with that...ROFLMAO

Even if the American Jobs Act was self supporting it would not pass. Republican's do not want him getting any more Thank yous from the American Public. They are dead set on making this his only term. You my friend are delusional.

obama, the dems, and their irresponsible policies are making obama a one term president. People see obama for what he is. A terrible excuse for a president that may have been a good community organizer, but has no clue on how to be president. Keynsian economics do not work.

Really? And I suppose you could say "Supply-Side" economics has has made us what we are...the next great 3rd World Country.

A senate recess is not a vacation.

jcook

How can those street projects be "a good example of the American Jobs Act"? The American Jobs Act FAILED IN THE SENATE!! It is NOT LAW!! So your statement is FALSE at best.

Why did you vote for McCain? Seems that you support Obama's tax and spend agenda.