Unanswered questions

[ron4342]

When questions come up regarding borrowing money to fix the infrastructure to jump start the economy the gop screams "We SHOULD NOT borrow our grand children and future generations into debt." For the vast number of members of the gop their minds immediately shut off after voicing that statement rather than taking the time to think the problem through. Take a second to think about the questions I am going to pose and see it the quote above makes any sense.
1) If we do nothing to improve our infrastructure can we expect that infrastructure to be better, worse, or the same 10, 20, or 30 years down line?
The answer should be obvious. There is little chance of the infrastructure staying the same or getting better over time. Over time our infrastructure becomes worse due to aging and the increased pressure put on it by population growth. The bottom line here is that if we do not pay to fix the infrastructure now it will only become worse as time passes.
2) If we do nothing to fix the infrastructure now will it cost more, less, or about the same to fix the infrastructure in the future? Again the answer should be obvious. History has shown us that as time passes the cost of living increases. I recall a gallon of gas costing $1.25 in the past. Now that gallon of gas can cost 3, 4, or even 5 times as much today and it will probably be even more than that in the future. The first McDonald's hamburgers originally cost $0.15 each. If you purchase that burger from the Value Menu today you will pay over 6 times more than you paid in the past. The bottom line here is that if we pay to fix the infrastructure now it would probably cost substantially less than if we delay that repair for the future.
So, here is the final question.
3) Who is really passing major debts on to our future generations, those who want to tackle the problem now or those who want to pass the problem along to future Americans? Would it be those who want to start the repairs today at today's costs or would it be those who want to wait until the future when the problems have become worst and repair costs higher? The bottom line here is do we want to give future Americans a modern America with an up to date infrastructure or do we want to give future Americans an America that is literally falling apart and which would require massive spending to fix. Doesn't it make sense to fix the problems now while they are still relatively small and cost less than if we have to fix major problems in the future at a much, much higher cost?
I think I know the gop answer to all those questions but does their choice to pass along the problems to future generations make a bit of sense? I don't think so and I suspect those on this board who have a brain will agree with me.

 

[rightwinger]

Why fix infrastructure when you can give tax breaks?

 

[cutter]

When questions come up regarding borrowing money to fix the infrastructure to jump start the economy the gop screams "We SHOULD NOT borrow our grand children and future generations into debt." For the vast number of members of the gop their minds immediately shut off after voicing that statement rather than taking the time to think the problem through. Take a second to think about the questions I am going to pose and see it the quote above makes any sense.
1) If we do nothing to improve our infrastructure can we expect that infrastructure to be better, worse, or the same 10, 20, or 30 years down line?
The answer should be obvious. There is little chance of the infrastructure staying the same or getting better over time. Over time our infrastructure becomes worse due to aging and the increased pressure put on it by population growth. The bottom line here is that if we do not pay to fix the infrastructure now it will only become worse as time passes.
2) If we do nothing to fix the infrastructure now will it cost more, less, or about the same to fix the infrastructure in the future? Again the answer should be obvious. History has shown us that as time passes the cost of living increases. I recall a gallon of gas costing $1.25 in the past. Now that gallon of gas can cost 3, 4, or even 5 times as much today and it will probably be even more than that in the future. The first McDonald's hamburgers originally cost $0.15 each. If you purchase that burger from the Value Menu today you will pay over 6 times more than you paid in the past. The bottom line here is that if we pay to fix the infrastructure now it would probably cost substantially less than if we delay that repair for the future.
So, here is the final question.
3) Who is really passing major debts on to our future generations, those who want to tackle the problem now or those who want to pass the problem along to future Americans? Would it be those who want to start the repairs today at today's costs or would it be those who want to wait until the future when the problems have become worst and repair costs higher? The bottom line here is do we want to give future Americans a modern America with an up to date infrastructure or do we want to give future Americans an America that is literally falling apart and which would require massive spending to fix. Doesn't it make sense to fix the problems now while they are still relatively small and cost less than if we have to fix major problems in the future at a much, much higher cost?
I think I know the gop answer to all those questions but does their choice to pass along the problems to future generations make a bit of sense? I don't think so and I suspect those on this board who have a brain will agree with me.

The government takes in over 2trillion dollars a year, there is plenty of money to fix out infrastructure if we budget it right. How much do we waste each year on things that don't do us any good? How much on solendra and other wasted renewable energy schemes? How many federally funded study's on the sex lives of various frogs, files and crickets? How about bridges to nowhere and I'm sure billions of other wasted dollars that we could spend on infrastructure. For a politician it's better to give the money for wasted projects as payback for support ( I'm solendra created a few millionaires before it went under.) and then force us to borrow from future generations for what they should be paying for now. We need to cut off the credit now. No more borrowing period! we can live on 2 or 2 1/2 trillion a year if we have politicians that are responsible. Can anyone that supports further borrowing have any plan on how we pay back the 17.6trillion we now owe? If you can't figure out how to pay it back you shouldn't borrow it. Operating with the idea "I'll be dead before it becomes a problem" Isn't the way a responsible government operates.

 

[DiamondDave]

Why fix infrastructure when you can give tax breaks?

Exactly.. no tax breaks.. flat tax.. glad you agree

 

[rightwinger]

Why fix infrastructure when you can give tax breaks?

Exactly.. no tax breaks.. flat tax.. glad you agree

Flat tax, another gift to the wealthy

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

When questions come up regarding borrowing money to fix the infrastructure to jump start the economy the gop screams "We SHOULD NOT borrow our grand children and future generations into debt." For the vast number of members of the gop their minds immediately shut off after voicing that statement rather than taking the time to think the problem through. Take a second to think about the questions I am going to pose and see it the quote above makes any sense.
1) If we do nothing to improve our infrastructure can we expect that infrastructure to be better, worse, or the same 10, 20, or 30 years down line?
The answer should be obvious. There is little chance of the infrastructure staying the same or getting better over time. Over time our infrastructure becomes worse due to aging and the increased pressure put on it by population growth. The bottom line here is that if we do not pay to fix the infrastructure now it will only become worse as time passes.
2) If we do nothing to fix the infrastructure now will it cost more, less, or about the same to fix the infrastructure in the future? Again the answer should be obvious. History has shown us that as time passes the cost of living increases. I recall a gallon of gas costing $1.25 in the past. Now that gallon of gas can cost 3, 4, or even 5 times as much today and it will probably be even more than that in the future. The first McDonald's hamburgers originally cost $0.15 each. If you purchase that burger from the Value Menu today you will pay over 6 times more than you paid in the past. The bottom line here is that if we pay to fix the infrastructure now it would probably cost substantially less than if we delay that repair for the future.
So, here is the final question.
3) Who is really passing major debts on to our future generations, those who want to tackle the problem now or those who want to pass the problem along to future Americans? Would it be those who want to start the repairs today at today's costs or would it be those who want to wait until the future when the problems have become worst and repair costs higher? The bottom line here is do we want to give future Americans a modern America with an up to date infrastructure or do we want to give future Americans an America that is literally falling apart and which would require massive spending to fix. Doesn't it make sense to fix the problems now while they are still relatively small and cost less than if we have to fix major problems in the future at a much, much higher cost?
I think I know the gop answer to all those questions but does their choice to pass along the problems to future generations make a bit of sense? I don't think so and I suspect those on this board who have a brain will agree with me.

The government takes in over 2trillion dollars a year, there is plenty of money to fix out infrastructure if we budget it right. How much do we waste each year on things that don't do us any good? How much on solendra and other wasted renewable energy schemes? How many federally funded study's on the sex lives of various frogs, files and crickets? How about bridges to nowhere and I'm sure billions of other wasted dollars that we could spend on infrastructure. For a politician it's better to give the money for wasted projects as payback for support ( I'm solendra created a few millionaires before it went under.) and then force us to borrow from future generations for what they should be paying for now. We need to cut off the credit now. No more borrowing period! we can live on 2 or 2 1/2 trillion a year if we have politicians that are responsible. Can anyone that supports further borrowing have any plan on how we pay back the 17.6trillion we now owe? If you can't figure out how to pay it back you shouldn't borrow it. Operating with the idea "I'll be dead before it becomes a problem" Isn't the way a responsible government operates.

That starts with responsible citizens who do more than watch the television trash political ads in order to make their voting decisions.

Wait, I take that back. It's out of our hands since corporations became people after the Citizens United ruling. So expect to see more Sheldon Adelson and less John Doe. Koch brothers "funneling" their election choices through Heritage Action and less Citizen Jane. You get the picture.

 

[blackhawk]

Just out of curiosity what's the plan to start paying off the trillions we already have in debt plus the trillions more we would have to borrow to do what was asked in the OP? It seems like finding a way to pay off the 17 trillion we already owe should be the nations top priority but hey that's just me as with most things the debt is only important depending on which party happens to be increasing at the moment.

 

[Duped]

You liberals are so eloquent when you want more money.

You do understand the enormity of the debt, and deficit - the negative influence of them, the fact that at some point you won't be able to add to either? Spending has to be prioritized; allocated - you simply can't keep on spending what you don't have.

If you think prioritizing infastructure is prudent - thats fine. What cuts do you propose; how do you intend to pay for it - an excuse to borrow more won't fly. We need to make some serious cuts as is; we are bleeding profusely!

Until you liberals, and deficit spending republicans come to terms with the fact that money is finite, it's all BS. Your plans are to bleed us for every possible dollar under the guise of neccesity when the truly necessary thing is to cut spending, and pay down the debt!

Lets cut welfare, and use half the money to support infastructure, and the other half to cut spending - now were talking!

 

[The T]

You liberals are so eloquent when you want more money.

You do understand the enormity of the debt, and deficit - the negative influence of them, the fact that at some point you won't be able to add to either? Spending has to be prioritized; allocated - you simply can't keep on spending what you don't have.

If you think prioritizing infastructure is prudent - thats fine. What cuts do you propose; how do you intend to pay for it - an excuse to borrow more won't fly. We need to make some serious cuts as is; we are bleeding profusely!

Until you liberals, and deficit spending republicans come to terms with the fact that money is finite, it's all BS. Your plans are to bleed us for every possible dollar under the guise of neccesity when the truly necessary thing is to cut spending, and pay down the debt!

Lets cut welfare, and use half the money to support infastructure, and the other half to cut spending - now were talking!

And put those without jobs and on welfare to work and earn what they get instead of sitting on their dead asses waiting by the mailbox waiting for more goodies from the real producers in this Republic.

 

[Old Rocks]

Just out of curiosity what's the plan to start paying off the trillions we already have in debt plus the trillions more we would have to borrow to do what was asked in the OP? It seems like finding a way to pay off the 17 trillion we already owe should be the nations top priority but hey that's just me as with most things the debt is only important depending on which party happens to be increasing at the moment.

OK, buddy boy, where the hell were you when Bush was engaged in two wars and chose to cut taxes?

I say that we do what we did when we faced an enormous National Debt after WW2. Have a look at the tax rates for that period. And did they destroy the economy? Hell no, the late 40's, the 50's and 60's were times of roaring growth, when the middle class came into it's own.



BUSINESS INSIDER More: Economy Taxes Deficit Features
THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are
HENRY BLODGET
JUL. 12, 2011, 1:24 PM 595,584

Are taxes too high? Or are they too low?

Do high tax rates on "rich people" create a lazy population in which no one has an incentive to work hard?

And what about the Republican mantra that cutting taxes is always good for the economy, while raising taxes is always bad?

Thanks to the Tax Foundation and other sources, we've analyzed tax rates over the past century, along with government revenue and spending over the same period.

This analysis revealed a lot of surprising conclusions, including the following:

Today's government spending levels are indeed too high, at least relative to the average level of tax revenue the government has generated over the past 60 years. Unless Americans are willing to radically increase the amount of taxes they pay relative to GDP, government spending must be cut.
Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.
Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.
Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now).
Periods of very low tax rates have been followed by periods with very high tax rates, and vice versa. So history suggests that tax rates will soon start going up.


Read more: THE HISTORY OF TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are - Business Insider

 

[blackhawk]

Just out of curiosity what's the plan to start paying off the trillions we already have in debt plus the trillions more we would have to borrow to do what was asked in the OP? It seems like finding a way to pay off the 17 trillion we already owe should be the nations top priority but hey that's just me as with most things the debt is only important depending on which party happens to be increasing at the moment.

OK, buddy boy, where the hell were you when Bush was engaged in two wars and chose to cut taxes?

I say that we do what we did when we faced an enormous National Debt after WW2. Have a look at the tax rates for that period. And did they destroy the economy? Hell no, the late 40's, the 50's and 60's were times of roaring growth, when the middle class came into it's own.



BUSINESS INSIDER More: Economy Taxes Deficit Features
THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are
HENRY BLODGET
JUL. 12, 2011, 1:24 PM 595,584

Are taxes too high? Or are they too low?

Do high tax rates on "rich people" create a lazy population in which no one has an incentive to work hard?

And what about the Republican mantra that cutting taxes is always good for the economy, while raising taxes is always bad?

Thanks to the Tax Foundation and other sources, we've analyzed tax rates over the past century, along with government revenue and spending over the same period.

This analysis revealed a lot of surprising conclusions, including the following:

Today's government spending levels are indeed too high, at least relative to the average level of tax revenue the government has generated over the past 60 years. Unless Americans are willing to radically increase the amount of taxes they pay relative to GDP, government spending must be cut.
Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.
Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.
Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now).
Periods of very low tax rates have been followed by periods with very high tax rates, and vice versa. So history suggests that tax rates will soon start going up.


Read more: THE HISTORY OF TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are - Business Insider

Where you when Bush did it where were you Clinton, Bush again, Reagan, Carter, Ford,Nixon, LBJ, JFK and on and on did it we have not been debt free since Andrew Jackson was President which means we continued to run up debt in the 40s,50s, and 60s as well as the 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s and your answer continue the trend because every President since Jackson did it. There are concepts the left and the right continue to fail to grasp you can't pay off a massive debt without bringing in more money meaning higher taxes on everyone not just the so called 1% and you can't do it without major across the board spending cuts until everyone left and right comes to terms with the fact you can't pay off 17 trillion in debt without it being long term hard and painful it's never going to get done. I'm ready to support the one who will come out say this to the people are you?

 

[Avatar4321]

Why is you are pretending you are fixing infrastructure? Isn't that what the stimulus package was proposed to do? Why didn't it then? Why did it just go in the bank accounts of Democrat donors?

Why do you think the people can't build the infrastructure they need?

 

[ron4342]

When questions come up regarding borrowing money to fix the infrastructure to jump start the economy the gop screams "We SHOULD NOT borrow our grand children and future generations into debt." For the vast number of members of the gop their minds immediately shut off after voicing that statement rather than taking the time to think the problem through. Take a second to think about the questions I am going to pose and see it the quote above makes any sense.
1) If we do nothing to improve our infrastructure can we expect that infrastructure to be better, worse, or the same 10, 20, or 30 years down line?
The answer should be obvious. There is little chance of the infrastructure staying the same or getting better over time. Over time our infrastructure becomes worse due to aging and the increased pressure put on it by population growth. The bottom line here is that if we do not pay to fix the infrastructure now it will only become worse as time passes.
2) If we do nothing to fix the infrastructure now will it cost more, less, or about the same to fix the infrastructure in the future? Again the answer should be obvious. History has shown us that as time passes the cost of living increases. I recall a gallon of gas costing $1.25 in the past. Now that gallon of gas can cost 3, 4, or even 5 times as much today and it will probably be even more than that in the future. The first McDonald's hamburgers originally cost $0.15 each. If you purchase that burger from the Value Menu today you will pay over 6 times more than you paid in the past. The bottom line here is that if we pay to fix the infrastructure now it would probably cost substantially less than if we delay that repair for the future.
So, here is the final question.
3) Who is really passing major debts on to our future generations, those who want to tackle the problem now or those who want to pass the problem along to future Americans? Would it be those who want to start the repairs today at today's costs or would it be those who want to wait until the future when the problems have become worst and repair costs higher? The bottom line here is do we want to give future Americans a modern America with an up to date infrastructure or do we want to give future Americans an America that is literally falling apart and which would require massive spending to fix. Doesn't it make sense to fix the problems now while they are still relatively small and cost less than if we have to fix major problems in the future at a much, much higher cost?
I think I know the gop answer to all those questions but does their choice to pass along the problems to future generations make a bit of sense? I don't think so and I suspect those on this board who have a brain will agree with me.

The government takes in over 2trillion dollars a year, there is plenty of money to fix out infrastructure if we budget it right. How much do we waste each year on things that don't do us any good? How much on solendra and other wasted renewable energy schemes? How many federally funded study's on the sex lives of various frogs, files and crickets? How about bridges to nowhere and I'm sure billions of other wasted dollars that we could spend on infrastructure. For a politician it's better to give the money for wasted projects as payback for support ( I'm solendra created a few millionaires before it went under.) and then force us to borrow from future generations for what they should be paying for now. We need to cut off the credit now. No more borrowing period! we can live on 2 or 2 1/2 trillion a year if we have politicians that are responsible. Can anyone that supports further borrowing have any plan on how we pay back the 17.6trillion we now owe? If you can't figure out how to pay it back you shouldn't borrow it. Operating with the idea "I'll be dead before it becomes a problem" Isn't the way a responsible government operates.

Fine! Let's pay off the debt so future generations are debt free but end up in a nation that rivals third would countries. Let's leave them a country where the roads are a mess and the bridges are unsafe. A country where you might get electricity when you turn on the switch or you might not. A country where in many places the water is not safe to drink. A country where when you need help and call 911 someone might answer or not. Then when future generations are FORCED to borrow trillions to try to fix the mess that could have been fixed with billions in the past they can tell us "Thanks for turning the US into a shithole so we can spend trillions to try to fix the mess YOU LEFT US."
Here is a thought for you, when we borrow to fix the infrastructure it is an investment in the US. Those people who are hired to do the jobS will get paid with that borrowed money. And, unlike the wealthy who don't need anymore planes, automobiles, summer homes and boats, they will spend that money. That stimulus money does not go to Switzerland or to Caribbean, it goes into our economy in the form of new cars and trucks. New homes or remodels. Money to send children to college or trade schools. IT BENEFITS US AND IT MAKES AMERICA A BETTER PLACE. And then, wonder of wonder, all those people who have jobs create a need for companies to hire and even more people get jobs and best of all, everyone of them pays tax, tax money that can be used to pay down the debt.
Think of it like a pump. If you do not prime the pump you can move that handle up and down all day and not see a drop of water. But, if you prime the pump you will eventually end up with far more water than you put in. The same applies to the economy.

 

[The Rabbi]

Because all the deficit is due to infrastructure spending, right?
As mentioned, the stimulus was supposed to funnel money to shovel ready projects to fix the infrastructure. Instead it shoveled money to Dem constituents. Even Obama admitted there were no shovel ready projects. It was all a big lie. Like everything else in this administration.
Are bank fees lower or higher today than they were 5 years ago?
Can you keep your health plan or doctor today vs 5 years ago?
Are more people working today than 5 years ago?
Every law proposed and passed was done so by lying. It's what Dems do best.

 

[The T]

Because all the deficit is due to infrastructure spending, right?
As mentioned, the stimulus was supposed to funnel money to shovel ready projects to fix the infrastructure. Instead it shoveled money to Dem constituents. Even Obama admitted there were no shovel ready projects. It was all a big lie. Like everything else in this administration.
Are bank fees lower or higher today than they were 5 years ago?
Can you keep your health plan or doctor today vs 5 years ago?
Are more people working today than 5 years ago?
Every law proposed and passed was done so by lying. It's what Dems do best.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skAOLejB4BA"]"Shovel-Ready Was Not as Shovel-Ready as We Expected": The Obama Stimulus Record - YouTube[/ame]
​

Economy into overdrive? How about stripped gears? Recovery? Focused like a laser on the economy? Really? Obama is a FAILURE.
​

 

[ron4342]

Why is you are pretending you are fixing infrastructure? Isn't that what the stimulus package was proposed to do? Why didn't it then? Why did it just go in the bank accounts of Democrat donors?

Why do you think the people can't build the infrastructure they need?

Throwing a few nickels at problems that require dollars IS NOT the way to fix the infrastructure. And, get your head on straight, the money was not given to Democratic donors. Here is a thought, maybe they can't build the infrastructure because there is no money to build the infrastructure.
In case you haven't noticed the last Congress spent almost all their time doing nothing. In two years they passed approximately 25 bills which was the lowest number in our history. The vast majority of the bills passed WERE NOT spending bills and did nothing to create jobs. Then, whenever the house did write a bill that would create jobs they always put a rider in to kill ACA. Of course, the Senate does not take up the bill, knowing it will not pass because of that rider, causing the House members to scream about the Democrats failing to work with them.

 

[The T]

Why is you are pretending you are fixing infrastructure? Isn't that what the stimulus package was proposed to do? Why didn't it then? Why did it just go in the bank accounts of Democrat donors?

Why do you think the people can't build the infrastructure they need?

Throwing a few nickels at problems that require dollars IS NOT the way to fix the infrastructure. And, get your head on straight, the money was not given to Democratic donors. Here is a thought, maybe they can't build the infrastructure because there is no money to build the infrastructure.
In case you haven't noticed the last Congress spent almost all their time doing nothing. In two years they passed approximately 25 bills which was the lowest number in our history. The vast majority of the bills passed WERE NOT spending bills and did nothing to create jobs. Then, whenever the house did write a bill that would create jobs they always put a rider in to kill ACA. Of course, the Senate does not take up the bill, knowing it will not pass because of that rider, causing the House members to scream about the Democrats failing to work with them.

Tell us WHY Dingy Harry Reid has stopped 290+ Bills from the House that are counter proposals? TALK of a do-nothing Congress? Really? Try Reid stopping it all at the behest of Obama...and YES the stimulus WENT to Democrat donors, the UNIONS...SON? We didn't just fall off a turnip truck. We see the progress, or rather LACK OF. Just STOP IT already.

YOU Live in a LIE.

 

[ron4342]

Why is you are pretending you are fixing infrastructure? Isn't that what the stimulus package was proposed to do? Why didn't it then? Why did it just go in the bank accounts of Democrat donors?

Why do you think the people can't build the infrastructure they need?

Throwing a few nickels at problems that require dollars IS NOT the way to fix the infrastructure. And, get your head on straight, the money was not given to Democratic donors. Here is a thought, maybe they can't build the infrastructure because there is no money to build the infrastructure.
In case you haven't noticed the last Congress spent almost all their time doing nothing. In two years they passed approximately 25 bills which was the lowest number in our history. The vast majority of the bills passed WERE NOT spending bills and did nothing to create jobs. Then, whenever the house did write a bill that would create jobs they always put a rider in to kill ACA. Of course, the Senate does not take up the bill, knowing it will not pass because of that rider, causing the House members to scream about the Democrats failing to work with them.

Tell us WHY Dingy Harry Reid has stopped 290+ Bills from the House that are counter proposals? TALK of a do-nothing Congress? Really? Try Reid stopping it all at the behest of Obama...and YES the stimulus WENT to Democrat donors, the UNIONS...SON? We didn't just fall off a turnip truck. We see the progress, or rather LACK OF. Just STOP IT already.

YOU Live in a LIE.

I do not know if Reid stopped 290+ bills or not. But if he did it would be my guess that those bills contained riders to gut ACA. It would also be my guess that the gop purposely attached those riders because they did not want those bills to pass. Can you be honest enough to admit that the gop DOES NOT want Obama to succeed in anything. It absolutely scares the shit out of the gop that Obama may solve the problems that the gop created in the first place.
Oh, and according to government policies the money for rebuilding the infrastructure goes to the state. It is their job to pick and choose who gets the winning bid.
Oh, and as far as that union bullshit, GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF LIMBAUGH'S ASS ... SON. UNIONS DO NOT BID FOR JOBS. COMPANIES BID FOR JOBS. UNIONS ARE NOT COMPANIES. I can't make that any clearer. There is no doubt that some companies with unior workers got winning bids but they got those bids because they submitted the low bid and not because of the union members working for the company. If I am wrong about this the gop would have been screaming their heads off about this. Yet, there has not been on peep from the gop on your ignorant claim.
The only time I can remember when the bidding process was put aside was when cheney decided to be a war-profiteer and suspended bidding so Halliburton would get war contracts thereby putting billions in cheney's pocket. If you wish to be mad at Obama for anything, be mad at him for failing to have bush and cheney arrested and tried for war crimes.
One final note. I sincerely doubt that you would be intelligent enough to climb onto the turnip truck although, clearly, that is the place best suited for you.

 

[BlindBoo]

Because all the deficit is due to infrastructure spending, right?
As mentioned, the stimulus was supposed to funnel money to shovel ready projects to fix the infrastructure. Instead it shoveled money to Dem constituents. Even Obama admitted there were no shovel ready projects. It was all a big lie. Like everything else in this administration.
Are bank fees lower or higher today than they were 5 years ago?
Can you keep your health plan or doctor today vs 5 years ago?
Are more people working today than 5 years ago?
Every law proposed and passed was done so by lying. It's what Dems do best.

The largest chunk went for tax breaks.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8281/7651671018_5974db83f3.jpg

 

[The Rabbi]

Because all the deficit is due to infrastructure spending, right?
As mentioned, the stimulus was supposed to funnel money to shovel ready projects to fix the infrastructure. Instead it shoveled money to Dem constituents. Even Obama admitted there were no shovel ready projects. It was all a big lie. Like everything else in this administration.
Are bank fees lower or higher today than they were 5 years ago?
Can you keep your health plan or doctor today vs 5 years ago?
Are more people working today than 5 years ago?
Every law proposed and passed was done so by lying. It's what Dems do best.

The largest chunk went for tax breaks.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8281/7651671018_5974db83f3.jpg

You understand that doesnt refute what I wrote, right?