Obama Ushering In Another Depression?!

[shagdrum]

Read this and this...

So, Obama is bringing back arguable the worst part of the New Deal (under the same premise) that deepened and lengthened the depression under FDR.

It is also based on false assumptions that we have a massive need for road, school overhauls as well as the need to make them more "energy efficient".

—ENERGY: “[W]e will launch a massive effort to make public buildings more energy-efficient. Our government now pays the highest energy bill in the world. We need to change that. We need to upgrade our federal buildings by replacing old heating systems and installing efficient light bulbs. That won’t just save you, the American taxpayer, billions of dollars each year. It will put people back to work.”

—ROADS AND BRIDGES: “[W]e will create millions of jobs by making the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s. We’ll invest your precious tax dollars in new and smarter ways, and we’ll set a simple rule – use it or lose it. If a state doesn’t act quickly to invest in roads and bridges in their communities, they’ll lose the money.”

—SCHOOLS: “[M]y economic recovery plan will launch the most sweeping effort to modernize and upgrade school buildings that this country has ever seen. We will repair broken schools, make them energy-efficient, and put new computers in our classrooms. Because to help our children compete in a 21st century economy, we need to send them to 21st century schools.”

—BROADBAND: “As we renew our schools and highways, we’ll also renew our information superhighway. It is unacceptable that the United States ranks 15th in the world in broadband adoption. Here, in the country that invented the Internet, every child should have the chance to get online, and they’ll get that chance when I’m president – because that’s how we’ll strengthen America’s competitiveness in the world.”

—ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS: “In addition to connecting our libraries and schools to the Internet, we must also ensure that our hospitals are connected to each other through the Internet. That is why the economic recovery plan I’m proposing will help modernize our health care system – and that won’t just save jobs, it will save lives. We will make sure that every doctor’s office and hospital in this country is using cutting edge technology and electronic medical records so that we can cut red tape, prevent medical mistakes, and help save billions of dollars each year.”
​

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGpI...ories/1208/16258.html&feature=player_embedded

Spend a billion to save a hundred?!

He hasn't even taken office yet and has already confirmed my worst fears about him with regards to the economy. Get ready for a depression!

 

[JoeyLincolnMK8]

One way or another he is still going to blame Bush for everything.

 

[04SCTLS]

Spend a billion to save a hundred?!

He hasn't even taken office yet and has already confirmed my worst fears about him with regards to the economy. Get ready for a depression!
__________________

Where do you get your spend a billion to save a hundred question from?

The country needs work on it's infrastructure.
As someone who's company produces products for infrastructure this is good news to me.
IMO winding down the Iraq war, cutting back defense expenditures and canceling dubious weapons programs not in tune with the current threats will help pay for a lot of this.

Swords into Plowshares!

 

[foxpaws]

So shag, your ideas? I would imagine that unemployment will be at, or reach with the first 90 days of Obama’s presidency, 10%.

So, the government will spend money, it is just how, when and how much.

Welfare, unemployment benefits, food stamps, added health care costs for Medicaid, fewer taxes collected, people entering Social Security earlier, additional government sponsored training programs to re-tool American workers, added earned income credits, are all programs that will be affected with the rise in unemployment.

The private sector charities set up to help the poor are already beyond capacity, and will not be able to withstand the strain of additional people asking for help, along with the burden of donations falling off. They too will be petitioning the government for additional funds.

Credit markets will continue to fail because of the additional failed mortgages, lapsed credit card payments, no new cars being sold, and the payments on the old ones ceasing.

Remember, this group moving into the unemployment class is different than the ‘hard core’ unemployed. These are families that will be entering. Instead of 1 man who doesn’t work, and asks for services for just himself, these new unemployed will be needing help for 4 people or more. Wives and children, who not only will need to eat, but who have traditionally higher healthcare costs will be entering this group.

And all through this when ‘fewer taxes are collected’ it will mean that the government has even less money to work with – driving up the debt even further. This will be happening at all levels of the government. Not only will people not be paying income tax, they won’t be paying sales tax. As they leave their homes, property tax roles will decline. Gas and energy tax revenue will decline.

So, the government funneling money through the private sector can create new construction jobs rebuilding the infrastructure of America (and shag it is falling apart - stood under any of the old viaducts in KC lately – chunks of them are falling off, I know they were working on the joints of the L&C – but it 100+ years old and it looks like it). Those jobs create tax revenue, consumption of transportation expenses, and disposable income. While allowing people to stay in their homes, and paying their bills

So, I really am interested Shag – what would you do with unemployment at 10%? That number is usually considered a watershed. As you rise above that things have a tendency to increase on a more geometric scale rather than a arithmetric scale.

And also remember hungry people are dangerous…

 

[shagdrum]

Where do you get your spend a billion to save a hundred question from?

I was using absurdity to illustrate absurdity.

Obama cited the saving of money in his reasons for this approach, and that is patently absurd. The little bit of money it might save in some areas will be far outweighed by the huge increase in spending necessary to accomplish his foolish goal.

The country needs work on it's infrastructure.

That is questionable at best...

IMO winding down the Iraq war, cutting back defense expenditures and canceling dubious weapons programs not in tune with the current threats will help pay for a lot of this.

What do you base this on? He hasn't attached a monetary figure to this yet. It is pure speculation on your part.

And when we have islamic terrorists at war with us, it is foolish to cut defense spending.

Besides, that is the cheif purpose of government; to provide for the common defense and protect the way of life of americans. That would necessitate defense spending as necessary. However, the entitlement programs are not a principle part of the purpose of any government, and thus should be cut.

Either way, Obama is attaching this idea of working on infrastructure, etc, to "investing" in america. It is ment as an economic stimulus package; to provide (temporary) jobs for the unemployed. This has been tried before under FDR and shown to be a failure at accomplishing that task; in fact working against that goal. It actually prolongs and deepens an economic downturn.

Either Obama is so far removed and insulated from reality to see that truth, or he wants a depression to grow dependance on the government.

 

[fossten]

So shag, your ideas? I would imagine that unemployment will be at, or reach with the first 90 days of Obama’s presidency, 10%.

I've got some.

The idea here is to spur growth and vault out of the recession and avoid any resemblance to a depression entirely.

1. Reduce taxes, massively, across the board.

2. Cut the capital gains tax to zero for 6 months, reviewable every 6 months.

3. Organize a strike team to start slashing business-killing regulations, whole chapters at a time, throughout the ABC Fed agencies.

4. Encourage new business startups across all, repeat all, industries, regardless of environmental impact. That means coal, nuclear, oil shale, strip mining, real estate, you name it. Remove lending requirements to lend to people who can't pay it back. Suspend all possibility of preventive treehugger lawsuits. We are very good at cleaning up our messes anyway.

5. Tell the unions to go "F" themselves. They are the reason the auto companies are failing.

6. Cut fed spending, massively.

 

[ford nut]

The country needs work on it's infrastructure.

That is questionable at best...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/20216365#20216365

Tell that to the dead people and there families.

 

[foxpaws]

OK – cut taxes –

When Reagan did that unemployment rose for 2 years after slashing taxes by 25%

Then unemployment fell, but many jobs were created by the government supporting the huge increases in military spending – a different type of jobs program – the private sector building tanks, not schools (but oddly similar to Obama’s). During the Reagan years military spending increased 22% - it was in reality a huge jobs program, since there wasn’t a war going on that destroyed military hardware, we were just stockpiling. Also, Reagan added large numbers of ‘real’ government jobs – millions of them. The government payroll increased dramatically over the Reagan years, and it wasn’t military personal.

Remove the capital gains tax – well, if the market was doing great – what a swell idea – right now no one is seeing any appreciable capital gains – nothing from nothing is still nothing. And you can’t cut them to nothing – they can be reduced, but they are income, and it would create a big class conflict as those who ‘gained’ from repealing the capital gains were gathering wealth, while those who weren’t able to be in the markets didn’t see the same type of benefits.

Kill business-killing regulations. Who decides this little bit of murder? Got an agency in mind? How about the KKK Kill Krappy Kontrol. Are you going to let business delete it’s own regulations? Letting the fox watch the hen house? Removing regulations is fine – but it isn’t a blanket retreat, believe me, there are some regulations that are necessary – like no asbestos… Scalpel removal takes a while to complete –
I do think this is a rational idea though – and should be undertaken as a big step in creating American businesses that can compete in world markets. However, our products and processes will need to conform to standards set in other parts of the world. If our cars want to compete overseas, they have to match the regulations in those countries. If our computers want to have a European market, we need to actually improve on our mercury restrictions in board manufacturing. More and more countries are looking at manufacturing carbon footprints, as a method of allowing products into their countries. While we cut away at regulations we need to take into account that if we really want to succeed we need to look at selling our products throughout the world, and not only here in the USA. Isolationism isn’t going to ever work again.

Encourage new business startups – doesn’t that involve money – tax money? Whether it is front end loaded or back end loaded – if you remove tax burden from start ups, the government is losing money, if you remove lending requirements, who will guarantee the loans – the government, who will end up paying on the defaulted loans (and there will be plenty, what is the success rate of new business – don't around 50% fail within the first 24 months?)

This runs right up against ‘Cut fed spending – massively’ your last point – encouraging business will cost federal money.

You can’t tell the people ‘you can’t be represented by a union’. Good luck. Outlaw unions? Wait until the Supreme Court gets a hold of that. This is your most irrational solution Foss – Work with unions – find ways that they can back off of their demands, reduce current wages and realistically cut benefits – do a better job with mediation. Those are workable solutions. If you just go in and say no more unions you will have a war on your hands. And since the police and fire departments are union - things will get really complicated.

And as far as the rebuilding of America - not only does it obviously need it (fordnut's video is just the tip of the iceberg) but, it will have to be done eventually - the government has put this on the back burner forever - what better time to just say we need to do this. It will never be cheaper, it will never just go away, and rarely will the timing be this right again.

 

[04SCTLS]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/20216365#20216365

Tell that to the dead people and there families.

Are you trying to make my point here?

You say more work on infrastructure is dubious at best yet show this collapsed bridge.


Busy bridges that need work


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...dge-list_N.htm

Like the Minneapolis bridge that collapsed Wednesday, three-dozen bridges across the United States carry more than 125,000 vehicles a day and have received "poor" structure ratings. The ratings come from state inspections reported to the federal government in 2006.

This article is just the tip of the iceberg
_____________________________________


As to defence fighting terrorists is more like a police operation and billions of dollars of expensive high tech weaponry is a poor use of resourses.
Here's a look at what's coming up for the military.

http://www.slate.com/id/2206041/
Gates' Plan To Fix the Pentagon
The now-and-future defense secretary's two critical ideas for reforming the military.

By Fred KaplanPosted Friday, Dec. 5, 2008, at 1:42 PM ET

Robert GatesIt is unusual for an incoming Cabinet officer to spell out a precise agenda or to define the standards by which his performance should be judged before the president has even been sworn in. But that's exactly what now-and-future Defense Secretary Robert Gates has just done with an article in the upcoming issue of Foreign Affairs.
The article's main point is that, given limited resources, the military services need to shift their priorities away from "baroque" high-tech weapons designed for threats of the distant future (or left over from Cold War premises) and toward low-cost weapons that are effective for the wars we're fighting now and will likely fight in the foreseeable future.

Gates allows that there has to be a balance between these two goals, but he notes that there is currently no constituency in the Pentagon or elsewhere for the latter types of weapons. He recalls that it was necessary to go outside the bureaucratic process to build and quickly deploy the MRAP armored troop-carrying vehicle—which provided much greater protection against roadside bombs in Iraq—or to make more efficient use of camera-carrying drones, like the Predator, for locating insurgents. (He doesn't note that he was the one who rammed these programs through the resistant Army and Air Force bureaucracies.)
More broadly, he writes that there are limits to U.S. military power and that the Pentagon should devote more resources and attention—and promote more of its officers—to train, advise, and equip the security forces of allies rather than doing the bulk of the fighting ourselves.
In short, Gates calls for a dramatic change in the Pentagon's "rewards structure"—"the signals sent by what gets funded, who gets promoted … and how personnel are trained."

So, what changes should Gates make two months from now, in the FY 2010 defense budget, that would indicate, to the services, the Congress, and the public, that he is doing what he has said the next secretary should do?
Cancel or sharply cut the F-22 and F-35 stealth fighter planes. A year ago, Gates caused a ruckus by halting the F-22 program at its current level of 187 planes, half as many as the Air Force wanted. He should stick to that decision. He may get the support of his new Air Force chief of staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz, whose background isn't in fighter planes but in airlift: i.e., in planes that transport ground troops and their weapons to the battlefield.
Practically speaking, the Army, Air Force, and Navy have to get a roughly equal share of the budget, otherwise all hell will break loose. So cut some of the Navy's budget, too (in his article, Gates says that the Navy's fleet, even in its reduced state, is larger than that of the 13 next-largest navies combined, and 11 of those are allies). Get the Air Force into other missions besides air-to-air combat (for which there presently is no threat): Build more C-17 cargo planes (Schwartz's specialty); start developing a new bomber (for dropping loads of "smart bombs" very accurately); bring back the A-10 attack plane.
placeAd2(commercialNode,'midarticleflex',false,'')

Start an Army and Marine advisory corps to train soldiers to assist foreign armies. A few years ago, Lt. Col. John Nagl, one of the Army's most creative officers, was put in charge of a unit to do just that, but Nagl recently quit the military, in part because the brass wasn't taking his unit or the mission seriously. Gates was distressed when Nagl left. In a few speeches (and in the Foreign Affairs article), he has spoken admiringly of "some dissident colonels" asking the right questions; Nagl is one of the colonels he had in mind. So give Nagl a job in the Pentagon to organize an advisory corps on a grand level.
Get Congress to suspend the peacetime promotion system in which talented captains and colonels are forced to wait many years to get the command posts they deserve, and could usefully lead from, now. (We are fighting two wars, right? We don't have a wartime military draft, nor are we likely to get one, for good reason. But let's at least have a wartime military promotion system.) Last year, Gates brought Gen. David Petraeus out of Iraq to chair the Army's promotion board—precisely so that a number of highly creative colonels, who had been passed over before, could finally advance to the rank of one-star general. The trick worked. Now he should get systematic about it.
Will Gates take these steps? A few hours after President-elect Obama announced that Gates would stay on as defense secretary, Gates gave an interview to Aviation Week, in which he said that he will focus on cleaning up the weapons-procurement system. My guess is that Obama said that he'll back him up on this—not because I have inside information (I don't), but because I doubt that Gates, who has been desperate to leave Washington and retire to his lakeside home in the Pacific Northwest practically since he arrived at the Pentagon, would have agreed to stay without Obama's backing.
As has often been reported, Gates is an old-school patriot, but that doesn't mean he'll do anything just because the president asks him to. A year before he stepped up to replace Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary, Gates turned down George W. Bush's plea to become the new director of national intelligence because he wouldn't be allowed to hire or fire anyone—that is, because he realized the job didn't involve real power. In his two years under President Bush, Gates has used his power mainly to clean up the mess that Rumsfeld left behind—the demoralization of the Joint Chiefs, the distrust on Capitol Hill, the dysfunction of the National Security Council. Maybe under President Obama, Gates will have the power to make the changes that until now he's just talked about.
____________________________________________

 

[Joeychgo]

So, you think giving the banks hundreds of billions is ok.

Of course, what do the banks do? Invest in Treasuries.

Smooth.

Wasn't that GW's idea?

And for those of you who dont realize it. The depression was caused, at least in part, by the rich having most of the money, and little for anyone else.

As mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption, mass consumption, in turn, implies a distribution of wealth -- not of existing wealth, but of wealth as it is currently produced -- to provide men with buying power equal to the amount of goods and services offered by the nation s economic machinery. Instead of achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by 1929-30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. This served them as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products that would justify a reinvestment of their capital accumulations in new plants. In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped.

That is what happened to us in the twenties. We sustained high levels of employment in that period with the aid of an exceptional expansion of debt outside of the banking system. This debt was provided by the large growth of business savings as well as savings by individuals, particularly in the upper-income groups where taxes were relatively low. Private debt outside of the banking system increased about fifty per cent. This debt, which was at high interest rates, largely took the form of mortgage debt on housing, office, and hotel structures, consumer installment debt, brokers' loans, and foreign debt. The stimulation to spending by debt-creation of this sort was short-lived and could not be counted on to sustain high levels of employment for long periods of time. Had there been a better distribution of the current income from the national product -- in other words, had there been less savings by business and the higher-income groups and more income in the lower groups -- we should have had far greater stability in our economy. Had the six billion dollars, for instance, that were loaned by corporations and wealthy individuals for stock-market speculation been distributed to the public as lower prices or higher wages and with less profits to the corporations and the well-to-do, it would have prevented or greatly moderated the economic collapse that began at the end of 1929.

The time came when there were no more poker chips to be loaned on credit. Debtors thereupon were forced to curtail their consumption in an effort to create a margin that could be applied to the reduction of outstanding debts. This naturally reduced the demand for goods of all kinds and brought on what seemed to be overproduction, but was in reality underconsumption when judged in terms of the real world instead of the money world. This, in turn, brought about a fall in prices and employment.

Unemployment further decreased the consumption of goods, which further increased unemployment, thus closing the circle in a continuing decline of prices. Earnings began to disappear, requiring economies of all kinds in the wages, salaries, and time of those employed. And thus again the vicious circle of deflation was closed until one third of the entire working population was unemployed, with our national income reduced by fifty per cent, and with the aggregate debt burden greater than ever before, not in dollars, but measured by current values and income that represented the ability to pay. Fixed charges, such as taxes, railroad and other utility rates, insurance and interest charges, clung close to the 1929 level and required such a portion of the national income to meet them that the amount left for consumption of goods was not sufficient to support the population.

This then, was my reading of what brought on the depression.


- Marriner S. Eccles who served as Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Chairman of the Federal Reserve from November, 1934 to February, 1948 gave his view of what caused the Depression in his memoirs, "Beckoning Frontiers"

The MAIN component for getting out of this financial crisis is EMPLOYMENT. People HAVE to be working or we dont get out of it. Its that simple. As long as people are unemployed or underemployed, then spending stops and business fails. Sorry, no silly $300 check to families is going to bail us out.

What Obama is suggesting is that we put people to work in ways that will have savings for us later, such as making schools more energy efficient. That puts people to work AND reduces costs long term.

 

[fossten]

OK – cut taxes –

When Reagan did that unemployment rose for 2 years after slashing taxes by 25%

Then unemployment fell, but many jobs were created by the government supporting the huge increases in military spending – a different type of jobs program – the private sector building tanks, not schools (but oddly similar to Obama’s). During the Reagan years military spending increased 22% - it was in reality a huge jobs program, since there wasn’t a war going on that destroyed military hardware, we were just stockpiling. Also, Reagan added large numbers of ‘real’ government jobs – millions of them. The government payroll increased dramatically over the Reagan years, and it wasn’t military personal.

Remove the capital gains tax – well, if the market was doing great – what a swell idea – right now no one is seeing any appreciable capital gains – nothing from nothing is still nothing. And you can’t cut them to nothing – they can be reduced, but they are income, and it would create a big class conflict as those who ‘gained’ from repealing the capital gains were gathering wealth, while those who weren’t able to be in the markets didn’t see the same type of benefits.

Kill business-killing regulations. Who decides this little bit of murder? Got an agency in mind? How about the KKK Kill Krappy Kontrol. Are you going to let business delete it’s own regulations? Letting the fox watch the hen house? Removing regulations is fine – but it isn’t a blanket retreat, believe me, there are some regulations that are necessary – like no asbestos… Scalpel removal takes a while to complete –
I do think this is a rational idea though – and should be undertaken as a big step in creating American businesses that can compete in world markets. However, our products and processes will need to conform to standards set in other parts of the world. If our cars want to compete overseas, they have to match the regulations in those countries. If our computers want to have a European market, we need to actually improve on our mercury restrictions in board manufacturing. More and more countries are looking at manufacturing carbon footprints, as a method of allowing products into their countries. While we cut away at regulations we need to take into account that if we really want to succeed we need to look at selling our products throughout the world, and not only here in the USA. Isolationism isn’t going to ever work again.

Encourage new business startups – doesn’t that involve money – tax money? Whether it is front end loaded or back end loaded – if you remove tax burden from start ups, the government is losing money, if you remove lending requirements, who will guarantee the loans – the government, who will end up paying on the defaulted loans (and there will be plenty, what is the success rate of new business – don't around 50% fail within the first 24 months?)

This runs right up against ‘Cut fed spending – massively’ your last point – encouraging business will cost federal money.

You can’t tell the people ‘you can’t be represented by a union’. Good luck. Outlaw unions? Wait until the Supreme Court gets a hold of that. This is your most irrational solution Foss – Work with unions – find ways that they can back off of their demands, reduce current wages and realistically cut benefits – do a better job with mediation. Those are workable solutions. If you just go in and say no more unions you will have a war on your hands. And since the police and fire departments are union - things will get really complicated.

And as far as the rebuilding of America - not only does it obviously need it (fordnut's video is just the tip of the iceberg) but, it will have to be done eventually - the government has put this on the back burner forever - what better time to just say we need to do this. It will never be cheaper, it will never just go away, and rarely will the timing be this right again.

You are so full of sh!t it's not even worth arguing with you. Do you really think I give a crap's worth of attention to any of your so-called attempts at debunking? You're wrong, I know you're wrong, and your arguments are useless. I really didn't think you were asking the question in good faith, and once again I'm proven right.

You want to go pick a fight, go somewhere else. I just don't have time to answer your half-assed, air-headed, long-winded, factless "arguments" anymore.

I have forgotten more about unions than you'll ever know.

I will say one thing - your characterization of the government as "losing money" - that's so freaking STALIN it's not even funny. Whose money do you think this is? It's not the government's job to fix everything. I refuse to believe you ever read the book Atlas Shrugged.

You're blocked.

 

[RRocket]

Uh-oh, Foxpaws. You can't say ANYTHING bad about Reagan with this group. It will land you in the doghouse for sure!! It's almost as bad as just disagreeing with Fossten.......

 

[foxpaws]

I have forgotten more about unions than you'll ever know.

But, even though it won't do him any good my union 'creds'...

My father retired after 25 years as a member in good standing of the Sheet Metal Workers Union Local Number 9 in Denver Colorado. Because he was able to make decent living I was able to go to college - where my father never even graduated high school. He has been able to retire with dignity and grace, with a small retirement fund that the union set up, pulling funds from his paycheck each week, because his employers wouldn't even pay for vacation time, sick pay, health insurance, let alone retirement. They were all paid from funds from his paycheck that were set aside. When he was able to go on vacation, the money came from a fund that he paid .20 an hour into, so he could take us to the mountains and go camping and fishing and hunting.

His old work friends are all dying - from asbestos. It is only a matter of time until he gets mesothelioma cancer as well. The union has done what it can so that the people who claimed that asbestos was safe, even though they knew it wasn't, will pay for his care, as they do for the others.

When I graduated the first job I had was for a small printer that required I belong to the Typesetters and Graphic Artist Union Local Number 49 (part of the Pressmen's Union). I was only at this job for 6 months, because we went on strike. I couldn't wait it out, young and just out of school - but I did walk a picket line for a week.

So Foss, I do know unions, perhaps not more then you forgot - but, since you won't even deem to see this I will be forever in the dark regarding that. Perhaps I should be grateful.

And I don't have to block you - by being able to read your narrow-minded, misanthropic, insular, xenophobic, obdurate, and just basically malefic ideals it allows me a continuing opportunity to affirm my opinion. My opinion that as long as the right is populated with individuals like you, and as long as you continue to rant illogically while spewing a dying ideology that is about to be taken off life support I can sleep well. I know that the centrist population of the US will continue to disregard the radical right and the abhorrent rhetoric that you spew.

I can embrace change and hope, while you can only look at a future that you fill with hate.

So, I really am interested Shag – what would you do with unemployment at 10%?

Oh, shag, I was interested in your ideas -

 

[fossten]

Uh-oh, Foxpaws. You can't say ANYTHING bad about Reagan with this group. It will land you in the doghouse for sure!! It's almost as bad as just disagreeing with Fossten.......

Which is almost as bad as lurking and sending PMs like a coward instead of posting your opinion.

How are things in the cheap seats?

 

[ford nut]

Are you trying to make my point here?

You say more work on infrastructure is dubious at best yet show this collapsed bridge.


Busy bridges that need work


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...dge-list_N.htm

Like the Minneapolis bridge that collapsed Wednesday, three-dozen bridges across the United States carry more than 125,000 vehicles a day and have received "poor" structure ratings. The ratings come from state inspections reported to the federal government in 2006.

This article is just the tip of the iceberg

Didn't mean to make your point only support it.
Read the post again.

shagdrum quote is "That is questionable at best..."

Not mine.

The MPLS bridge will be Obamas focal point for his infrastructure rebuild campaign.

 

[ford nut]

But, even though it won't do him any good my union 'creds'...

My father retired after 25 years as a member in good standing of the Sheet Metal Workers Union Local Number 9 in Denver Colorado. Because he was able to make decent living I was able to go to college - where my father never even graduated high school. He has been able to retire with dignity and grace, with a small retirement fund that the union set up, pulling funds from his paycheck each week, because his employers wouldn't even pay for vacation time, sick pay, health insurance, let alone retirement. They were all paid from funds from his paycheck that were set aside. When he was able to go on vacation, the money came from a fund that he paid .20 an hour into, so he could take us to the mountains and go camping and fishing and hunting.

His old work friends are all dying - from asbestos. It is only a matter of time until he gets mesothelioma cancer as well. The union has done what it can so that the people who claimed that asbestos was safe, even though they knew it wasn't, will pay for his care, as they do for the others.

When I graduated the first job I had was for a small printer that required I belong to the Typesetters and Graphic Artist Union Local Number 49 (part of the Pressmen's Union). I was only at this job for 6 months, because we went on strike. I couldn't wait it out, young and just out of school - but I did walk a picket line for a week.

So Foss, I do know unions, perhaps not more then you forgot - but, since you won't even deem to see this I will be forever in the dark regarding that. Perhaps I should be grateful.

And I don't have to block you - by being able to read your narrow-minded, misanthropic, insular, xenophobic, obdurate, and just basically malefic ideals it allows me a continuing opportunity to affirm my opinion. My opinion that as long as the right is populated with individuals like you, and as long as you continue to rant illogically while spewing a dying ideology that is about to be taken off life support I can sleep well. I know that the centrist population of the US will continue to disregard the radical right and the abhorrent rhetoric that you spew.

I can embrace change and hope, while you can only look at a future that you fill with hate.



Oh, shag, I was interested in your ideas -

Wow...sorry about your pops.
Cancer is slow and painful to the person whos suffers from it and slow and painful to the family who has to endure it.