is anyone listening to Barry O tonite

jackiebaron

This is probably the most pathetic speech I've ever witnessed.

Amerika

I thought it was a pretty good speech overall. Probably the best he's given so far.

Some good ideas, some not so good ideas. Dome doable, some pie in the sky. Some new ideas, some 2009 failed ideas all over again. If he is willing to meet half way with Republicans ideas, something might just get done. Let's just hope he wasn't playing with words, which history shows us can mean anything from this President.

Wasn't too thrilled about here's what we're gonna do... pass it right away... and in two weeks I'll tell you how we'll pay for it.

We played a game... drank a shot each time he said PASS THIS BILL... got blitzed half way through. How did it end?

Matt Holck

infrastructure projects sounds good

Einhard

Amerika wrote: »

If he is willing to meet half way with Republicans ideas, something might just get done.

That willingness has to extend to both sides. It's somewhat difficult, for example, to compromise with someone who sees compromise as a weakness. There are so many areas which the GOP, in its various guises, have declared sacrosanct. How can one, say, discuss tax reform, when one side maintains, from the start, its total opposition to tax increases. It seems to me, that the current incarnation of the Republican party, is one in which compromise equates to passive acceptance of another's ideology.

Matt Holck

taxes exist, they run the nation

no tax = no government

unless we count federally owned property

matthew8

Matt Holck wrote: »

taxes exist, they run the nation

no tax = no government

unless we count federally owned property

Not in the Keynesian model, where imaginery money runs the country.

Matt Holck

if we can get food and medicine to the people,
that is a good thing

matthew8

Matt Holck wrote: »

if we can get food and medicine to the people,
that is a good thing

Not if we're doing it using imaginery money.

Matt Holck

money's always been imaginary


a system to determine where resources and services go to

jackiebaron

Matt Holck wrote: »

taxes exist, they run the nation

no tax = no government

unless we count federally owned property

Not necessarily true. Taxes are not needed to run a country. Certainly not a country of America's resources where so much waste lines the pockets of the mega-rich.
A simple example is water. Why do you have to pay for it? Did you know that in the US if you are caught with rain collection tanks you are liable to pay for it. That's right. Water that falls from the sky you must pay for. It's a complete shakedown. One would think that the natural resources of a nation should be owned by the citizens (much like how Chavez and Gadaffi think) and as such should generate income that will provide infrastructure and services instead of being monopolised by a handful of corporations for their own profit.
When solar power eventually becomes more mainstream and more efficient and improved I can guarantee you will have to pay "sun taxes"

Income tax was introduced in the US to either pay down the national debt or to fund World War 1, I can't remember which. These taxes were introduced as a temporary measure. Well almost 100 years later they don't look so temporary.

Matt Holck

I don't object to income tax


with the human population as it is,
the water needs to be filtered

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

gargleblaster

jackiebaron wrote: »

Did you know that in the US if you are caught with rain collection tanks you are liable to pay for it. That's right. Water that falls from the sky you must pay for.

What?

Source?

Overheal

Matt Holck wrote: »

infrastructure projects sounds good

Been tried already since he came in and aint done sh*t. The problem is unlike the inception of the Interstate for example, which created a bajillion jobs and more importantly created a viable infrastructure to vastly boost economic productivity - there is no economic productivity benefit here. Not really. Just shoes to fill for short spaces of time, on the tax dollar. I've basically flipped on the issue since. New infrastructure is Cool and all but it's not the most worthwhile expenditure and I seriously doubt it will create real recovery, rather than just keep people off the unemployment lines for a year or two. Should only - only - be done on very select projects which can prove their long term benefit. Not just a bunch of expedited re-paving work.

matthew8

Overheal wrote: »

Been tried already since he came in and aint done sh*t. The problem is unlike the inception of the Interstate for example, which created a bajillion jobs and more importantly created a viable infrastructure to vastly boost economic productivity - there is no economic productivity benefit here. Not really. Just shoes to fill for short spaces of time, on the tax dollar. I've basically flipped on the issue since. New infrastructure is Cool and all but it's not the most worthwhile expenditure and I seriously doubt it will create real recovery, rather than just keep people off the unemployment lines for a year or two. Should only - only - be done on very select projects which can prove their long term benefit. Not just a bunch of expedited re-paving work.

Yes all this "jobs in the construction industry" makes me cringe. Just the other day I had a thought, because stimulus spending isn't really about smart spending but pumping money into the economy by spending it on anything, why don't they use their stimulus spending on things like education?

Overheal

Education would strangely be another 'ugh' from me. Not because Smart Money in education wouldn't be great, but it won't be smart. Can't possibly be. Can't just throw mony at teachers and hope grades go up. And - sadly - the more money you throw at college tuition, the more college tuition prices go up. Sure thats why colleges reprint their textbooks every year and charge a 90% GP Margin on them. The only thing you can really address are overcrowding and dilapidation issues. Give every teacher access to an interweb and now every 8 year old in South Carolina suddenly needs to be able to have a laptop to do their homework on.

The only way to really fix education issues is to address the system, not the education budget.

Amerika

I’d really hate to be Barack Obama right now. He gave his jobs speech last week and little by little more information about it is coming out. We haven’t heard exactly how its going to be paid for... and already Republicans, Independents and even Democrats are running for the hills.

Since his speech, his job approval continues to slide. His unpopularity has caused the loss of two House special elections. His proposal to raise taxes to pay for Stimulus II is being attacked even by Democrats. And I’m hearing his own party may now refuse to consider his jobs bill in the Senate.

And to top it off, in a month or two the Eurozone will probably collapse and Merkel will come to Obama asking for $1 trillion in financial guarantees and liquidity support. Can you see him coming to the American people with… “Oh yeah, I forgot to mention it eairler, but I also need another $1 Trillion because Europe failed to see the realities facing them. Now I won't actually need that money up front, as its only a safety-net sort of thing or something (nudge nudge wink wink know what I mean). But on the bright side they do make really good croissants over there.”

Perhaps its time for a LBJ reelection moment.

Matt Holck

alternative national energy sources
would be a good thing to construct
and show potential of future pay

national health centers could also employ many

Overheal

Matt Holck wrote: »

alternative national energy sources
would be a good thing to construct
and show potential of future pay

national health centers could also employ many

We already do Fusion research among other things. Again a renewable energies push would just fizzle out just like any of the other times it's been tried.

National Health centers? You would surely have to look at the unemployment rate among medical professionals, but I somewhat feel that they don't make up the majority of the unemployed by a long shot.

I really don't see any way to 'spend' the problem away. Jobs are leaving because we are sinking. So whats the point in sinking ourselves faster? We need to slash spending and/or raise tax to balance our budget and get back to the state of the union that we had on September 10, 2001. We were running a surplus, and gas was selling a little over one dollar.

Matt Holck

I don't oppose taxes
I don't oppose cutting overseas military operations

I guess Hoover Dam was a fluke

Nuclear power is also a fair direction to go

battery powered vehicles would make energy more transferable
(less need for liquid hydro-carbons)


as to health care
perhaps a healthier population would be more optimistic

Overheal

Do you have a proposal for Obama Dam?

Matt Holck

I'd bet the run off from the Continental divide down to Gulf of Mexico
could house a few more water gate turbine generator


cars could be lighter if we could just convince the public that don't need some much horse power

Overheal

why does it matter if cars are lighter we already have MPG regulations in place.

I really don't see how a Dam would save the economy.

Again - I don't see and have not been shown any idea that would help the economy through spending.

Matt Holck

aside from rent gasoline is my greatest cost
much of that money leaves the american economy

every president proposes energy independence
but little money is ever put into the program



It just is not necessary to expend the energy a gasoline car expends to transport a 150 lb body

Amerika

And how exactly is that energy generated to produce the electricity needed to power that electric car?

And forget dams... Building the pipeline from Alberta Canada’s tar sands to the Gulf of Mexico Coast is one bit of spending I can get behind.

Overheal

Well I would propose Nuclear - but that aint happening. Or Offshore drilling - but that aint happening. And coal is destroying the Appalachians, and Solar/Renewables take a huge initial capital investment, which will do nothing to inspire confidence if the government say, writes a cheque for $1 trillion worth of solar arrays.

Matt Holck

I've walked though college parking lots shaded with solar panels

we waste a tremendous amount of energy through our transportation
I don't understand why the car companies aren't willing to retoll
the automobile

Amerika wrote: »

And how exactly is that energy generated to produce the electricity needed to power that electric car?

And forget dams... Building the pipeline from Alberta Canada’s tar sands to the Gulf of Mexico Coast is one bit of spending I can get behind.

generators convert the energy of water dropping in elevation

Overheal

Matt Holck wrote: »

I've walked though college parking lots shaded with solar panels

we waste a tremendous amount of energy through our transportation
I don't understand why the car companies aren't willing to retoll
the automobile




generators convert the energy of water dropping in elevation

Yes and Google has a lovely set of solar panels but they didn't need the government to install them for them. The Free Market can in the case of renewable energies, drive its own demand. Renewables can in many cases be cost effective in the long term but companies/colleges will decide that on their own. I don't know why you don't seem to understand that the government doesn't need to be Hands On with that approach at all, and there is no reason to throw billions or trillions more at the issue.

Matt Holck

I'l rather see public owned energy as Energy is a public utility
something everybody uses and benefits from

WE give our money to the energy companies as it is
more than we ever pay in taxes

Overheal

Matt Holck wrote: »

I'l rather see public owned energy as Energy is a public utility
something everybody uses and benefits from

WE give our money to the energy companies as it is
more than we ever pay in taxes

I don't see anything wrong with the energy industry. It's competitive.

http://www.sciway.net/bus/power.html


compare SCE&G http://www.sceg.com/en/ to Little River Electric Co-Op http://www.lreci.coop/

Not sure if you took Economics but even in the Irish economics course we learn full well Public companies only come about because of a need for something which the private sector is unable to offer. However in the United States we have a thriving private sector energy industry. There is simply no need to a government takeover of energy, it would be absurd. There would be no need for a Ryanair either, as we have AA, Delta, United, US Air, and dozens of major carriers and dozens more local and regional services. Not to mention hundreds of private strips and airports, and untold of thousands of planes for hire. Hell we barely need Amtrak but yet there you don't really have private sector competition. Though freight gets along just fine with the likes of CSX and such.





Besides if you wanted your energy to come out of your taxes: lol.

If you want an example of why government monopoly would be terrible just look at internet providers, and their fixed/exclusive markets, and what they charge on those people compared to their competitive markets that they have to share with other providers, and what quality of service disparity there is between the competitive and the exclusive markets. Exclusive area? Oh we'll roll out faster DSL next year. Competitive? You already have Fiber Optic.

Matt Holck

I want to own energy industry through my government

that would be a worth while government investment

sarumite

Amerika wrote: »

I’d really hate to be Barack Obama right now. He gave his jobs speech last week and little by little more information about it is coming out. We haven’t heard exactly how its going to be paid for... and already Republicans, Independents and even Democrats are running for the hills.

C'mon, lets at least try and be honest on this one. Mitch McConnell dismissed his speech before he even gave it. Republican disapproval was an almost certainty regardless of what Obama said.As for the Dems, according to the international business times (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/210960/20110908/obama-jobs-speech-democrats-support-proposal.htm)

"Democrats responded positively in the wake of President Obama's job speech, generally praising the President's plan while calling on Republicans to let go of partisan squabbles and support the proposal in order to get Americans back to work."

Since his speech, his job approval continues to slide. His unpopularity has caused the loss of two House special elections. His proposal to raise taxes to pay for Stimulus II is being attacked even by Democrats. And I’m hearing his own party may now refuse to consider his jobs bill in the Senate.

Really?, according to gallup he had a bump immediately after it, and the conservative's favourite pollster Rasmussen has him going from -23 to -17. To say his approval continues to slide goes against what those who measure his job approval have noticed.

Matt Holck

I thought the speech lacked ambition

we already have roads and housing