Obama to propose massive rebuilding program

[Srelex]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39023909/ns ... hite_house

WASHINGTON — Vowing to find new ways to stimulate the sputtering economy, President Barack Obama will call for long-term investments in the nation's roads, railways and airports that would cost at least $50 billion, administration officials said.

The infrastructure investments are one part of a package of targeted proposals the White House is expected to announce in hopes of jump-starting the economy ahead of the November election.

Obama will outline the infrastructure proposal Monday at a Labor Day event in Milwaukee.

While the proposal calls for investments over six years, officials said spending would be front-loaded with an initial $50 billion to help create jobs in the near future. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the proposals ahead of the president's announcement.

The goals of the infrastructure plan include: rebuilding 150,000 miles of roads; constructing and maintaining 4,000 miles of railways, enough to go coast-to-coast; and rehabilitating or reconstructing 150 miles of airport runways, while also installing a new air navigation system designed to reduce travel times and delays.

Oil firms could foot bill
Obama will also call for the creation of a permanent infrastructure bank that would focus on funding national and regional infrastructure projects.

Officials wouldn't say what the total cost of the infrastructure investments would be, but did say the initial $50 billion represents a significant percentage. Officials said the White House would consider closing a number of special tax breaks for oil and gas companies to pay for the proposal.

Obama made infrastructure investments a central part of the $814 billion stimulus Congress passed last year, but with that spending winding down, the economy's growth has slowed.

Officials said this infrastructure package differs from the stimulus because it's aimed at long-term growth, while still focusing on creating jobs in the short-term.

With the unemployment rate ticking up to 9.6 percent, and polls showing the midterm elections could be dismal for Democrats, the president has promised to unveil a series of new measures on the economy.

In addition to Monday's announcement in Milwaukee, Obama will travel to Cleveland Wednesday to pitch a $100 billion proposal to increase and make permanent research and development tax credits for businesses, a White House official said.

While the idea is popular in Congress, coming up with offsetting tax increases or spending cuts has been a stumbling block.

Other stimulus measures
Similar to his proposal to pay for the infrastructure investments, Obama will ask lawmakers to close tax breaks for oil and gas companies and multinational corporations to pay for the plan.

Other stimulus measures the administration is considering include extending a law passed in March that exempts companies that hire unemployed workers from paying Social Security taxes on those workers through December.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has proposed extending the exemption an additional six months.

Obama is also continuing to prod the Senate to pass the small business bill that calls for about $12 billion in tax breaks and a $30 billion fund to help unfreeze lending.

Republicans have likened the bill to the unpopular bailout of the financial industry.

And the president wants to make permanent the portion of George W. Bush's tax cuts affecting the middle class.

Wary of the public's concern over rising deficits, the administration insists a second stimulus plan, similar to last year's $814 billion bill, is not in the works.

[SirNitram]

Yes. Thank you. The GOP and it's trained conservadems will fight it, block it, etc, but you might as well stand for something.

[Knife]

About damn time. Should have done this months ago.

[JME2]

About damn time. Should have done this months ago.

Hell, he should have done it done in his first year in office.

[The Vortex Empire]

About fucking time. This is the kind of stuff that should have been done from the beginning of the crisis. Though the infrastructure has been in need of a thorough rebuilding for decades now.

How much you want to bet the Republitards will stop this?

[General Zod]

Let's see if he actually manages to put through anything resembling the original proposal.

[Elfdart]

Great, just in time for President Romney to take credit for the turnaround in 2013.

[The Romulan Republic]

So confident that Obama will lose, Elfdart?

If its Romney vs Obama particularly, odds are Obama crushes Romney. Romney is a notorious flip-flopper and lacks charisma.
Meanwhile Obama is a skilled campaigner and could probably sink Romney's hopes easily.

On topic: I'll echo what's already been said. The infrastructure needs fixing, but the GOP will probably be dicks about it as about everything else.

[The Guid]

Glenn Beck showing pictures of the Nazis building Autobahns in 5-4-3-2....

[Highlord Laan]

It'll die before it even gets rolling from rethug misinformation campaigns.

[Knife]

I'd be more worried about the congress critters running from Obama politics right now, the mid terms are really close. If they perceive that he is toxic to their reelection, then they'll let it die till next year. It is going to take some campaigning from the WH to get this done and I'm not sure they're going to do that.

[FSTargetDrone]

Good. They can continue with the abominable roads in this state. There is already some progress (advertised by the giant stimulus signs along the highways) but much needs to be done. Every time I take the 2-hour drive up to Scranton to visit family, there is always some repair. I can't remember a time I've driven north when there hasn't been work going on. Make the roads last.

[aerius]

No nuclear, no power grid upgrades, and a pitiful amount of rail. They're going to throw most of the money at roads and airport runways, both of which are dying forms of transportation. This isn't progress or building the infrastructure of tomorrow, this is wasting money on the transportation system of yesteryear.

This is basically paying for a bunch of unionized shovel-leaners to keep their jobs while everyone else gets fucked.

[Elfdart]

So confident that Obama will lose, Elfdart?

At this point, yes. This whole plan is weak. For every dollar spent on roads/bridges etc, there's two being given away in corporate tax cuts. Obama has systematically knifed all his supporters in the back, with the most jagged and rusty blade being reserved for the elderly, disabled and orphans when the Cat Food Commission recommends kicking them to the curb, too.

If Obama wanted to help himself immediately, he would fire the Cat Food Commission immediately (he never should have created it in the first place) and proclaim any attempt to cut benefits or raise the retirement Dead On Arrival -and for once, keep his word.

If its Romney vs Obama particularly, odds are Obama crushes Romney. Romney is a notorious flip-flopper and lacks charisma.
Meanwhile Obama is a skilled campaigner and could probably sink Romney's hopes easily.

I wouldn't bet on it. Romney is a Republican pol straight out of Central Casting, and while the Teabaggers might fuss at first, everything negative they might say about him applied in spades to Von Reagan, and the Right has practically built a homoerotic death cult around him.

On topic: I'll echo what's already been said. The infrastructure needs fixing, but the GOP will probably be dicks about it as about everything else.

When Bush was in office and Dems threatened a filibuster, the GOP threatened the "constitutional option", which is to say, they threatened to ignore any filibuster and hold the vote anyway, on the grounds that the Constitution requires only simple majorities of a quorum to pass bills. If the Democrats had any backbone, they'd to likewise and follow through if necessary.

[SirNitram]

There's a difference between the GOP claiming something is constitutional and it actually being constitutional enough to pass the muster of the Senate's Parlimentarian. I didn't think anyone here was so stupid to beleive they were the same, but you proudly plumb new depths, Elfdart.

The threat they made was roundly unconstitutional, because it would single one form of filibuster out, and it's within the Senate's ability to set it's own rules. Now, if you knew what you were talking about, the simplest and surest way to kill the filibuster is to start dialing up Senators to support a change in the rules at the beginning of the next Congress. When it only takes 50 votes, not 66.

[CaptainChewbacca]

So confident that Obama will lose, Elfdart?

If its Romney vs Obama particularly, odds are Obama crushes Romney. Romney is a notorious flip-flopper and lacks charisma.
Meanwhile Obama is a skilled campaigner and could probably sink Romney's hopes easily.

The problem is, everyone has already seen Obama's campaigning, and then watched him fail to live up to the hype. Romney, on the other hand, appears to be a pretty solid businessman during a huge financial crisis.

[Aaron]

Cat Food Commission? What the hell is that?

[Uraniun235]

More money for roads, and tax cuts? Isn't this lifted directly from the Japanese strategy in the 90s? I don't see that as a particularly stunning success story - although, I imagine most of the richest assholes fervently wish more American workers were willing to work themselves to death for the good of the company.

[Uraniun235]

No nuclear, no power grid upgrades, and a pitiful amount of rail. They're going to throw most of the money at roads and airport runways, both of which are dying forms of transportation. This isn't progress or building the infrastructure of tomorrow, this is wasting money on the transportation system of yesteryear.

This is basically paying for a bunch of unionized shovel-leaners to keep their jobs while everyone else gets fucked.

As much as I agree, I'm afraid there's not a single political party in the US, "viable" or otherwise, that would actually adopt that platform. Hell, is there any party in Canada advocating that? (Maybe Duchess is onto something with the "move to France" idea.)

[Elfdart]

Cat Food Commission? What the hell is that?

The commission Obama appointed to look for ways to reduce the deficit. This commission is stacked with millionaires who oppose Social Security and seek to use the panel as a means of tampering with Social Security, the one thing that prevents millions of elderly, disabled and orphans from being reduced to eating pet food (as the poverty-stricken had to do in the past). See Vympel's thread for more.

There's a difference between the GOP claiming something is constitutional and it actually being constitutional enough to pass the muster of the Senate's Parlimentarian. I didn't think anyone here was so stupid to beleive they were the same, but you proudly plumb new depths, Elfdart.

The threat they made was roundly unconstitutional, because it would single one form of filibuster out, and it's within the Senate's ability to set it's own rules. Now, if you knew what you were talking about, the simplest and surest way to kill the filibuster is to start dialing up Senators to support a change in the rules at the beginning of the next Congress. When it only takes 50 votes, not 66.

If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that the Supreme Court doesn't interfere in Senate rules, which are whatever a majority says they are. If Thomas Reed could stamp out the bullshit in the House over a century ago there's no reason the same can't be done in the Senate now. Other than weakness and actual support for the Republitards, that is.

As speaker of the Fifty-first Congress, and as leader of the Republican side, he has won great fame. Mr. Reed's speakership marked a new era in the legislative history of Congress. Before that, it had always been within the power of a strong and determined minority to stop any legislation. Minorities had never failed to use this power, and the absurdity of allowing a minority to dictate in a popular government, where all government is supposed to be by majorities, had not only been tolerated, but had actually been elevated to the dignity of a great principle of statesmanship. It was Mr. Reed's great work to abolish this pernicious usage. His famous rulings caused a tremendous uproar in the national House and throughout the country. He was denounced in unmeasured terms by partisan papers; but his rulings were sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States, and the principle that he enunciated of the inviolability of the right of the majority to rule has been followed by his political opponents. Although they have studiously asserted that the "Rules" would never be adopted by them, they have used analogous methods; and now no minority is allowed to thwart the will of the majority.

Except for nowadays of course.

[SirNitram]

So, Elfy, what caused you to bring up the SCOTUS? I certainly didn't bring it up. I pointed to the actual authority over such. You fail. As natural.

[Elfdart]

So, Elfy, what caused you to bring up the SCOTUS? I certainly didn't bring it up. I pointed to the actual authority over such. You fail. As natural.

What other recourse would they have? Threatening to hold their breath until they turn blue?

[JME2]

So confident that Obama will lose, Elfdart?

If its Romney vs Obama particularly, odds are Obama crushes Romney. Romney is a notorious flip-flopper and lacks charisma.
Meanwhile Obama is a skilled campaigner and could probably sink Romney's hopes easily.

The problem is, everyone has already seen Obama's campaigning, and then watched him fail to live up to the hype. Romney, on the other hand, appears to be a pretty solid businessman during a huge financial crisis.

Yeah, but it's going to be a long, long time before I trust a 'fiscally conservative' Republican again, if ever.

But yeah, Obama failed to live up to the hype and I'm pretty certain at this point he's a one-term president. I'm pro-Democrat and I'm not sure if I'll be voting for him again in 2 years (though I won't be voting for the Republican candidate).

[SirNitram]

So, Elfy, what caused you to bring up the SCOTUS? I certainly didn't bring it up. I pointed to the actual authority over such. You fail. As natural.

What other recourse would they have? Threatening to hold their breath until they turn blue?

Petition the Senate Parlimentarian, who then says 'No.'

[Elfdart]

What other recourse would they have? Threatening to hold their breath until they turn blue?

Petition the Senate Parlimentarian, who then says 'No.'

And when the Senator bangs the gavel and proceeds anyway?

I'll give you a hint: the Parliamentarian has no power -he or she is only an adviser.