Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It blows my mind that it has not crossed obummer's mind (he does have one, right ) that spending on infrastructure is a way to shore up the economy and give something to the people. We have bridges and roads crumbling across the nation. When you hire workers to fix the bridges, they ,in turn, buy goods which puts even more people to work. Instead we got a stupid check that was a flash in the pan.
I really want to know who is controlling obummer and what their objective is. He came out of nowhere with zero experience and hasn't had a good idea yet but he got elected not once but twice. Someone is running his political machine in the background.
Well he did have those "shovel ready" projects with the stimulus. Of course all they shoveled was Bovine excrement. Didn't really build anything. But good roads means jobs building them, cheaper transportation cost, which helps everyone, rich and poor
Creating dependence never results in more independence. If the wealthy pay to little look no further than our elected reps from both parties. They pay attention to special interests groups and in fact ignore their constituents in favor of special interest groups. Both parties are obviously equally guilty. GWB and the GOP had opportunity to make a difference and change this. The elected not to.
Obama and his super majority had a chance to effect tax changes, pass a budget friendly to blue collar workers and more, but elected to pass legislation that increased the burden of every US citizen and tax payer in the form of the ACA.
Their priority was not tax equality or making the wealthy pay more. They are the wealthy. Only the gullible believes the rhetoric of either party. Their priority is to maintain power and by default their wealth.
First off if pure capitalism worked so well then it would not have been necessary to have anti poverty laws of the 30s,40s,50s,60s ect. we had full on wealth to the very top and it did not turn out so well. Second, there is no proof that the social welfar net is not working. Many people are not living in the street because of it. Is it abused, sure but if you think someone making 12 grand in supplement is destroying the country then the top 5 percent who hold 90 percent of the worlds wealth are really doing damage. 12 grand in that poor persons hands goes all out to buy food and cloths and keep the economy running. The rich 5 percent buy a few big homes vacation in exotic places but little gets spread around its hoarded. So much for your crap idea.
Well he did have those "shovel ready" projects with the stimulus. Of course all they shoveled was Bovine excrement. Didn't really build anything. But good roads means jobs building them, cheaper transportation cost, which helps everyone, rich and poor
Yup. IMO if we're going to run up debt, we should run it up on infrastructure. At least we get something out of the deal and create jobs that stimulate the economy. In the long run, it's a smart move. Job creation results in new tax payers who pay down the debt. I'm not sure what's so complicated that obummer can't figure this one out. We've had more than one president in the past who pulled the economy out of the toilet by building infrastructure. I'm starting to think that obummer never read a history book....well not a US history book.
Well he did have those "shovel ready" projects with the stimulus. Of course all they shoveled was Bovine excrement. Didn't really build anything. But good roads means jobs building them, cheaper transportation cost, which helps everyone, rich and poor
They were all temporary. When the money ran out the jobs went away.
It failed to "stimulate" the economy.
First off if pure capitalism worked so well then it would not have been necessary to have anti poverty laws of the 30s,40s,50s,60s ect. we had full on wealth to the very top and it did not turn out so well. Second, there is no proof that the social welfar net is not working. Many people are not living in the street because of it. Is it abused, sure but if you think someone making 12 grand in supplement is destroying the country then the top 5 percent who hold 90 percent of the worlds wealth are really doing damage. 12 grand in that poor persons hands goes all out to buy food and cloths and keep the economy running. The rich 5 percent buy a few big homes vacation in exotic places but little gets spread around its hoarded. So much for your crap idea.
Capitalism isn't perfect. It is just better than the other alternatives. Socialism and communism are much, much worse.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 01-28-2014 at 05:26 PM..
It is like watching the wealthy take from the middle class over and over.
One would think people would speak up and demand for it to stop. One side approves and the other can't say anything because of who is running the show.
If you will be kind enough to send me your bank account password .. I'd like to test that theory.
(I promise to get back with you)
Just kidding Bow ..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) that spending on infrastructure is a way to shore up the economy and give something to the people. We have bridges and roads crumbling across the nation. When you hire workers to fix the bridges, they ,in turn, buy goods which puts even more people to work. Instead we got a stupid check that was a flash in the pan. 
