Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

President Obama want to spend 53 billion on high speed rail over the next

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:25 AM
Original message
President Obama want to spend 53 billion on high speed rail over the next
10 6 years, but he's willing to make deep cuts in social welfare programs. That doesn't sit right with me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Brickbat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
1. Agreed. The decisions have no consistency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
2. I haven't seen where he is making deep cuts in social
welfare programs..the gop is trying to though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. cutting LIHEAP.
Edited on Wed Apr-06-11 11:29 AM by cali
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Cutting the temporary boost he gave it, cutting back to where it stood when he started the job.
Your premise is still invalid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. Yeah right, with the increase Obama gave it it was still
only covering a small portion of the people who qualify, I know for sure the number in Colorado is you have to be making 185% BELOW the POVERTY LEVEL to receive LIHEAP aid.

Keep telling me how this is a good thing :eyes:

Might be great for you, but I know people that are losing their aid and don't know what the fuck they are going to do next winter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Which was only where it was because he boosted it in the first place.
No matter how unwilling you are to accept it, stimulus spending was never intended to last forever and you never should have expected that it would, not with people yelling about the deficit right and left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
n2doc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
4. The fact is that his rail proposals are dead in the water
The House will never have a budget with them in it. The Senate won't bother fighting for them when there are so many other fights. And the stimulus money is already being allocated. So it really doesn't matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
6. This really is the debate...do we invest in the future or in the elderly.
It's a choice of where we spend our money.

Frankly if we want to keep entitlements as they are, pretty much everything else will have to go because the elderly are growing in number and their expenses are uncapped and strongly tied to exploding health care costs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. That presumes that there is nothing we can do about the FUNDING side of the equation
This is not a zero sum game. There is plenty of money for war and corporations. GE paid no taxes and got a 2 BILLION tax refund.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. There are economic studies showing that increases in taxes cause decreases in GDP.
Of course I'm not sure if rejiggering who is paying what within the tax system but keeping it revenue neutral makes a difference.

There is some kind of optimal level though. We are traditionally at 20% of GDP. The problem is at current promised levels spending as a % of GDP will go to 40% so that means a doubling of everyone's federal tax bill over the next 75 years or so.

You might want to read the GAO's citizens guide. It's a summary of the Governments financial position. Lots of interesting data.


http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2010/10guide.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. I believe that cutting taxes on the rich and the corporations has been demonstrated to hurt the GDP
WE need the money to be in PEOPLE's hands and circulated not the corporate coffers and hoarded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northoftheborder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
9. I have a question.
What is the 70 billion in cuts that Obama is talking about? What is he suggesting cutting? And is it also what the Senate will agree to? Since they didn't ever pass a bill, how do we know what we're comparing to the House bill? I'm confused. Sometimes they refer to it as the 40 billion cut. Do any of the cuts that the House bill and the President/Senate agreement overlap? What are the differences? I don't see how the public can expect to express an opinion with no information supplied about what they are talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustAnotherGen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
10. We don't have to cut
Social Welfare programs. We can do both. We can rebuild and expand infrastructure and still provide services to those who need them.

Everyone focuses on the dollar figure with infrastructure . . . well guess what? When you do that you get what happened here in NJ a few months ago. A total loss of job opportunities and growth. That money will go towards salaries, supplies, interstate commerce, the diner down the street from the job site, the convenience store where someone stopped to get coffee on the way to the job site.

Roosevelt introduced the concept of the social program - and the concept of spending money to grow revenue . . . both during the Depression.

They go hand in hand in my mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demmiblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. I agree. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 30th 2014, 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC