Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

President Obama says spending $125 million more each year on public works projects is too much

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: Presidency Donate to DU
 
sad sally Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 10:12 PM
Original message
President Obama says spending $125 million more each year on public works projects is too much
Edited on Thu Jun-09-11 10:12 PM by sad sally
(drop a few less bombs on Pakistan, Libya and now Yemen and I think the money would be there). Corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars of cash, unwilling to take a chance on American workers. If the President is not willing to invest this small amount, and Corporations are unwilling to invest in distressed communities and unemployed Americans, where does this leave American workers? Up shit creek without a paddle.

S. 782. Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2011 provides the Commerce Department’s Economic Development Administration (EDA) with ways to help America’s communities meet the challenges of innovation-led economic growth. However, the bill would authorize spending levels higher than those requested by the President’s Budget, and the Administration believes that the need for smart investments that help America win the future must be balanced with the need to control spending and reduce the deficit.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/165299-white-house-says-senate-dem-jobs-bill-too-expensive?du

The Obama administration on Tuesday night might have thrown a wrench into Senate Democratic plans to pass what they see as a jobs bill — by implying the bill spends too much money.

In a Statement of Administration Policy, the White House said it supports the broad goals of the bill.

"However, the bill would authorize spending levels higher than those requested by the president’s Budget, and the administration believes that the need for smart investments that help America win the future must be balanced with the need to control spending and reduce the deficit," the administration said.

The Economic Development Revitalization Act, S. 782, would expand the reach of the Public Works and Economic Development Administration (EDA), and increase funding from nearly $300 million in the current year to $500 million a year through 2015. The White House budget proposal recommended an increase to $325 million.

The comment on the price of the bill is likely to be seized upon by Senate Republicans as a further reason to reject it, and could undermine Senate Democrats' effort to build support for it. Earlier in the day, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) told The Hill that he does not support the funding increase.

"This bill is nothing more than another failed stimulus idea that takes money from workers and businesses and gives it to Washington to pick winners and losers," he said. "We've already wasted hundreds of billions of tax dollars on a misguided stimulus that left us with record high unemployment, and we don't need to repeat the mistake."

On Tuesday morning, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) defended the idea of boosting funds significantly for the EDA, which he said would help create jobs.

"In the last five years we've invested $1.2 billion, creating more than 300,000 jobs," Reid said of the program. "The Republicans are stopping us from moving to it because creating jobs, it appears, is the last thing they care to do."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 10:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. Except, you know, that he DIDN'T say that.
A comment from the White House policy office suggested to either trim it or find cuts somewhere else to balance it out. But hey, let's not let actual literacy about how government works get in the way of attacking Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sad sally Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Okay, so the President says to look for cuts elsewhere.
How about spending a few million less on bombs? Oh, yeah, can't mix money between Departments or what's funded by law. Sorry if you think I'm attacking the President, I just happen to think this kind of savings doesn't make sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaliforniaPeggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. But the money being spent on wars? Never too much...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sad sally Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Right! Surprise, surprise, looks like Libya is costing a lot more than we were first told:
http://freedomsyndicate.com/fair0000/fint01.html?du

Published: June 9 2011 00:23 | Last updated: June 9 2011 00:23

US military operations in Libya are on course to cost hundreds of millions of dollars more than the Pentagon estimated, according to figures obtained by the Financial Times.

Robert Gates, the outgoing secretary of defence, said last month that the Pentagon expected to spend “somewhere in the ball park of $750m” in the 2011 fiscal year as part of efforts to protect the Libyan people.

But according to a Pentagon memo which includes a detailed update on the progress and pace of operations, by mid-May US operations in Libya had cost $664m, a figure confirmed by the Department of Defence.

The document, entitled the “United States Contribution to Operation Unified Protector’’, adds that US costs are running at a rate of about $2m a day or $60m a month. The memo has been circulating on Capitol Hill since last week. The DoD declined to comment on the increased costs of the operation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
3. $125 million won't buy a single F-35 fighter plane at this point. Pathetic
Shit, I'm almost that much underwater in my mortgage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
6. IMO, Obama has been too cautious on this type spending.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 11:45 PM
Response to Original message
7. un-fucking-believable. WTF is wrong with these people?

Believe it or not, we spent $600 million just in ONE week of, uh, "humanitarian intervention" in Libya. :nuke: :nuke:


http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=13242136


Cost of Libya Intervention $600 Million for First Week, Pentagon Says

Tomahawk Cruise Missiles, Precision Bombs, Crashed Jet Draw Millions from Pentagon Budget

By DEVIN DWYER and LUIS MARTINEZ
March 28, 2011—

One week after an international military coalition intervened in Libya, the cost to U.S. taxpayers has reached at least $600 million, according figures provided by the Pentagon.



:wtf: :nuke:

This administration starts to seriously scare me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-11 12:05 AM
Response to Original message
8. Yet we spend $2 BILLION a week in Afghanistan alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scottybeamer70 Donating Member (844 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-11 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
9. I've never heard him say that money for war was too much....
maybe he has, but I haven't heard it......not that I listen to him anymore.
Never heard him mention that 3Billion a year to Israel was too much either.
If anyone living in this country, seriously thinks the government gives a
damn about you or your family, then you haven't been paying attention.
Thank you for the post sad sally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-11 12:49 AM
Response to Original message
10. Completely false and misleading headline. Unrec for obvious bullshit FAIL
Edited on Fri Jun-10-11 12:53 AM by ClarkUSA
But hey, who cares about silly facts when OUTRAGE, however wrong and misguided, feels so damned good???? :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vroomvroom Donating Member (496 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-11 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
11. Obama is a center-right president so this is not a surprise.
I dont think many on DU are surprised either. What's sad is that Obama is continuing to obsess over republican ideas and is baffled why the economy is not getting better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-11 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. What "is not a surprise"? You do realize he never said what the OP is claiming in the headline?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-11 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. You don't even know what center right means.
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 Fri Apr 19th 2024, 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency 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