WSJ: Obama to Push New Spending

[SnyderShrugged]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704754304576096171216582908.html?m od=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond



I see, he wants to reduce spending while proposing increasing spending. interesting to say the least.

President Barack Obama will call for new government spending on infrastructure, education and research in his State of the Union address Tuesday, sharpening his response to Republicans in Congress who are demanding deep budget cuts, people familiar with the speech said.

Mr. Obama will argue that the U.S., even while trying to reduce its budget deficit, must make targeted investments to foster job growth and boost U.S. competitiveness in the world economy. The new spending could include initiatives aimed at building the renewable-energy sector—which received billions of dollars in stimulus funding—and rebuilding roads to improve transportation, people familiar with the matter said. Money to restructure the No Child Left Behind law's testing mandates and institute more competitive grants also could be included.


more at link

[DieselPwr44]

Wait a minute.

I thought the first stimulus bill was for roads,infrastructure...you know, the shovel ready jobs??

What a ****ing joke........

[Burgold]

I see nothing contradictory at this. Every good business looks to cut waste, but also looks to improve via r&d. We have to grow the economy as well as shrink the deficit. Cut the waste, cut the abuse, but encourage innovation and entrepeneurship. Besides, if we're the guys who figure out the alt energy first... all the world will be coming and buying from us and we'll be sitting pretty.

You should want the U.S. to be the top dog in the scientific food chain.

[twa]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/drill_obama_drill_SSKeRpmku3HEDRb4mjujmN

If America unlocked its oil and gas reserves, the government could take in an estimated $1 trillion to $2 trillion more revenue over the coming years. That's not counting the revenues from the stimulus of lower fuel and energy costs.

Trade imbalances? Domestic oil and gas is, by definition, not imported. The more we produce here, the less we import, or the more we can sell overseas. Either way, the trade deficit goes down and GDP goes up.

Jobs? You can't drill for American oil or natural gas in China, Saudi Arabia or anyplace other than America. Oil and gas exploration jobs pay more than twice the national average.

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/petroleum-284824-prices-energy.html

Must it always be opposite day in Washington? Petroleum and gasoline prices are surging while the Obama administration and its allies seem intent on making things worse. Instead of taking actions to increase supplies of petroleum and gasoline, the administration pursues policies to restrict U.S. access to its own petroleum, ban imports of vast quantities of Canadian oil, and drive up costs of refining.

[Bang]

I see nothing contradictory at this. Every good business looks to cut waste, but also looks to improve via r&d. We have to grow the economy as well as shrink the deficit. Cut the waste, cut the abuse, but encourage innovation and entrepeneurship. Besides, if we're the guys who figure out the alt energy first... all the world will be coming and buying from us and we'll be sitting pretty.

You should want the U.S. to be the top dog in the scientific food chain.

You can get all the science you need from the bible, buddy, and Gideon's gives 'em away free.

~Bang

[Burgold]

You can get all the science you need from the bible, buddy, and Gideon's gives 'em away free.

~Bang

Don't you get all DaVinci Code on me. All the physics theories in the world aren't scribbled on the back of the napkins at those seated at the Last Supper.

[twa]

You can get all the science you need from the bible, buddy, and Gideon's gives 'em away free.

~Bang

Is that where the EPA get's theirs?

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/01/chris-tucker-epa-no-show-texas-fracking-case

Imagine for a moment that you’ve been tasked with conducting a scientific analysis to determine the origination point for small volumes of methane detected in two private water wells in Parker Co., Texas.

You would know the question is important, since the agency for which you work – the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - has based nearly its entire case against an energy producer in North Texas on the assertion that the methane in those water wells came from natural gas wells drilled into the Barnett Shale.

In conducting this analysis, it’s likely you’d know that one of the most obvious ways to characterize the methane in the water wells is to run a profile on the percentage of nitrogen found in the samples of natural gas.

Through experience, you would know that methane in the Barnett has a relatively low percentage of nitrogen – often in the single digits.

And you would also know that a much shallower rock formation called the Strawn has a much higher percentage, generally around 20 percent.

Your task: Pin the presence of methane on Range Resources by trying to prove its wells in the Barnett represent the source of the natural gas in the water wells.

On Dec. 7, 2010, that’s precisely the argument that EPA put forth in issuing an unprecedented “emergency order” -- demanding, among other things, that Range plug up its wells and go home.

Just one problem: The isotopic analysis EPA used as the basis for its order doesn’t include a word about nitrogen; EPA never ran those tests.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/01/chris-tucker-epa-no-show-texas-fracking-case#ixzz1BsC7zDFa

[DieselPwr44]

I see nothing contradictory at this. Every good business looks to cut waste, but also looks to improve via r&d. We have to grow the economy as well as shrink the deficit. Cut the waste, cut the abuse, but encourage innovation and entrepeneurship. Besides, if we're the guys who figure out the alt energy first... all the world will be coming and buying from us and we'll be sitting pretty.

You should want the U.S. to be the top dog in the scientific food chain.

That's all fine and good but wasn't part of the "Joe Isuzu" sales job on the first Stimulus just what he's peddling now?

That was around 800 billion+. How much does he want now?

[Burgold]

That's all fine and good but wasn't part of the "Joe Isuzu" sales job on the first Stimulus just what he's peddling now?

That was around 800 billion+. How much does he want now?

So, your saying that Johnson and Johnson, Merck, and Abott Labs are a fool to continue pumping any money into new drugs because they spent money on R&D last year? Are you really saying once is good enough?

So tell me how much of the 800 billion was in tax cuts, how much in infrastructure, how much towards scientific research? Give me reasons not just vitriol and hate.

[Thiebear]

Of course, EPA itself didn’t have a whole lot to say about that or anything else this week. It didn’t show for the hearing. Nor did it submit even a single page of data or testimony in support of its case.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/01/chris-tucker-epa-no-show-texas-fracking-case#ixzz1BsDYGXvr

Though i think what you posted is crazy .. agenda there? anyone?
But has nothing to do with the 800billion new shovels, ready to do something again? To have such utter failure in the management of the last attempt you should apologize first before you say how your going to manage this one better.

Then ask for 1/2 of what you askef for last time while grovelling.

[DieselPwr44]

So tell me how much of the 800 billion was in tax cuts, how much in infrastructure, how much towards scientific research? Give me reasons not just vitriol and hate.

s2MjQ17kDng

Like a said: a ****ing joke. Just another lying sack of crap politician like 99.9% of all Washington politicians.

[Fergasun]

So he's proposing another stimulus package? One of my buddies was telling me that Obama was going to be using Federal spending to improve the economy leading up to 2012. I told him, "the stimulus money ran out..." however he's provided some money into the economy via the tax cut deal and is now going to try to get this? I wonder what the polling data shows most America think of the first stimulus? I don't have a positive opinion of this type of policy; however I'm not going to deny that the government provided many jobs to many people... right now it looks like the government is doing a better job at that than the private sector (I understand the private sector doesn't think it has to provide jobs to people nor care if the people whose government they are co-opting have jobs).

This has no chance of passing the House. But it could be a shrewd move for campaign 2012. "In 2009-2010, the Democrats protected your jobs; the GOP voted you into unemployment in 2011, let us provide you with jobs in 2012."

[Burgold]

I'm not looking for somebody's satiric gotcha take on this. I'm looking for your opinion based in facts.

Btw, whether the stimulus worked or didn't is an interesting question. The stock market began recovering in March of 2009 very soon after the Stim was passed. The financial system now seems to be stronger. Housing is still a mess, but in general the economy seems to be on better footing even with some sign of improvement the last few months in jobs.

Now, I don't know what the correlation was, but the purpose of stimulus was an adrenaline shot to stop an economy in free fall. It seems that was accomplished. The long term impact of the stimulus may make us question whether it was worth it (I'm dubious), but at least we still have an auto industry, banking industry, and an economy that's growing again.

[Fergasun]

Burgold,
It was March of 2009. I think it was more a result of the financial industry "stress tests" and the realization of the market that the Federal Reserve and Treasury were going to support financial institutions all the way. There was a lot of speculation whether the government was going to fail any of the banks if their capital levels were too low; nope. Once that happened I'm certain the Federal Reserve and Treasury have been pumping up stocks.

However, the stock market may be a poor analogue for the "real economy". I'm not sold on that premise at all.

I think the stimulus was effective at keeping some high number of people employed and bailing out states. I don't think this was done in an efficient manner; however again, people say "it's jobs"... right now the public sector is doing a better job of keeping people employed (again, this all seems very inefficient to me). Corporations have simply no need for the American worker anymore. We're trying to pretend this is not true by covering it up with public employment.

It all feels like the beginning of the end of prosperity for this country... this call for more stimulus came out of the blue. I'd rather see the money spent in direct confrontation to the financial industry so we can do what needed to be done 2 years ago and start to remove debt from the marketplace. Of course we'd just be using *public debt*. It's time to start admitting we are early in the depression; the efforts of the past 2 years have bailed out the banks and done little for the real economy.

[Burgold]

Yeah, your right on the date. Thanks for the correction.

Oh, I don't think it was done all that well and I think there was a ton of waste, but did it have a positive influence and effect? It seems likely just because if it had an adverse effect we'd be much worse than we were in 2008 and we certainly are doing much better than that today.

[Larry]

At least on the broad-brush, theoretical, level, I like the idea of infrastructure spending.

My reasoning is that all spending helps the economy. (since all spending puts money into the hands of somebody. Who then hands that money to somebody else.) But that if you spend the money on, say, widening a road, then when the spending's over, you still have the road.

Granted, this assumes that you spent the money on widening a road that needed to be widened, as opposed to a bridge to nowhere. Details are important. But I'm talking theory, here.

Similarly, I like the idea of alt energy R&D, but I see a lot more potential for that to turn into corporate welfare pork, too.

[Thiebear]

A satiric Gotcha? Those were President Obama's words on the first Stimulus. And we had more than a few ES posters say: The money was for 2010 not 2009.
Having that clip show you this is untrue and the first Stimulus was partially flushed down the toilet helps you figure out who needs to be benched so the next round goes better.

Though i watch the science channel and i don't know of a bridge that isnt ready to collapse yesterday.

[twa]

Fergasun that inefficiency likely stems from public jobs not generating new capital and is no different than paying people not to work.

Hell in a handbasket

[Burgold]

A satiric Gotcha? Those were President Obama's words on the first Stimulus. And we had more than a few ES posters say: The money was for 2010 not 2009.
Having that clip show you this is untrue and the first Stimulus was partially flushed down the toilet helps you figure out who needs to be benched so the next round goes better.

Though i watch the science channel and i don't know of a bridge that isnt ready to collapse yesterday.

Full disclosure... didn't watch his you-tube. The title turned me off and just seemed like one of those Michael Mooresque creative editting pieces to make someone look like a flip flopper or a dunce.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Well, this is great news for anyone who works for the gov't or works for a gov't contractor

For anyone else, that sucks

[Bliz]

Is that where the EPA get's theirs?

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/01/chris-tucker-epa-no-show-texas-fracking-case

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/01/chris-tucker-epa-no-show-texas-fracking-case#ixzz1BsC7zDFa

How much stock, exactly, should we put in an op-ed piece written about the EPA by a pro-oil/drilling group formed by the oil and gas industry specifically for the purpose of criticizing regulations the industry does not like?


The Examiner is a rag, at best.

[twa]

How much stock, exactly, should we put in an op-ed piece written about the EPA by a pro-oil/drilling group formed by the oil and gas industry specifically for the purpose of criticizing regulations the industry does not like?


The Examiner is a rag, at best.

Facts have a way of coming out

http://www.energyindepth.org/2011/01/epa-mia-in-austin/

[Fergasun]

Fergasun that inefficiency likely stems from public jobs not generating new capital and is no different than paying people not to work.

Hell in a handbasketBut given the what I'd call "job-flight" to places where the workers will accept wages at something like $10/day and the fact that our Congress hasn't really done much to stop this (most obvious was Clinton signing NAFTA)... we've been in this trap for a while, haven't we? Our government doesn't complain when companies take their work elsewhere because we have regulations whether it be environmental or labor that have been implemented. I disagree with the "no different than paying people not to work." I've worked as a Federal civil servant in defense for 7 years and my "intellectual capital" has been raised significantly because of that work.

Quite frankly I wouldn't mind seeing our country telling those companies that have done this to "go to hell, we'll live without you" and close our market to them. America should allow companies to skirt our minimum wage law by going elsewhere? Guess what, your imports are now going to be subject to the "offshore labor excise tax". The political leaders of this country have driven us into a ditch and continued to press the accelerator pedal down as we burrowed deeper and deeper.

The other option is what, 25-30% unemployment?

---------- Post added January-23rd-2011 at 11:10 AM ----------


Well, this is great news for anyone who works for the gov't or works for a gov't contractor

For anyone else, that sucksGreat news for those at the state/local level. I guess some Federal folks saw benefits of the stimulus, I thought it was more of a bailout for the states. I just can't see this thing passing. I really want to know how much of our economy the government is supporting. College loans (education industry); home loans (housing industry); stimulus and bailouts (financial industry), medicare/medicaid backing up the health industry; everyone is getting some type of benefit from government spending or incentives even if it is simply that's how their customers pay them.. or so it seems. Could it be 20-30%? This is why cutting the budget has been such a challenge.

Everyone's debts are set for the level of expected income/spending previously; if we did experience the "great adjustment" where all of a sudden 20-30% of the liquidity in the economy was gone overnight, I have a hard time seeing how many people will pay back their debts. I recently saw a scary chart showing that there has been an imbalance in our debt level going back to the 1950s! For 50 years we've been going into debt to support GDP... quite shrewd if we were going to default at some point and have all the benefits that debt gave us.

[DRSmith]

But given the what I'd call "job-flight" to places where the workers will accept wages at something like $10/day and the fact that our Congress hasn't really done much to stop this (most obvious was Clinton signing NAFTA)... we've been in this trap for a while, haven't we? Our government doesn't complain when companies take their work elsewhere because we have regulations whether it be environmental or labor that have been implemented. I disagree with the "no different than paying people not to work." I've worked as a Federal civil servant in defense for 7 years and my "intellectual capital" has been raised significantly because of that work.

Quite frankly I wouldn't mind seeing our country telling those companies that have done this to "go to hell, we'll live without you" and close our market to them. America should allow companies to skirt our minimum wage law by going elsewhere? Guess what, your imports are now going to be subject to the "offshore labor excise tax". The political leaders of this country have driven us into a ditch and continued to press the accelerator pedal down as we burrowed deeper and deeper.

The other option is what, 25-30% unemployment?[COLOR="Gold"]



What happens though when you lose jobs due to things like health care and education?

[Fergasun]

What happens though when you lose jobs due to things like health care and education?Articulating the philosophy. Our policies say that we value improving health care for those who don't have health care, and providing universal K-12 education. Should we apologize for that policy? How do we quantify the extra "tax" we have in America based on these values? Maybe its a way of looking at companies and where they headquarter their business, where they move their capital and saying "that company doesn't share American values." I'd certainly have a hard time finding any such "pro-American" company, they all have outsourced in the past 20 years. But I think we can say there is a long-term cost with this offshoring, and its going to result in America looking more like Vietnam, Thailand, or Mexico rather than the America we all love and enjoy.

Like I said, it feel like we are in a trap or something like the beginning of the end for this country. Think about it logically. People love living here. However companies hate it because of tax laws, etc. How can we still maintain that standard of living? If we are honest about it we need to have companies that are willing to provide a base for all these people to work in. Companies that themselves value America as much as the people here do. But what do corporations respond to? Tax incentives, and other items that help their bottom line. Those companies really don't value America as much as they value their profits. I think this is part of the reason why politicians have started to turn towards small businesses in their rhetoric (even though sometimes it seems they are just a front to the big corporate interests). Small businesses would be more likely to forge the ties with America that will make this country go forward.

[DRSmith]

Articulating the philosophy. Our policies say that we value improving health care for those who don't have health care, and providing universal K-12 education. Should we apologize for that policy? How do we quantify the extra "tax" we have in America based on these values? Maybe its a way of looking at companies and where they headquarter their business, where they move their capital and saying "that company doesn't share American values." I'd certainly have a hard time finding any such "pro-American" company, they all have outsourced in the past 20 years. But I think we can say there is a long-term cost with this offshoring, and its going to result in America looking more like Vietnam, Thailand, or Mexico rather than the America we all love and enjoy.

Like I said, it feel like we are in a trap or something like the beginning of the end for this country. Think about it logically. People love living here. However companies hate it because of tax laws, etc. How can we still maintain that standard of living? If we are honest about it we need to have companies that are willing to provide a base for all these people to work in. Companies that themselves value America as much as the people here do. But what do corporations respond to? Tax incentives, and other items that help their bottom line. Those companies really don't value America as much as they value their profits. I think this is part of the reason why politicians have started to turn towards small businesses in their rhetoric (even though sometimes it seems they are just a front to the big corporate interests). Small businesses would be more likely to forge the ties with America that will make this country go forward.

People will go where it cost less but I do not buy in to the rhetoric about regulation and taxes all the time. The reason being I have seen compnaies come to Canada one because of universal health care which lower costs and education levels. (Toyota did this)

But at the same time Canada has more regulation and union laws are more union friendly in Canada than they are in the US

[SnyderShrugged]

People will go where it cost less but I do not buy in to the rhetoric about regulation and taxes all the time. The reason being I have seen compnaies come to Canada one because of universal health care which lower costs and education levels. (Toyota did this)

But at the same time Canada has more regulation and union laws are more union friendly in Canada than they are in the US

Toyota has some of its largets operations in the world here in the US. And they are non-union here as well.

[Bliz]

Facts have a way of coming out

http://www.energyindepth.org/2011/01/epa-mia-in-austin/


They do indeed. But the facts won't come from this group or from Greenpeace.

[twa]

They do indeed. But the facts won't come from this group or from Greenpeace.



http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/01/20/2784799/range-appealing-epa-order-on-gas.html

Expert consultants for Range maintain that gas in the Strawn has for many years migrated upward into the Trinity Aquifer, the water source for the contaminated wells.

Witnesses for Range outlined that position during a Texas Railroad Commission staff hearing that ended Thursday.

Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/01/20/2784799/range-appealing-epa-order-on-gas.html#ixzz1BtqPVVqr

[Larry]

Could we move this topic to the "evil environmentalists picking on innocent oil companies" thread?

[twa]

Govt spending and idiocy go hand in hand.

[Burgold]

Govt spending and idiocy go hand in hand.

Private spending and idiocy go hand in hand... take my wife. No, seriously... TAKE MY WIFE!

http://craftastrophe.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/rodney-dangerfield.jpg

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I heard some statistics about how we used to spend 33% on investment (infrastructure, education, innovation, etc) and 33% on entitlements. Now those numbers are something like 60% for entitlements and 15% for investments. I think Obama is talking about taking us back to a line closer to 33% and 33%.