Obama to Push for Massive Spending Cuts in State of the Union Speech

Sorry, did I say cuts? I meant increases, but you probably already figured that out:

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. - Doug Powers

“Spending our way out of debt” will remain the long-term strategy — at least until it all comes crashing down. This might come as great news to some of the GOP’s dates at the State of the Union/Prom Night speech Tuesday night.

I’d swear we’ve heard this song before. Wasn’t taking care of all of the above the justification for the first load of “stumulus” spending that was such a smashing success?

The extra funding will be intended to encourage people to “build stuff and invent stuff." One of those inventions better be a device that miraculously makes the debt irrelevant.

If we don't spend money on infrastructure there'll be alot of bridges and other structures start collapsing in the near future, and rebuilding infrastructure does mean jobs. And I gotta admit that sounds more logical than continuing to spend billions that nobody but corporate oil giants and their bankers will ever see again to tear up Iraq long after Sadaam and his sons are ousted and dead, which supposedly was the reason to be there.

Ratzilla wrote:

If we don't spend money on infrastructure there'll be alot of bridges and other structures start collapsing in the near future, and rebuilding infrastructure does mean jobs. And I gotta admit that sounds more logical than continuing to spend billions that nobody but corporate oil giants and their bankers will ever see again to tear up Iraq long after Sadaam and his sons are ousted and dead, which supposedly was the reason to be there.

Is any of what they are doing with this "stimulus" money being used on things that are supposed to be functions of the federal government?

I didn't say I trusted Obama. I said it made more sense to spend money rebuilding America than to continue feeding a pig you already butchered.

Ratzilla wrote:

I didn't say I trusted Obama. I said it made more sense to spend money rebuilding America than to continue feeding a pig you already butchered.

But that money wasn't being spent prior to the "stimulus." It's not a matter of redirecting the cash, it's a matter of the government being out of control. Hopefully the new House members will live up to their campaign promises and cut the administration off. The way things are going this week, I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen.

You seem to forget. The stimulus was one of the only things both parties agreed to screw us with. And before/after the stimulus lie doesn't matter in either thing I said. Before the stimulus both republicans and democrats knew we needed infrastructure repairs, but chose to give the money to those who already had plenty. And we were told we were going into Iraq to oust a dangerous dictator and that afterwards the nation would be turned over to it's own to govern. How many billions have we spent and how many of our troops are still there and have died since?

Iraq is just Vietnam all over again and Obama's stimulus is just GW's mistake all over again. Stupidity reigns supreme in Washington as always.

Ratzilla wrote:

You seem to forget. The stimulus was one of the only things both parties agreed to screw us with. And before/after the stimulus lie doesn't matter in either thing I said. Before the stimulus both republicans and democrats knew we needed infrastructure repairs, but chose to give the money to those who already had plenty. And we were told we were going into Iraq to oust a dangerous dictator and that afterwards the nation would be turned over to it's own to govern. How many billions have we spent and how many of our troops are still there and have died since?

Iraq is just Vietnam all over again and Obama's stimulus is just GW's mistake all over again. Stupidity reigns supreme in Washington as always.

Maybe my point needs to be put a different way. I didn't support the bailouts, nor did I support the "stimulus." All I'm saying is this:

‎"I happen to think that the market can deliver any service better than the government can." -- Ron Paul

I'm not arguing that either EP. I just meant that the part about rebuilding infrastructure is something we need verses making millionaires richer (AKA bailouts AKA stimulus) or defending or rebuilding goat nations that will only benefit oil companies and the politicians they bribed. And like it or not, rebuilding our failing infrastructure will be predominately government projects.

Ratzilla wrote:

I'm not arguing that either EP. I just meant that the part about rebuilding infrastructure is something we need verses making millionaires richer (AKA bailouts AKA stimulus) or defending or rebuilding goat nations that will only benefit oil companies and the politicians they bribed. And like it or not, rebuilding our failing infrastructure will be predominately government projects.

But they should be state and local government projects. The people who live in the locations know what they need for infrastructure much better than some egghead sitting on his ass in Washington, DC. Every level of government involved increases the administrative cost of a project and takes away from money available for the actual work. The "grant application process" is one of the biggest wastes of our money that there is.

The states wouldn't like that. You know as well as I do that states, and even small towns always apply for any federal funds they can. And alot of Congressmen on both sides of the aisle aren't going to want to be known at election time as the one who got rid of their states place at the federal tit.

Ratzilla wrote:

The states wouldn't like that. You know as well as I do that states, and even small towns always apply for any federal funds they can. And alot of Congressmen on both sides of the aisle aren't going to want to be known at election time as the one who got rid of their states place at the federal tit.

I guess you're not understanding. The federal government shouldn't be collecting the money in the first place.

I'd agree with that. but is keeping money where it should be the republican agenda, and I don't mean in the hands of their wealthiest supporters, or are they just practicing politics as usual and complaining because the spending isn't what they want to spend it on?

We see this with every turn of party in the presidency. The new president is always the blame for everything and his opponents always "claim" they are the responsible ones even though their president and their spending habits hosed us too. Politics has become a game of revenge. It's no longer based on common sense spending, it's let's see how much we can block and piss off that bastard we didn't want in office.

And I thought "war' was the ultimate stimulus after all it helped end the 1st great depression. Don;t know what will end this one.

The Other One wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

The states wouldn't like that. You know as well as I do that states, and even small towns always apply for any federal funds they can. And alot of Congressmen on both sides of the aisle aren't going to want to be known at election time as the one who got rid of their states place at the federal tit.

I guess you're not understanding. The federal government shouldn't be collecting the money in the first place.

who should?

robert wrote:

The Other One wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

The states wouldn't like that. You know as well as I do that states, and even small towns always apply for any federal funds they can. And alot of Congressmen on both sides of the aisle aren't going to want to be known at election time as the one who got rid of their states place at the federal tit.

I guess you're not understanding. The federal government shouldn't be collecting the money in the first place.

who should?

Of course the Federal Government should collect it. Do you realize how hard it would be for them to either make it disappear, spend it on what they want, or make us jump through hoops to get some back?

436 elite people should control our lives. It's the way our founders intended.

slickjay12 wrote:

And I thought "war' was the ultimate stimulus after all it helped end the 1st great depression. Don;t know what will end this one.

War has typically been considered a good way to pull out of a slump. But when one missile costs a million dollars the profits aren't spread as widely and the spending probably outweighs the boost to the economy. America right now didn't need a huge surge in military supplies to wage what's actually been a fairly small war. To build up for WWII the US had to ramp up it's production in every way on a massive scale. The men became soldiers and women became factory workers. It put the nation into debt, but yet everyone had a paycheck.