Good or Bad? Obama's Infrastructure plans for the US economy

[rasmasyean]

It looks like Obama's plan is aimed mostly at "traditional" industries like roads and construction within the United States. What do you think about it?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3683270/

For me, it seems that this kind of neglects the global economy. I think there should be more efforts into building "communications infrastructure" and such to get the last mile to everyone else...something that has been stunted and neglected after the Dot-Com Bust. It seems every other nation (especially Asia) has been catching up (and surpassing in many areas) to the US and NA in this regard. So will "building roads within" the US itself help for the future of global competition in the world economy? Not to mention that this is stimulating an "old industry" and would give others even more avenues to surpass the US in leading fields more relevant to global trade. Furthermore, it seems to me that a move like this would set US up to be a country in "the stone-age" in the future modern world. :(

[Blue Velvet]

I think there should be more efforts into building "communications infrastructure" and such to get the last mile to everyone else...

I don't think that article covers the weekend announcement in depth. I'm sure I read elsewhere that there were parts of it that were about broadband... I need to do some digging for some links.

[Queso]

You are however still very much ahead of Dubai, where the entire country appears to have now run out of bandwidth. So it could be worse :)

[NT1440]

Obama has stated repeatedly that communications (broadband) are a hugely important part of infrastructure, its not just roads.

[aethelbert]

What he did improve are things that need to be done in the United States in order to get to the technological standards that other nations are heading to. If the infrastructure sucks, can one really expect to see massive improvements that depend on it? And just FYI, that was [supposedly] only a small fraction of the proposed plan. Stay tuned in the coming weeks to see where all of this money is being dumped.

Watching this (http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/the_key_parts_of_the_jobs_plan/) might help.

[rdowns]

I'll see if I can find where he mentioned broadband as part of infrastructure.

The reason roads and construction projects will take center stage is that these projects are planned, approved and ready to go at the state and local level, if funded.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Its good from many viewpoints. Its to bad we cant show Bush & Cheney the door now! Without a strong U.S. the global economy is in the tank. Remember this.

[mactastic]

I don't think that article covers the weekend announcement in depth. I'm sure I read elsewhere that there were parts of it that were about broadband... I need to do some digging for some links.
It does. Obama's plan for broadband is as ambitious as the plan the brought electricity to rural America in the 30s.

[sushi]

Obama's plan for broadband is as ambitious as the plan the brought electricity to rural America in the 30s.
That's good to hear. The US is way behind other countries regarding broadband.

Current and modern infrastructure of all types is very important for the economy.

[mgguy]

This would certainly put people to work. However, that shouldn't be the only determinant of what projects get funding. Equally important is whether the projects are necessary. Please, no more bridges to nowhere.

Another thing to consider is who would get the jobs. If the work to be performed for some of these projects (e.g., landscaping and beautification projects) is to be done largely by unskilled laborers, many of the jobs would probably be filled by illegal immigrants as in the past. Perhaps there should be some protections in place to ensure those jobs are taken only by legal residents. What we don't need is another magnet for illegal entries into the country.

[rasmasyean]

Does Obama has his own YouTube Channel? Or is ChangeDotGov the only one.

[rasmasyean]

Watching this (http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/the_key_parts_of_the_jobs_plan/) might help.

That's a pretty cool video. If you double-click it brings you to the YouTube location where you can click "Watch in HD", and it actually looks like it's on TV if you expand it. :)

[bradl]

I'll see if I can find where he mentioned broadband as part of infrastructure.

The reason roads and construction projects will take center stage is that these projects are planned, approved and ready to go at the state and local level, if funded.

/. (http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/08/1634237)

BL.

[mysterytramp]

The desire will be to find projects that can hire people within the next 60 to 120 days. What concerns me is that a lot of corners are going to be cut so the contracts can be awarded.

I'm afraid one of the issues in 2012 will be how the Democrats rushed hundreds of billions of projects through and now they need to be replaced. Or the feds get convinced to throw money at bidders just so a bunch of people get makework jobs.

There's a reason government contracting can take a long time, and why graft in contracting is fairly rare. A far better stimulus would be to throw the money at us, let us spend it and then let the states and local governments get the tax revenue.

mt

[NT1440]

There's a reason government contracting can take a long time, and why graft in contracting is fairly rare. A far better stimulus would be to throw the money at us, let us spend it and then let the states and local governments get the tax revenue.

mt

yup. worked great the first time......

wait.

[abijnk]

The timing for infrastructure based projects is pretty decent. He gets in in January, the off season, get things moving and then construction season is hell for everybody, but we have safer roads...

Its definitely a good start.

[mysterytramp]

yup. worked great the first time......

wait.

Don't forget ... the first time was in the tens of billions (I think $60B). This next one will be between $500 billion to $1 trillion.

So yes, wait ... and just watch that economy stimulate ...

mt

[Blue Velvet]

A far better stimulus would be to throw the money at us, let us spend it and then let the states and local governments get the tax revenue.

Many would save it and many would spend it on imported goods which would negatively affect the trade balance... many would use it to repay debt. It wouldn't necessarily produce the jobs which is what they're really worried about: the unemployment rate. Biggest one month job loss for over 20 years last month... if things continue to get much worse, that's not going to be easy to turn around.

[mysterytramp]

Many would save it and many would spend it on imported goods which would negatively affect the trade balance... many would use it to repay debt. It wouldn't necessarily produce the jobs which is what they're really worried about: the unemployment rate. Biggest one month job loss for over 20 years last month... if things continue to get much worse, that's not going to be easy to turn around.

But the sales would generate tax revenue, which would support government budgets, which would then prevent furloughs and layoffs that would make the unemployment worse. And it would provide the cash needed for PAYGO capital projects that governments could use to stimulate their local economies.

The more I think of it, the less I'm liking Obama's plan. Governments don't do FAST well and what the politicians want is FAST. We're in for lots and lots and LOTS of wasted billions.

mt

[Desertrat]

No doubt he has a broad range of ideas for projects. I'm dubious that the numbers to be employed for the work would truly be significant.

Per a Bloomberg article, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=anFuylFkkcvI&refer=home , he spoke about steel/concrete work: "Speaking yesterday at a Chicago news conference and on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Obama said state governors have many such projects that are “shovel ready,” meaning they could be undertaken swiftly and have an immediate impact on jobs."

Okay, fine, but there's the broadband stuff mentioned above, and the article goes on to talk about money in this package for homeowners who are in trouble. A few billion here, a few billion there, and it gets spread out into a whole bunch of "not much anywhere". I dunno.

Sidenote: Here we are, running low on oil for transportation fuel, and rather than trying to get people to move toward shorter commutes, we're building more roads? (Maintenance and re-construction, yeah, I approve wholeheartedly.)

Next problem: It's all deficit spending on top of all this deficit spending now going on, which is above and beyond other deficit spending already spent. But, as The Man said, "Even with the prospect of a federal budget shortfall approaching $1 trillion, “we can’t worry, short term, about the deficit,” he said on NBC. “We’ve got to make sure that the economic stimulus plan is large enough to get the economy moving.” (Didn't some other Big Dude say, "Deficits don't matter."?)

Sure, the stimulus puts money into circulation. Whoopee. After it's spent, then what? When you're trillions in the hole, and your income is in hundreds of billions, what next? Whence cometh the moolah? You can't raise taxes anywhere near enough to do any good in narrowing the "deficit gap".

And in the meantime, printing all that money means that it buys less and less and less. That oughta make folks happy, right?

If stimulus money gets spent in paying down credit cards and making house/car payments, it's not spent where it would generate sales taxes, nor would it do much for job-creation.

Looks to me like the incoming regime is tracking the existing regime, and both are following in the footsteps of Hoover/FDR. That pair gave us nine years of hard times until a world war changed things. Quo vadis?

'Rat

[Rodimus Prime]

Well Derestrat here is a very pesimisted and complains no matter what happens. Simplely giving money to us does not last very long and on top of that a good chunk of it is saved. If the Goverment gave me 1000 bucks I would not spend it. It would just end up in my savings account. That gives a 0% return on that investment. The extra money would not cause me to buy anything but instead save it up for a later purchase.

Quite a few people would take it and pay down debts so that is again near a 0% return. When the economy dropping so quickly savings rates always climb. Vast majority would end up paying down debt or in cases like mine which is just pure savings.

Now the construction helps out a lot because it means Jobs and lots of them. Construction is one of the base industy in the US and a huge indicator on how things are going and will be. Pick that up and generally other industries follow. It is near the base so making it stronger means everything benefits.

[takao]

also don't forget that most likely a lot of road construction is also maintenance work so it's not necessarily all new roads

personally i think it's more wise to spend more into more future proof things like increasing railway capacities perhaps building new lines

[Desertrat]

Rodimus Prime, I'm not complaining. I'm speculating about the probabilities of, "If A, then B," and I base my comments on the history of results from prior, similar events and the ensuing governmental efforts.

I've used the parallel of now and our 1920s/1930s. Some are comparing us to Japan, which went into economic doldrums in the early/mid-1990s. They tried the pump-priming thing, to no avail. Their stock market is still half of its peak, and their real estate market is down 60% from the peak. A major difference is that they began in a cash-rich situation, with an extremely high national savings rate. Yet, some dozen or more years of hard times in spite of pump-priming.

But, U.S. Steel stock went up 25% on the announcement. Astec Industries looks like a buying possibility (ASTE:Nasdaq). And Caterpillar oughta do okay...

[Thanatoast]

Things I've read around the 'net lead me to a few conclusions. There's $1.6T (as in trillion) in maintenance work on roads, bridges and highways that has been deferred over the last 50 years. I don't think the focus of the new bailout bill will be new roads but fixing old ones. The reason the language is being thrown around the way it is, is because it's directed at the Joe Sixpacks of our country who make easy associations between roads and "work". My personal hope is that a lot of that money gets earmarked for rails, both local and long-distance.

The only thing I read about broadband was that Obama would be pushing it farther out into the rural areas of the country and into our (soon-to-be-rebuilt) schools. I didn't hear anything about encouraging competition or improving our generally sad connection speeds.

[rasmasyean]

Things I've read around the 'net lead me to a few conclusions. There's $1.6T (as in trillion) in maintenance work on roads, bridges and highways that has been deferred over the last 50 years. I don't think the focus of the new bailout bill will be new roads but fixing old ones. The reason the language is being thrown around the way it is, is because it's directed at the Joe Sixpacks of our country who make easy associations between roads and "work". My personal hope is that a lot of that money gets earmarked for rails, both local and long-distance.

The only thing I read about broadband was that Obama would be pushing it farther out into the rural areas of the country and into our (soon-to-be-rebuilt) schools. I didn't hear anything about encouraging competition or improving our generally sad connection speeds.

Well, whatever that broadband plan is, I hope it puts us into a better position. The new up-n-coming thing these days is video conferencing. Even HD video conferencing. If you're ever seen the new products, it's just amazing. There are many industry efforts and start-ups cropping up now that technology has caught up to the idea. If we don't capitalize on this movement, it will be the other countries that will build themselves up and even attract our start-ups (and linked businesses) to move there. So while they work in the "21st century", we will be still wasting money on gas to travel all over the place in our new roads trying get to work and to give each other jobs involving shovels! :eek:

[SactoGuy18]

Actually, from what I've read there's talk of amending this plan to include communications infrastructure improvements. This could mean much more availability of broadband Internet and the possibility of vastly faster broadband in metropolitan areas. (Hey, I'd love to see my EarthLink ADSL connection go from 1.5 mbps to 10 mbps download speeds! :D )

[mactastic]

The desire will be to find projects that can hire people within the next 60 to 120 days. What concerns me is that a lot of corners are going to be cut so the contracts can be awarded.
There are a bunch of projects that have been through the design and approval phase, but which have been shelved due to lack of funding in this tough economic environment. I know my office alone has several hundred million dollars in school construction work that could be dusted off and put out to bid within 3 months; all of which has been put on hold within the last 24 months due to lack of funding availability.

In addition, we can produce plans for projects starting immediately. Sure, you may not have shovels in the ground for 12 months, but you'll have the designers employed, and you'll have construction companies ramping up to get trained personnel on site by the time the projects have approval.

I'm afraid one of the issues in 2012 will be how the Democrats rushed hundreds of billions of projects through and now they need to be replaced. Or the feds get convinced to throw money at bidders just so a bunch of people get makework jobs.
'Twas never an issue when Republicans did it...

Yeah, there will be cost overruns on some projects, and there will be some examples of stunning incompetence on the part of some designers and/or builders. What will matter is how those people are dealt with. Are they given new huge contracts to continue effing things up, or are they shunned?

The other factor is that I see most of this work going through the public bid process instead of being given on a no-bid basis to friends of the administration.

There's a reason government contracting can take a long time, and why graft in contracting is fairly rare. A far better stimulus would be to throw the money at us, let us spend it and then let the states and local governments get the tax revenue.

mt
Job creation is a much better macro-economic policy than throwing money at private citizens with no strings attached.

No doubt he has a broad range of ideas for projects. I'm dubious that the numbers to be employed for the work would truly be significant.
Of course you are...

Per a Bloomberg article, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=anFuylFkkcvI&refer=home , he spoke about steel/concrete work: "Speaking yesterday at a Chicago news conference and on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Obama said state governors have many such projects that are “shovel ready,” meaning they could be undertaken swiftly and have an immediate impact on jobs."

Okay, fine, but there's the broadband stuff mentioned above, and the article goes on to talk about money in this package for homeowners who are in trouble. A few billion here, a few billion there, and it gets spread out into a whole bunch of "not much anywhere". I dunno.
There's already "not much anywhere", wouldn't you say?

Sidenote: Here we are, running low on oil for transportation fuel, and rather than trying to get people to move toward shorter commutes, we're building more roads? (Maintenance and re-construction, yeah, I approve wholeheartedly.)
You'll have to show me where Obama's plan proposes bunches of new roadbuilding. My understanding is that much of his stimulus efforts will be focused on re-building existing infrastructure elements.

Next problem: It's all deficit spending on top of all this deficit spending now going on, which is above and beyond other deficit spending already spent. But, as The Man said, "Even with the prospect of a federal budget shortfall approaching $1 trillion, “we can’t worry, short term, about the deficit,” he said on NBC. “We’ve got to make sure that the economic stimulus plan is large enough to get the economy moving.”
The problem here is that Obama needs to spend to get the economy moving, and he would have been in a much better position from which to do so if Republicans had not shot the US wad during the boom times. When times are good, you pay down your debt and get your fiscal house in order. When times are bad, you break out the credit card and use it to get things back in order.

Criticizing Obama for coming into office facing the Bush deficits and debt is just mouth-music. It's not his fault that the GOP increased spending and cut taxes like crazy during the boom times.

(Didn't some other Big Dude say, "Deficits don't matter."?)
Yes. That would be Dick Cheney. And most Republicans seemed to agree with him, or at least refrained from criticizing him for saying it.

Sure, the stimulus puts money into circulation. Whoopee. After it's spent, then what? When you're trillions in the hole, and your income is in hundreds of billions, what next? Whence cometh the moolah? You can't raise taxes anywhere near enough to do any good in narrowing the "deficit gap".
Not sure which stimulus you're talking about here. The Bush stimulus where he just handed out money to people, sure you're right. But if Obama creates millions of new jobs with his stimulus, that significantly increases tax revenue.

Aren't you the guy who argues that cutting taxes on the rich spurs economic growth, which in turn increases tax revenue by more than enough to offset the loss from the tax cuts?

And in the meantime, printing all that money means that it buys less and less and less. That oughta make folks happy, right?

If stimulus money gets spent in paying down credit cards and making house/car payments, it's not spent where it would generate sales taxes, nor would it do much for job-creation.
Again, if you're talking about a Bush-style stimulus program, yea. You can see that went over like a lead balloon this past year, boosting the economy enough to avoid the technical definition of a recession prior to the election -- and in that sense it performed as intended -- but now that the money is spent we're just as bad off, if not worse, than before.

Looks to me like the incoming regime is tracking the existing regime, and both are following in the footsteps of Hoover/FDR. That pair gave us nine years of hard times until a world war changed things. Quo vadis?
I trust you mean that Bush is the Hoover and Obama is the FDR in that pair?

I'd settle for the economic recovery ushered in my FDR over the policies of George W. Hoover any day...

[mysterytramp]

There are a bunch of projects that have been through the design and approval phase, but which have been shelved due to lack of funding in this tough economic environment.

1) I'm a bit concerned about any government project that has gathered dust. How have conditions changed? What environmental or labor condition wasn't considered?

2) This stimulus is going to mean 50 states and I-don't-know-how-many counties and municipalities are going to be going to market simultaneously looking for raw materials and workers. Not that long ago, low interest rates caused virtually the same thing, driving up costs of steel, concrete and labor. What's going to keep the same from happening again?

The other factor is that I see most of this work going through the public bid process instead of being given on a no-bid basis to friends of the administration.

Some procurement rules will have to change (that is, ignored) to speed these projects through. Or the states will focus on call contracts, which handle things like pavement resurfacing. That means we're going to get a trillion dollars worth of potholes fixed, and cutting the unemployment rate of men who have mastered leaning against a shovel. Not that they don't deserve help also, but not what I think we're expecting when we're mortgaging ourselves for a generation over an economic crisis of the last six months.

Job creation is a much better macro-economic policy than throwing money at private citizens with no strings attached.

When we get money, we'll buy or save. If we buy, we generate jobs and tax revenue. If we save, we generate capital for mortgages and small business loans. If we put it toward tuition, we educate our kids. And we're talking 10 times the amount of money that the feds handed out earlier this year.

I'd settle for the economic recovery ushered in my FDR over the policies of George W. Hoover any day...

We can try to convince ourselves that the Great Depression was ended because of the WPA and the CCC, but really it ended with the attack on Pearl Harbor.

mt

[mactastic]

1) I'm a bit concerned about any government project that has gathered dust. How have conditions changed? What environmental or labor condition wasn't considered?
What condition changed? Have you checked the construction market lately? :rolleyes:

In addition, there are projects that get started that get shelved because they are lower priority than new projects. Case in point, I have a school building project that was begun a couple years ago. We went through the design process and got the necessary approvals. In the 6 months that we were working on that project, the district decided that due to enrollment numbers well above projected, it would be better to spend the money on portable classrooms that would provide the space for all the students they were now projected to have, rather than the building we designed that was based on their old enrollment projections.

It wasn't a case of the district not wanting to do the permanent building -- and in fact they would still like to do the project, only with two buildings instead of one -- it was a matter of funding priorities. And the project is still perfectly buildable, should funding become available.

Why would this happen, you may ask? Because A/E fees are a very small portion of the overall cost of a project, something in the range of 10%-15%. It makes fiscal sense for clients to hold off on the larger construction cost even if they've already spent the A/E money on design.

I would also note that this is not an uncommon scenario. It costs a hell of a lot less to do design work than to actually build something. Running out of money, or shifting priorities, between the design and construction phases of a project happens all the time.

2) This stimulus is going to mean 50 states and I-don't-know-how-many counties and municipalities are going to be going to market simultaneously looking for raw materials and workers. Not that long ago, low interest rates caused virtually the same thing, driving up costs of steel, concrete and labor. What's going to keep the same from happening again?
Are you arguing that a depressed economy is good? That we shouldn't stimulate the economy in any way because it might drive prices up again?

Of course labor and material costs will go up as the markets tighten. That's the whole idea behind a stimulus.

I'd also note that I have not seen any reductions in the labor rates being charged for work, even as the economy takes a nosedive. Yes, material costs are down, but labor costs are not.

Some procurement rules will have to change (that is, ignored) to speed these projects through. Or the states will focus on call contracts, which handle things like pavement resurfacing. That means we're going to get a trillion dollars worth of potholes fixed, and cutting the unemployment rate of men who have mastered leaning against a shovel. Not that they don't deserve help also, but not what I think we're expecting when we're mortgaging ourselves for a generation over an economic crisis of the last six months.
What will have to change? Public bid law is pretty well entrenched.

I would note that you appear overly hostile to paving workers. Have you ever done such work yourself, or is your contempt based only on your biases and observations?

When we get money, we'll buy or save. If we buy, we generate jobs and tax revenue. If we save, we generate capital for mortgages and small business loans. If we put it toward tuition, we educate our kids. And we're talking 10 times the amount of money that the feds handed out earlier this year.
Give a man a fish (or a government subsidy), and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish (or give him a job), and he'll eat for his entire life.

No amount of government handouts will substitute for job creation.

We can try to convince ourselves that the Great Depression was ended because of the WPA and the CCC, but really it ended with the attack on Pearl Harbor.

mt
Link please.

[aethelbert]

Link please.
It wasn't so much Pearl Harbor per sé; rather, it was the preparation for WWII. This was for pretty much every belligerent, not just the United States. The global depression pretty much ended when the globe went to war. Most of the work for the WPA had little to do with war preparation. While it did revive the economy to some degree, it was the shift to war economy that truly kicked everyone back into the game and out of the great depression. If you're so inclined, go read a wikipedia page on the depression, WWII, et al. I'm sure that they'll probably all tell you pretty much the same.

[mactastic]

It wasn't so much Pearl Harbor per sé; rather, it was the preparation for WWII. This was for pretty much every belligerent, not just the United States. The global depression pretty much ended when the globe went to war.
As I'm sure we're all aware, correlation is not causation.
Most of the work for the WPA had little to do with war preparation. While it did revive the economy to some degree, it was the shift to war economy that truly kicked everyone back into the game and out of the great depression. If you're so inclined, go read a wikipedia page on the depression, WWII, et al. I'm sure that they'll probably all tell you pretty much the same.
Well, it's up to the poster to back up their assertions. I was hoping for something a little more substantive than "go read a wikipedia page".

[aethelbert]

As I'm sure we're all aware, correlation is not causation.

Well, it's up to the poster to back up their assertions. I was hoping for something a little more substantive than "go read a wikipedia page".
Then what exactly do you want? Cold hard evidence? There isn't any article from MSNBC reporting "depression over with war economy." We only have modern observations of data from the era. I don't really feel like playing history teacher here, but I'll give some basics to you anyway:
For the United States, World War II and the Great Depression constituted the most important economic event of the twentieth century. The war's effects were varied and far-reaching. The war decisively ended the depression itself.

Roosevelt's New Deal mitigated some effects of the Great Depression, but did not end the economic crisis. In 1939, when World War II erupted in Europe with Germany's invasion of Poland, numerous economic indicators suggested that the United States was still deeply mired in the depression.
linky (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/a rticle/tassava.WWII)

I'm not going to spend my time handing over knowledge from the public domain nor will I search for primary sources. But the New Deal didn't cause recovery, it simply eased the pain. Recovery didn't come until the economy had something to do with the war effort. The New Deal did sort of allow the economy to be better prepared for war by creating the larger government and whatnot, but without war preparations, the economy likely wouldn't have grown at such a rate as it did.

[Desertrat]

You think about it a bit: You can't shut down an auto assembly line and go to building tanks and cannon overnight. You can't set up shipyards ala Kaiser et all and go to building ships overnight. Yet, within a very few weeks of the declaration of war, we had gotten such efforts underway on a very large scale. IOW, we'd been already planning/coordinating and gearing up with the manufacturing equipment a year or two before the war actually started. There had to have been gearing up while FDR was working for the March, 1941, Lend-Lease program.

The Pearl Harbor deal was a tactical screwup by the Navy. However, from a strategic standpoint, the Navy had people who'd foreseen the potential for war with Japan since around 1928. FDR had been Asst. SecNav.

You set up rationing and price freezes and persuade folks to buy War Bonds and you can print paper without rampant inflation--for a while. But it got us out of the Depression.

'Rat

[mysterytramp]

What condition changed?

If any length of time passed, I'd bet your school district's lawyer (if he's any good) will fret that title to the property might have changed, or that surrounding landowners have in some way altered the landscape. That can tie up a project another 30 days, easy.

Are you arguing that a depressed economy is good? That we shouldn't stimulate the economy in any way because it might drive prices up again?

No, but I am arguing that a school district might have a $10 million project on the books and if the whole nation descends on the construction industry at once, it'll cost $12 million or $14 million. Who picks up the cost overrun? Do the feds parcel out about 75 percent of the money for just-in-case overruns (not very efficient) or do they tell the states to worry about it -- states, BTW, that don't have any spare cash to begin with.

What will have to change? Public bid law is pretty well entrenched.

Bid protests come to mind. Where's the stimulus if a losing bidder spends two months appealing the award?

I would note that you appear overly hostile to paving workers. Have you ever done such work yourself, or is your contempt based only on your biases and observations?

I've done plenty of menial labor in my day and it's not contempt (and if you reread my post, I was pretty clear). It's an attempt to illustrate the differences between reality and expectations. If I wasn't subtle enough, take a look at this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/13/AR2008121301819.html?sub=AR) in Sunday's Washington Post.

You'll need a log in. here are three relevant paragraphs:

Most of the infrastructure spending being proposed for the massive stimulus package that Obama and congressional Democrats are readying, however, is not exactly the stuff of history, but destined for routine projects that have been on the to-do lists of state highway departments for years. Oklahoma wants to repave stretches of Interstates 35 and 40 and build "cable barriers" to keep wayward cars from crossing medians. New Jersey wants to repaint 88 bridges and restore Route 35 from Toms River to Mantoloking. Scottsdale, Ariz., wants to widen 1.5 miles of Scottsdale Road.
ad_icon

On the campaign trail, Obama said he would "rebuild America" with an "infrastructure bank" run by a new board that would award $60 billion over a decade to projects such as high-speed rail to take the country in a more energy-efficient direction. But the crumbling economy, while giving impetus to big spending plans, has also put a new emphasis on projects that can be started immediately -- "use it or lose it," Obama said last week -- and created a clear tension between the need to create jobs fast and the desire for a lasting legacy.

"It doesn't have the power to stir men's souls," said David Goldberg of Smart Growth America. "Repair and maintenance are good. We need to make sure we're building bridges that stand, not bridges to nowhere. But to gild the lily . . . where we're resurfacing pieces of road that aren't that critical, just to be able to say we spent the money, is not what we're after."



Give a man a fish (or a government subsidy), and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish (or give him a job), and he'll eat for his entire life.

No amount of government handouts will substitute for job creation.


So in other words, we should mortgage ourselves and our children because of layoffs in the construction industry? Anyone who is unemployed in any of a hundred industries is SOL? If the money flowed through us, we could at least "vote" where we think it's most useful, whether that's clearing credit card debt (which just makes room for other purchases) or buying a car or buying down a mortgage or paying tuition or whatever ...

I would note that you appear overly hostile to poverty. Have you ever had trouble paying bills, or is your contempt based only on your biases and observations?

mt

[Desertrat]

mysterytramp, I don't argue your points, but this whole deal is so complex: As far as construction jobs, those at least provide useful facilities. Highway maintenance is unending, so any expansion would (seems to me) lure those who were once in homebuilding or other manual-skill jobs into this sort of work. And, IMO, better that we do maintenance than build "roads to nowhere".

The transitions that are likely insofar as transportation seem to create a call for rebuilding railroads, with the issue of "high speed rail" subject to discussion. I'm a believer in Hubbert's Pimple, so electric rail transport looks like a Good Thing.

As far as such things as the bidding process, that seems to me to be a case of (shrug), "That's the system we've created." Nothing will begin overnight, SFAIK.

[mactastic]

If any length of time passed, I'd bet your school district's lawyer (if he's any good) will fret that title to the property might have changed, or that surrounding landowners have in some way altered the landscape. That can tie up a project another 30 days, easy.
Nope. The school owns the land. No problems there. It was strictly a funding priority issue.

No, but I am arguing that a school district might have a $10 million project on the books and if the whole nation descends on the construction industry at once, it'll cost $12 million or $14 million. Who picks up the cost overrun? Do the feds parcel out about 75 percent of the money for just-in-case overruns (not very efficient) or do they tell the states to worry about it -- states, BTW, that don't have any spare cash to begin with.
But what was the $10 million dollar estimate based on? An estimate is like a poll of voters before the election -- it's a snapshot in time, and can be used to predict trends; but it is not a substitute for an election.

In the same way, an estimate is based on forecasts made at the time the estimate is provided, but it is not a guarantee of how much the cost will be.

Oh, and BTW, who do you think picks up the benefits when the projects we're bidding right now cost less than the estimates?

Bid protests come to mind. Where's the stimulus if a losing bidder spends two months appealing the award?
In all my time doing this, I've only seen a handful of bid protests; and most of those never made it past "I protest". Also, most occasions for bid protests occur when people are hard up for work. I don't think you'll suddenly see an increase in bid protests if work is plentiful.

I've done plenty of menial labor in my day and it's not contempt (and if you reread my post, I was pretty clear). It's an attempt to illustrate the differences between reality and expectations.
Ahh, so the insinuation that we'd be paying people to lean on shovels was your way of saying how awesome you think laborers are? I see...

So in other words, we should mortgage ourselves and our children because of layoffs in the construction industry?
So in other words we should simply let unemployment go as high as the market will take it because of ideological blinders?

Anyone who is unemployed in any of a hundred industries is SOL?
Are you suggesting that the government should be in the business of supporting people who are not working?

If the money flowed through us, we could at least "vote" where we think it's most useful, whether that's clearing credit card debt (which just makes room for other purchases) or buying a car or buying down a mortgage or paying tuition or whatever ...
We tried that earlier this year. Unfortunately paying down CC debt doesn't help the economy much. Nor does saving the money. That's where the free money from the feds went earlier this year. As you might have noticed, it didn't help much, other than it allowed the GOP to campaign on a slogan of "we're not in a recession... yet".

I would note that you appear overly hostile to poverty. Have you ever had trouble paying bills, or is your contempt based only on your biases and observations?

mt
Fail.

Here's a tip... when you're trying to mock someone with their own words, it helps if they have done the things you're accusing them of.

Better luck next time though. :p

[Rodimus Prime]

To add to what mactist has said a lot of big construction companies have under contract millions in public works that have been put on hold.

The project is awarded and they have it. they could have people in the field and the shovels in the ground with in 90 days with out a problem.

Hell one company I know of has over a several 100 mill in projects under contract and ready to go but all on hold due to lack of funding.

Also like mactastic said big protest are few and far between. Most companies know the game on bids and they loose 10-15 for everyone one they get. Hell they just rip and go estimates in hopes of getting 1.


Some things that you can expect to have going are airport projects. those projects can be over 1 billion in work over 5+ years. Now that gets a lot of people jobs. Then you have all the schools and what not.

You will be surpised at how much stuff is on the books under contract and ready to go all that is needed is some funding.

[mysterytramp]

This argument is going on too damn long. And these point by point tit for tat replies have to be tedious for anyone who isn't part of the discussion. So I'll just make two points:

1) Directing all/most of the $600 billion to government construction means bureaucrats and construction workers will gain the lion's share of the benefit. The folks laid off in IT, retail, finance, manufacturing, service, you name it, will still be sidelined.

2) Denigrating what happened with the previous stimulus is a cheap shot, considering that this new round is AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE higher. Bush shelled out $60 billion to taxpayers; Congress is mulling a $600 billion stimulus.

mt

[Desertrat]

No matter what short-term benefits accrue from WPA Mark II, it's still a fact that until we can make things for export sales and have income exceed outgo, we're in financial trouble. Our transition from smokestack industry and export sales into consumeritis and paper investments is a large part of the cause of this present malaise.

Bush has emulated Hoover; Obama proposes to emulate FDR. Neither predecessor's ideas worked. Further, the Japanese example of staying in the monetary toilet for some eighteen years, now, is right in front of our eyes.

Like one Internet guy says, "I always wanted to know what it was like in the 1920s and 1930s, but not from the German perspective."

[mactastic]

This argument is going on too damn long. And these point by point tit for tat replies have to be tedious for anyone who isn't part of the discussion. So I'll just make two points:

1) Directing all/most of the $600 billion to government construction means bureaucrats and construction workers will gain the lion's share of the benefit. The folks laid off in IT, retail, finance, manufacturing, service, you name it, will still be sidelined.

2) Denigrating what happened with the previous stimulus is a cheap shot, considering that this new round is AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE higher. Bush shelled out $60 billion to taxpayers; Congress is mulling a $600 billion stimulus.

mt
Ah yes... the "I'm throwing in the towel" argument. Well played.

Two points in return:
1) I never argued for "all/most" of the current stimulus package under discussion by the Obama camp to be directed to "government construction". To suggest that I have is nothing short of a strawman argument.

2) Yes, the proposed bailout is AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE higher. My guess is that people would do largely the same thing with this money that they did with the previous handout -- PAY DOWN DEBT AND SAVE. What did people get last time? A $600 check, right? Ok, so they get $6,000 this time around, which would be AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER. Do you really think THE RESULT WILL BE DIFFERENT THIS TIME?

[Desertrat]

For sure, mac. The paying down of debt would not help to "jump start" the economy at all, since no new jobs would be needed. Pretty much the same for savings, as well, although it would possibly persuade banks to loosen up a bit on lending money--trouble is, who'd borrow to invest in business expansion in these times?

[mysterytramp]

2) Yes, the proposed bailout is AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE higher. My guess is that people would do largely the same thing with this money that they did with the previous handout -- PAY DOWN DEBT AND SAVE. What did people get last time? A $600 check, right? Ok, so they get $6,000 this time around, which would be AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER. Do you really think THE RESULT WILL BE DIFFERENT THIS TIME?

Absolutely. People are not going to treat $6,000 the same way they treat $600. That's a big no brainer.

mt

[mysterytramp]

For sure, mac. The paying down of debt would not help to "jump start" the economy at all, since no new jobs would be needed. Pretty much the same for savings, as well, although it would possibly persuade banks to loosen up a bit on lending money--trouble is, who'd borrow to invest in business expansion in these times?

Sorry, but I think you're missing a couple of points on what happens to money.

First, let's say the stimulus means a family gets a big wad of cash and they decide to pay off their credit cards. That means they'll have capacity to spend more. It's the same as spending the money, but first it goes through the usury of credit card companies first. The net result is the money gets spent, which has a positive effect on the economy.

Second, let's say they save the money. Savings is where mortgages and small business loans come from. The big banks -- Wachovia, Citibank -- they're hurting because of the subprime mortgage crisis. The little community banks, however, are in pretty good shape (at least in Maryland). Give them more capital and they'll make it grow, and put people to work.

And who would invest? Untold thousands. Unemployment means labor is plentiful. Suppliers are hurting now, which means small startups can get an upper hand. This opportunity may never come again.

mt

[jplan2008]

1) Directing all/most of the $600 billion to government construction means bureaucrats and construction workers will gain the lion's share of the benefit. The folks laid off in IT, retail, finance, manufacturing, service, you name it, will still be sidelined.

2) Denigrating what happened with the previous stimulus is a cheap shot, considering that this new round is AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE higher. Bush shelled out $60 billion to taxpayers; Congress is mulling a $600 billion stimulus.

mt

If I own a restaurant, and construction workers have jobs, they come and eat and I survive. A cook in my restaurant keeps his job and can buy his daughter an iPod for her birthday. Etc. If the point of a stimulus program were just to give jobs to a certain group of people, then you'd be right, why not just give more people money. But that's not how it works. Besides, a lot of what is being talked about is needed anyway, and has been deferred for years. And, some will not only create jobs and put money into the economy, but they'll save money in the long run. If a school retrofits to be more energy efficient, not only are there jobs created, but the school will save money, and we'll save energy every year in the future. What is being talked about is approximately $200 bn for tax relief and extended unemployment benefits, etc (compared to $128 bn earlier this year -- not $60 bn) and infrastructure including road and bridge repairs, public transportation, energy retrofitting, broadband, and the electric grid. All needed, and an investment in the future.

And, it's a two-year program. The idea isn't to spend it all in the first few months.

And, for those wondering about the Great Depression and WWII, I'd suggest reading some of Paul Krugman's columns and blogs on nyt.com He points out that FDR made progress on the depression, but things then got worse when he tried too soon to balance the budget and cut spending and raise taxes. Then, we had a huge government spending program (WWII) which brought us out of it, despite rationing.

And, if you're worried about prices going up, deflation, which we're facing now, is worse, and also helped cause/was related to the Great Depression. The way to fight inflation is to raise the interest rate. Since it's practically at zero, there's plenty of room for that, and isn't really considered to be a problem right now.

[Desertrat]

mysterytramp, given what's being reported about behavioral changes, I imagine that a lot of the folks who pay down debt won't be running up further debt if they can avoid it.

Minor bits and pieces: Looking at spending patterns, this addition to the deficit will be largely be spent at stores which stock imported low-end goods, which adds to the balance-of-payments deficit.

Sure, money in circulation is helpful, but I see it as merely a short-term thing, in no way "jump starting" the overall economy. Long-term, it's merely more deficit.

My basic question remains: What are we going to produce and sell at a profit to foreign customers? I believe that until we show a national profit with respect to the balance of payments in international trade, we're in deep doo-doo.

[mysterytramp]

And, it's a two-year program. The idea isn't to spend it all in the first few months.

This part's relatively new. I'll be surprised if it survives the final cut because the idea is to get people working within 60 to 120 days. The longer the money's spread out, the less effect it will have on unemployment. Having said that, I don't think state and local government can spend all those billions on worthwhile projects in 60 to 120 days; we'll end up with a mortgage to pay for a lot of pothole repair.

mysterytramp, given what's being reported about behavioral changes, I imagine that a lot of the folks who pay down debt won't be running up further debt if they can avoid it.

"If" is the big word there. People are creatures of habit. They'll say they won't run up their credit cards, but they will. And even if they don't, they'll still spend. When the toaster breaks down, you buy a new toaster, no?

My basic question remains: What are we going to produce and sell at a profit to foreign customers? I believe that until we show a national profit with respect to the balance of payments in international trade, we're in deep doo-doo.

No disagreements here. But how do you put lots of people to work quickly and solve our balance of trade issues? Personally, I think step one is to reconstruct a regulatory infrastructure to keep morons out of the financial sector. We may never be a manufacturing powerhouse again, but if we don't reclaim our financial superiority, we're in deeper doo-doo.

mt

[Desertrat]

I was born in 1934. I grew up on stories about how people changed their spending patterns and habits.

How does a nation that's on its way to being some $15 trillion in the hole remain or regain status as an economic powerhouse? Particularly, given our unfunded future liabilities?

Note that (per Agora Publishing) the sum of our debt and unfunded liabilities now exceeds our appraised value as a nation:

"Which is greater? The U.S. government’s mountain of debt or the entire net worth of all U.S. citizens?

For the first time in our history, it’s the former.

As of the end of September, the U.S. government held “$56.4 trillion in debts, liabilities and unfunded promises for Medicare and Social Security,” said research published this week by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. The number comes directly from the Treasury release we harped on Wednesday.

And our collective net worth? $56.5 trillion, as calculated by the Fed at the end of September as well.

“Given more recent developments, it's clear that America now owes more than its citizens are worth," said PGP Foundation president..."

(That is, the deflation in asset values has us now below that net worth figure of $56.5 trillion, and the government has gone deeper into the hole.)

'Rat

[jplan2008]

I was born in 1934. I grew up on stories about how people changed their spending patterns and habits.

How does a nation that's on its way to being some $15 trillion in the hole remain or regain status as an economic powerhouse? Particularly, given our unfunded future liabilities?

Note that (per Agora Publishing) the sum of our debt and unfunded liabilities now exceeds our appraised value as a nation:

"Which is greater? The U.S. government’s mountain of debt or the entire net worth of all U.S. citizens?

For the first time in our history, it’s the former.

As of the end of September, the U.S. government held “$56.4 trillion in debts, liabilities and unfunded promises for Medicare and Social Security,” said research published this week by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. The number comes directly from the Treasury release we harped on Wednesday.

And our collective net worth? $56.5 trillion, as calculated by the Fed at the end of September as well.

“Given more recent developments, it's clear that America now owes more than its citizens are worth," said PGP Foundation president..."

(That is, the deflation in asset values has us now below that net worth figure of $56.5 trillion, and the government has gone deeper into the hole.)

'Rat

Those calculations don't make sense. If I'm calculating my debt and ability to pay my mortgage, etc., I take into account my current and projected income, not my "net worth." And most reasonable discussions about the national debt compare it to GDP. So, yes, the debt's percentage of GDP is reaching a 50-year high, but not a historic high. And, actually it was higher when we were going through historic growth. And "unfunded future liabilities" can be funded -- that's not a liability today, and definitely shouldn't be compared to the "net worth" of today. The problem, as you mentioned earlier, is that the last time we had debt as high as now compared to GDP, we actually produced a lot that the world wanted, and had a trade surplus every year, and now we don't -- our biggest "export" is tourist dollars spent here in the US -- but the actual percentage isn't as bad as those figures make it seem.

[NT1440]

i just find it amazing that people think we can get out of this without going further into debt for the time being. Might as well put that debt into making our country better now so that it can help pay it off in the future...

[Desertrat]

"Might as well put that debt into making our country better now so that it can help pay it off in the future..."

Agreed. One area of argument is over which use of the debt would make for long-term betterment. For instance, it it's correct that transportation fuel will be very expensive and in short supply in the future, it seems to me to make more sense to re-construct and electrify railroads--and also increase our supply of electric energy. Massive highway construction would be contra-productive, long-term.

[mactastic]

Absolutely. People are not going to treat $6,000 the same way they treat $600. That's a big no brainer.

mt
I hate to break this to you, but for the people in trouble, $6K isn't going to solve their problems. Do you know anyone who is "only" $6K upside down on their house? Anyone for whom $6K will cover their expenses until the economy rights itself enough for them to find a new job?

The people who are in trouble will blow through $6K in no time, and still need more. The people who don't need it will put it in savings. Not enough of it will get spent to jump start the economy.

This economy needs jobs -- preferably making something tangible. Absent that, no amount of government charity will bring us out of this downward spiral.

Massive highway construction would be contra-productive, long-term.
Yes, because maintenance costs are pretty high. Build a road now, and you'll need to re-pave it in 10-15 years.

[Desertrat]

mac, although I've said I believe we're in a transition period as to transportation fuel and types of vehicles, I'm becoming ever more dubious that we'll be able to continue to have today's independent mobility. I can see some reason in the views of those who say people will move back into cities, and do much less commuting or travelling for pleasure.

If that's correct, we'd likely be building those proverbial "roads to nowhere".

Money spent on electric-powered rail, and on power plants of all sorts, however, would be useful for decades...

I don't think the government can print enough money to pay for all the proposed construction, so we better damned well make intelligent choices.

'Rat

[mactastic]

mac, although I've said I believe we're in a transition period as to transportation fuel and types of vehicles, I'm becoming ever more dubious that we'll be able to continue to have today's independent mobility. I can see some reason in the views of those who say people will move back into cities, and do much less commuting or travelling for pleasure.

If that's correct, we'd likely be building those proverbial "roads to nowhere".

Money spent on electric-powered rail, and on power plants of all sorts, however, would be useful for decades...

I don't think the government can print enough money to pay for all the proposed construction, so we better damned well make intelligent choices.

'Rat
While we're in general agreement here, I wouldn't go so far as to say "power plants of all sorts". I think we need to make intelligent decisions regarding to future of our power generation system as well. Fossil fuel-powered plants will be as vulnerable to price spikes in oil and gas as our transportation infrastructure is.

The nice thing about solar is that the sun doesn't up it's rates during peak consumption.

[jplan2008]

mac, although I've said I believe we're in a transition period as to transportation fuel and types of vehicles, I'm becoming ever more dubious that we'll be able to continue to have today's independent mobility. I can see some reason in the views of those who say people will move back into cities, and do much less commuting or travelling for pleasure.

If that's correct, we'd likely be building those proverbial "roads to nowhere".

Money spent on electric-powered rail, and on power plants of all sorts, however, would be useful for decades...

I don't think the government can print enough money to pay for all the proposed construction, so we better damned well make intelligent choices.

'Rat

When people talk about highway "construction," they're really talking about repairs to current roads and bridges, and maybe some widening. On the one hand you can think of more lanes as encouraging more drivers, but on the other hand, less idling in bumper-to-bumper traffic saves a lot of gas.

I agree we're going to have to change our transportation system to rely a lot less on driving, but we're not really in a "transition period" yet. There are a lot of creative ideas out there that entail the same or similar mobility, but with a lot less gas usage. (high speed rail would be a great start, but there are also trains that allow regular vehicles and trucks on them, or the small electric cars on other sorts of trains, etc) They all involve a big investment, and we're not known for thinking long-term, so probably we'll wait until it's too late. There are also tele-commuting jobs, changing many jobs to four 10-hour days, etc. that can contribute something to lowering our transportation fuel usage But again, without some sort of incentive, companies aren't going to do much.

I don't agree with power plants of "all sorts" -- I think there's a big future in geothermal, with solar and wind to augment it. But, geothermal has a big up-front cost (currently), so we need to think long-term, which we don't seem capable of doing.

[mysterytramp]

I hate to break this to you, but for the people in trouble, $6K isn't going to solve their problems.

... [snip] ...

The people who are in trouble will blow through $6K in no time, and still need more. The people who don't need it will put it in savings. Not enough of it will get spent to jump start the economy.

Let's assume we're talking 10 times the amount Bush put forth earlier in the year. A family of four could be receiving $18,000 -- $6k for two adults, $3K for each kid. That's a hell of a leg up on problems. If they're upside down on their mortgage, you're right, the money won't help. But that's an equity problem, not a cash problem. The best thing to do is just hang on to the property and wait. This is a stimulus plan, not a fix-all-our-problems plan.

If people blow through it -- the spending will keep the providers of goods and services working, and prop up sales tax revenues. If people save it -- the savings will fuel investment into the community. And calling it charity is, frankly, demeaning.

Money spent on electric-powered rail, and on power plants of all sorts, however, would be useful for decades...

And here's where I think there's a fundamental problem with this debate. As beneficial as these forward-looking projects may be, the task at hand is to jumpstart the economy now. The Obama administration wants projects that can put people to work in 60 to 120 days. Some of these projects will need at least a year to go through the environmental review. Like I said upstream, governments don't do FAST. We're going to end up with a stimulus plan that fills a lot of potholes and that's about it.

mt

[SactoGuy18]

And here's where I think there's a fundamental problem with this debate. As beneficial as these forward-looking projects may be, the task at hand is to jumpstart the economy now. The Obama administration wants projects that can put people to work in 60 to 120 days. Some of these projects will need at least a year to go through the environmental review. Like I said upstream, governments don't do FAST. We're going to end up with a stimulus plan that fills a lot of potholes and that's about it.


Not necessarily. After all, many of FDR's projects were fast-tracked, especially the massive Tennessee Valley Authority dam-building projects (the TVA single-handedly improved the economy of the southeastern USA with all the dams providing agricultural irrigation and electric power). The Obama Administration could "fast track" many important projects, including a number of environmental restoration projects that require a lot of manpower (I cite for example dismantling a number of obsolete dams on the Klamath River in Oregon and the dismantling of O'Shaughnessy Dam insider Yosemite National Park and raising the height of Don Pedro Dam on the Tuolumne River in compensation). Other projects include substantial infrastructure improvements to Amtrak's Northeast Corridor for faster Acela train service, a LOT more federal funding for expanded public transit (I for one would love to see a big expansion of Sacramento Regional Transit light rail and the building of trolley service between West Sacramento and downtown Sacramento :) ).

The 1930's was a golden age of many public works projects, and the Obama Adminstration could create another golden age of such projects.

[Rodimus Prime]

Let's assume we're talking 10 times the amount Bush put forth earlier in the year. A family of four could be receiving $18,000 -- $6k for two adults, $3K for each kid. That's a hell of a leg up on problems. If they're upside down on their mortgage, you're right, the money won't help. But that's an equity problem, not a cash problem. The best thing to do is just hang on to the property and wait. This is a stimulus plan, not a fix-all-our-problems plan.

If people blow through it -- the spending will keep the providers of goods and services working, and prop up sales tax revenues. If people save it -- the savings will fuel investment into the community. And calling it charity is, frankly, demeaning.



And here's where I think there's a fundamental problem with this debate. As beneficial as these forward-looking projects may be, the task at hand is to jumpstart the economy now. The Obama administration wants projects that can put people to work in 60 to 120 days. Some of these projects will need at least a year to go through the environmental review. Like I said upstream, governments don't do FAST. We're going to end up with a stimulus plan that fills a lot of potholes and that's about it.

mt

You really do not understand that people even with the 6k are just going to either save it or pay down debts.

For example if I get 6k guess what I am going to do with it. PUT IT IN SAVINGS. I do not have debt and not like I need that extra money. People who need it will blow threw it mostly covering debt but not buying new stuff. For people who do not need it it just going to saved. People in need it can screw them over because it is more money all of a sudden than they can handle.


600 was more spent all at once and gave a small kick start but 6k is just going to cause more problems than it helps because people are not going to be able to handle the sudden increase in income. When it runs out they will expect more money from the government.

[Eraserhead]

What is acela going to do to reduce travel time in NE US?

[Desertrat]

The "right now" aspect for large projects does exist, with not much time needed to begin construction. For instance, just in Texas, there are plans on the drawing board or ready for bid for over a dozen coal-fired power plants. I don't know specific sizes, but based on common practice, that's around 15 to 18 gigawatts at least--equivalent to some 15,000 or more wind units. The choice is between more effluent and the rolling brownouts which are expected to become ever more common in 2010 and beyond. We are falling seriously behind on electric supply for our growing population, growing at over two million per year and compounding; 140 million more by 2050.

From what I've read about water supply systems, there are municipal pipelines all over the country where the only delay is funding and the need is great.

Jplan2008, little is being said here that many of us haven't addressed before in similar discussions. Many of us have spoken to short-, medium- and long-term possibilities and probabilities. You name it: Transportation, energy, fuels, construction...

I'm reminded of a Churchillian quote, roughly, "Americans can be counted on to do the right thing, after they've first tried everything else."

'Rat

[mysterytramp]

For example if I get 6k guess what I am going to do with it. PUT IT IN SAVINGS.

Putting that money in savings is a GREAT thing for this economy. When money goes into the bank, it serves as capital that can then be lent out in mortgages and small business loans. (That's how the bank earns interest to pay on your account.)

One of our current problems is a lack of capital. Putting that money into a savings account will put a lot of people -- in YOUR community -- back to work.

When people pay down debt, all they're really doing is recharging their capacity to spend. If people pay down their debt, you're likely to see a resultant increase in consumer confidence, which also would be good for this economy.

mt

[takao]

The "right now" aspect for large projects does exist, with not much time needed to begin construction. For instance, just in Texas, there are plans on the drawing board or ready for bid for over a dozen coal-fired power plants. I don't know specific sizes, but based on common practice, that's around 15 to 18 gigawatts at least--equivalent to some 15,000 or more wind units. The choice is between more effluent and the rolling brownouts which are expected to become ever more common in 2010 and beyond. We are falling seriously behind on electric supply for our growing population, growing at over two million per year and compounding; 140 million more by 2050.

true that ... though the last 2-3 years the US made up quite a bit of the time they wasted the 5-10 years before in terms of wind energy
and texas is indeed one of the states which are at least bother to do something in terms of that alternative energy source (and since they are one of the biggest energy users rightly so)

at least texas has the advantage that you don't have to worry much about heating and will have it the easiest once thin layered/printed solar panels become available for mass market (a handful of years off .. perhaps 5) which will be the next breakthrough... long before geothermal energy

[Desertrat]

Nothing like a little thread drift. :)

Texas DOES have a heat load, though, Takao. Houston is often called the air-conditioning capital of the world. I guarantee you that when you're in a coastal area's high humidity and the late spring to early fall temperatures commonly hit 95F and more, you want A/C. And just the coastal counties along the 400 miles of coast are home to nearly ten million people.

One problem with respect to wind generation is the magnitude of the demand. With some 15 or more gigawatts worth of coal-fired plant construction underway or planned here in Texas, and the increasing population here, the rate of increase in demand is way ahead of construction capability for the wind units.

It's really easy to talk about, "Hey, we'll just use wind power!" but the question remains: Where in the world do you put the tens of thousands of these things? I drive I-10 and see the spacing of a few hundred of them, and I gotta wonder at the apparent dreaming on the part of many people. Then there is all the connecting linkage, plus the transmission lines...

Most folks apparently just don't realize the magnitude of the electric loads of municipalities and industry...

[Rodimus Prime]

Putting that money in savings is a GREAT thing for this economy. When money goes into the bank, it serves as capital that can then be lent out in mortgages and small business loans. (That's how the bank earns interest to pay on your account.)

One of our current problems is a lack of capital. Putting that money into a savings account will put a lot of people -- in YOUR community -- back to work.

When people pay down debt, all they're really doing is recharging their capacity to spend. If people pay down their debt, you're likely to see a resultant increase in consumer confidence, which also would be good for this economy.

mt

And yet you still do not get it....

Put 6k in savings it might mean MAYBE 1k more in loans IF THAT. because banks are mostly just hording the money not loaning it out.

Paying down debt and then going out and spending it what got us in this mess in the first place so it solves nothing. Again it translate into very limited money back into the economy and for those people yet again MAYBE 1k out of 6k. So yet again very limited shot to increase anything.

It is a standard problem is giving people money in the form of tax breaks or just giving it to them how much of it is put back into the economy. the more you give the less of each dollar that is put back in. An example is give some one 20 bucks safe bet it will all be spent.

Give some one a 100 it is safer to bet that 20 or more will be saved netting 80 cents or less on the dollar. A 6k that could be a maybe 50 cents on the dollar if not less.

That is a pretty poor return.

[mysterytramp]

Put 6k in savings it might mean MAYBE 1k more in loans IF THAT. because banks are mostly just hording the money not loaning it out.

Actually, they're more likely to keep 1K (or less) in reserve and lend the remainder out. (http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/banking/bank1.htm) There's no profit in hoarding money.

Paying down debt and then going out and spending it what got us in this mess in the first place so it solves nothing.

I think you're conflating the issues. We have long-term problems, but the stimulus plan won't solve them. We have short-term problems, and the stimulus can try to solve those.

We need people working. When people spend, it means jobs are created (or at least retained).

We need to loosen up credit. When people save, it means jobs are created, through mortgages and small business loans.

Believe me, I get it. The stimulus needs a follow up that targets long-range infrastructure projects, that encourages more saving, that creates more jobs, that restructures our economy. But in the short term, to have a 60- to 120-day effect on unemployment and on credit, the best thing to do is put money in our pockets.

mt

[Rodimus Prime]

Actually, they're more likely to keep 1K (or less) in reserve and lend the remainder out. (http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/banking/bank1.htm) There's no profit in hoarding money.



I think you're conflating the issues. We have long-term problems, but the stimulus plan won't solve them. We have short-term problems, and the stimulus can try to solve those.

We need people working. When people spend, it means jobs are created (or at least retained).

We need to loosen up credit. When people save, it means jobs are created, through mortgages and small business loans.

Believe me, I get it. The stimulus needs a follow up that targets long-range infrastructure projects, that encourages more saving, that creates more jobs, that restructures our economy. But in the short term, to have a 60- to 120-day effect on unemployment and on credit, the best thing to do is put money in our pockets.

mt

One problem with you link. Does not apply in today's climate. Banks are currently hording money. Banks are trying to build up the reserve as they prepare for more write downs......

Sorry but you are wrong yet again.

[Desertrat]

"We need to loosen up credit. When people save, it means jobs are created, through mortgages and small business loans."

True, but Rodimus Prime is correct. And those who are lending aren't anywhere near as free and easy as in the past. For instance, homebuyers are now being faced with the old days' rational requirement of 20% down and payments within a reasonable percentage of monthly income. Used to be, that was around 25% of net take-home pay. That's the way it was some forty years ago when I first bought a house.

Small business people aren't about to borrow beyond operating line-of-credit money. In times like these, expansion is out of the question.

[mysterytramp]

You and Rodimus are assuming that little will change after the government pumps these hundreds of billions into the economy. Bush's $60 billion stimulus earlier in the year was indeed too little and its effect was limited. Now we're talking hundreds of billions. Much will change.

Check the credit markets now ... credit is already loosening a little. Bank of America has mortgage rates of about 4.5 percent on a 30-year fixed. That's a sure sign they want to lend.

As for small businesses ... Expansion is not out of the question for lots of people. Sure, lots of people shouldn't extend themselves. But lots of others have golden opportunities. Labor costs are down. B2B suppliers are desperate for business. Commercial real estate is in the toilet, which means a company should get office space for a song.

And the businesses that do expand will be able to capitalize on the spending that comes with the stimulus package.

mt

[Desertrat]

Sure, 4.5% on a 30-years is an indicator, but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts it's not a zero-down deal--and so the clientele is a far more limited group. As it is, we have an 11-month inventory of new homes, as well as the inventory of existing for-sale stuff. Ya gotta have customers who can repay.

And I submit that only a relatiely few will try to expand or begin businesses in the "cheap rent" which is becoming available. The psychology, the mood, is militating against that. Too many people facing layoffs, with many more to come. The news is full of interviews where folks are hollering that they're hanging on to every penny they can.

Again, remember that public works stimulus is not a new idea. It didn't work in the 1930s, either, nor in Japan during these last 18 years.

I'm not trying to be hostile, but, mysterytramp, give me some examples of sectors or businesses which look to you to warrant expansion or startup which would result from consumer spending. Next, how much in general employment, nationwide, would your selections employ?

'Rat

[mysterytramp]

Sure, 4.5% on a 30-years is an indicator, but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts it's not a zero-down deal--and so the clientele is a far more limited group. As it is, we have an 11-month inventory of new homes, as well as the inventory of existing for-sale stuff. Ya gotta have customers who can repay.

No disagreements here. BoA is definitely fishing for the people who have good credit who can put a sizable chunk down. It might be years before we see zero down deals, but then, lots of those were subprime and I doubt we'll see another subprime market like we had over the last few years.

And I submit that only a relatiely few will try to expand or begin businesses in the "cheap rent" which is becoming available. The psychology, the mood, is militating against that. Too many people facing layoffs, with many more to come. The news is full of interviews where folks are hollering that they're hanging on to every penny they can.

I don't disagree with much of what you say. Just that, when you hear someone on the news moaning on the economy, do they own a business or do they work for someone else. These are two different mindsets, and the latter probably gets more air time. You're right though, lots of people who own businesses won't have the opportunity to expand. Some (and I think lots) will.

... give me some examples of sectors or businesses which look to you to warrant expansion or startup which would result from consumer spending. Next, how much in general employment, nationwide, would your selections employ?

Second question first ... small business drives the American economy. So while no one example will mean 100s being employed, together it will mean thousands. Maybe thousands won't wipe out the 5 million jobs wiped out, but it's a good start.

First question ... I wouldn't expect another technological revolution to emerge from someone's garage. That business model today relies too heavily on venture capital and VC is too skittish right now. What you might see, however, is movement to refill the staples that went under as the economy tanked. Someone buying an empty corner grocery, someone moving into landscaping or home improvement. A lot of those jobs evaporated with the downturn. They'll return as people realize they need others to mow grass or repair homes.

BTW ... CNN has had a couple of "good news" stories about the economy recently. The reopening of an Archway bakery in Ohio and tradesmen finding jobs in South Florida. Definitely small items that could get swamped if GM or Ford file for bankruptcy. Still, they're good signs that even if the economy hasn't hit bottom, we're a resilient nation.

Here's some bad news (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/12/60minutes/main4666112.shtml) from 60 Minutes. Resetting ARMs are definitely something to be concerned about, but I think if the stimulus is crafted correctly, a lot of this can be avoided.

mt

[SactoGuy18]

What is acela going to do to reduce travel time in NE US?

Remember, on the Northeast Corridor line between Washington, DC and New York City, the Acela trains have to co-exist with freight trains and local commuter trains using the same tracks. By adding in more tracks and putting in the latest state-of-the-art signalling systems, Amtrak could substantially cut the travel time between NYC and DC, which makes this train an even more viable competitor against the Washington, DC-New York City shuttle flights.

[Desertrat]

mysterytramp, sure, even in the '30s there were folks who kept on keeping on with some degree of success. And new startups. For that matter, check Google or Wikipedia for Templeton of the Templeton Fund, who worked the stock market for a lot of profit during the Depression.

I just don't see it as significant, overall. Helpful for some percentage, sure.

My crossed-fingers hope is that the current policy doesn't make bad times last longer than they otherwise might. I hear, among other scary things, that there is some protectionist talk in Congress. "Oh, crap, it's Smoot/Hawley revisited!"

So, a lot of, "I dunno." There have been so many hundreds of billions of dollars of write-off losses; so many trilllions of dollars of stock market equity losses (32, last count) and so much creation of money. These are unprecedented in history, according to a helluva lot of analysts. When all these things come together at a time of little or no personal savings and an awful lot of non-mortgage debt, I don't see any short-term good happenings.

[Eraserhead]

Remember, on the Northeast Corridor line between Washington, DC and New York City, the Acela trains have to co-exist with freight trains and local commuter trains using the same tracks. By adding in more tracks and putting in the latest state-of-the-art signalling systems, Amtrak could substantially cut the travel time between NYC and DC, which makes this train an even more viable competitor against the Washington, DC-New York City shuttle flights.

What is substantial? How many hours/minutes?

Christ even Vietnam rail has numbers for the speedup of the Saigon-Hanoi "shinkansen" when it's finished in the next few years.

[mactastic]

Let's assume we're talking 10 times the amount Bush put forth earlier in the year. A family of four could be receiving $18,000 -- $6k for two adults, $3K for each kid. That's a hell of a leg up on problems. If they're upside down on their mortgage, you're right, the money won't help. But that's an equity problem, not a cash problem. The best thing to do is just hang on to the property and wait. This is a stimulus plan, not a fix-all-our-problems plan.

If people blow through it -- the spending will keep the providers of goods and services working, and prop up sales tax revenues. If people save it -- the savings will fuel investment into the community. And calling it charity is, frankly, demeaning.
It's called charity when the government gives money to people for doing nothing. At least that's what I've learned from the conservatives in this forum. I'm sorry if you object to the term.

And here's where I think there's a fundamental problem with this debate. As beneficial as these forward-looking projects may be, the task at hand is to jumpstart the economy now. The Obama administration wants projects that can put people to work in 60 to 120 days. Some of these projects will need at least a year to go through the environmental review. Like I said upstream, governments don't do FAST. We're going to end up with a stimulus plan that fills a lot of potholes and that's about it.

mt
First of all, there are a lot of potholes than can be filled while large projects are fast-tracked. Enough to be able to develop a workforce during the time it takes to bid them anyway.
Actually, they're more likely to keep 1K (or less) in reserve and lend the remainder out. (http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/banking/bank1.htm) There's no profit in hoarding money.



I think you're conflating the issues. We have long-term problems, but the stimulus plan won't solve them. We have short-term problems, and the stimulus can try to solve those.

We need people working. When people spend, it means jobs are created (or at least retained).

We need to loosen up credit. When people save, it means jobs are created, through mortgages and small business loans.

Believe me, I get it. The stimulus needs a follow up that targets long-range infrastructure projects, that encourages more saving, that creates more jobs, that restructures our economy. But in the short term, to have a 60- to 120-day effect on unemployment and on credit, the best thing to do is put money in our pockets.

mt

And second, if memory serves, the Bush economic stimulus package wherein he gave $600.00 to each of us cost something on the order of $150 billion. So it appears here that you are suggesting that we hand out $1.5 trillion on the assumption (and hope) that people would spend most of it, and then follow that up with hundreds of billions if not another trillion of additional spending on infrastructure work and "encouraging savings"?

Have you not heard of Congressional Republicans? They won't give automakers one thin dime, yet you expect them to provide the votes to give Americans free money on this scale?

Not necessarily. After all, many of FDR's projects were fast-tracked, especially the massive Tennessee Valley Authority dam-building projects (the TVA single-handedly improved the economy of the southeastern USA with all the dams providing agricultural irrigation and electric power). The Obama Administration could "fast track" many important projects, including a number of environmental restoration projects that require a lot of manpower (I cite for example dismantling a number of obsolete dams on the Klamath River in Oregon and the dismantling of O'Shaughnessy Dam insider Yosemite National Park and raising the height of Don Pedro Dam on the Tuolumne River in compensation). Other projects include substantial infrastructure improvements to Amtrak's Northeast Corridor for faster Acela train service, a LOT more federal funding for expanded public transit (I for one would love to see a big expansion of Sacramento Regional Transit light rail and the building of trolley service between West Sacramento and downtown Sacramento :) ).

The 1930's was a golden age of many public works projects, and the Obama Adminstration could create another golden age of such projects.
For those unfamiliar with the term "fast-tracked", it is a means of project delivery wherein construction actually begins before final plans are complete. Plans for portions of the work are often finished only shortly before that phase of work is to begin. The overall design and concept for the project is set, but construction documents are the portion of the design phase that takes the longest.

It is advantageous to the owner to pay higher A/E fees for this type of delivery method when interest rates are high, and in other situations were time is a major factor in overall project costs.

[mysterytramp]

It's called charity when the government gives money to people for doing nothing. At least that's what I've learned from the conservatives in this forum. I'm sorry if you object to the term.

I do object because this was our money to begin with. Is a tax refund charity?

And second, if memory serves, the Bush economic stimulus package wherein he gave $600.00 to each of us cost something on the order of $150 billion. So it appears here that you are suggesting that we hand out $1.5 trillion on the assumption (and hope) that people would spend most of it, and then follow that up with hundreds of billions if not another trillion of additional spending on infrastructure work and "encouraging savings"?

I believe the figure is actually $60 billion. I believe the larger figures include the other add-ons that were included in the legislation. Regardless, it is what it is. And as I've said, give the money to us. We'll spend or save. Either is good for the economy.

Have you not heard of Congressional Republicans? They won't give automakers one thin dime, yet you expect them to provide the votes to give Americans free money on this scale?

First, if only because of their numbers, the GOP will be largely irrelevant in this debate, particularly in the House. Some Republican senators objected to the auto bailout, but that was when most of the country was focused on the holidays. Now that we're ready for real news, the objecting senators will fold like cheap suits as soon the Democrats crank up their PR machines to point out their objections are probably because U.S. support for American auto companies will hurt the Japanese auto plants in their states.

Like cheap suits.

mt

[mactastic]

I do object because this was our money to begin with. Is a tax refund charity?
It is when it's financed by borrowing from your children.

I believe the figure is actually $60 billion. I believe the larger figures include the other add-ons that were included in the legislation. Regardless, it is what it is. And as I've said, give the money to us. We'll spend or save. Either is good for the economy.
And, as I've said, spending will not happen, and saving will not help the economy.

First, if only because of their numbers, the GOP will be largely irrelevant in this debate, particularly in the House. Some Republican senators objected to the auto bailout, but that was when most of the country was focused on the holidays. Now that we're ready for real news, the objecting senators will fold like cheap suits as soon the Democrats crank up their PR machines to point out their objections are probably because U.S. support for American auto companies will hurt the Japanese auto plants in their states.

Like cheap suits.

mt
You have far more faith in the power of the Democrats than I do. Based on previous actions, the Democrats are far more likely to fold like cheap suits; and Republicans are far more likely to be able to get their way despite their lack of a majority.

Have the Democrats gone to the mat and prevailed against Republican wishes on more than a handful of legislation in the 110th Congress?

[mysterytramp]

You have far more faith in the power of the Democrats than I do.

No, I have faith in arithmetic.

mt

[mactastic]

No, I have faith in arithmetic.

mt
And apparently no answer to my question...

[mysterytramp]

And apparently no answer to my question...

I assume you mean this question:

Have the Democrats gone to the mat and prevailed against Republican wishes on more than a handful of legislation in the 110th Congress?

Since "arithmetic" was insufficient ...

Legislatively, "gone to the mat" is hard to define. Best I could come up with "passed in the face of certain veto." Here are nine (count #3 twice; I counted #2 just once, because his previous stem cell veto was in the 109th Congress, I believe):

1) Iraq war timeline, included in legislation to finance Iraq war and provide aid in the wake of Katrina. Legislation was vetoed by Bush and timeline removed.

2) Stem cell research, also vetoed.

3) SCHIP, passed twice, vetoed twice. Override attempts failed.

4) A water resources measured that was overridden in the Senate but not the House.

5) The November 2007 funding for Labor, HHS, Education and other agencies. Bush nixed the measure, in part because it would ban thimerosol from childhood flu vaccines.

6) A ban on waterboarding, vetoed by Bush.

7) Farm bill, both chambers overrode the veto.

8) And then just last July, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. Overridden by both chambers.

In my book, nine equals "more than a handful." But who cares? There are something like 233 Dems in the House and 57 D's in the Senate. The D's have the White House. The power structure in Washington today makes what the Democrats did or didn't do over the previous two years irrelevant.

mt

[mactastic]

I assume you mean this question:



Since "arithmetic" was insufficient ...
If you notice, "arithmetic" was insufficient on many issues favored by the left, despite control over Congress for the past 2 years.

Legislatively, "gone to the mat" is hard to define. Best I could come up with "passed in the face of certain veto." Here are nine (count #3 twice; I counted #2 just once, because his previous stem cell veto was in the 109th Congress, I believe):

1) Iraq war timeline, included in legislation to finance Iraq war and provide aid in the wake of Katrina. Legislation was vetoed by Bush and timeline removed.

2) Stem cell research, also vetoed.

3) SCHIP, passed twice, vetoed twice. Override attempts failed.

4) A water resources measured that was overridden in the Senate but not the House.

5) The November 2007 funding for Labor, HHS, Education and other agencies. Bush nixed the measure, in part because it would ban thimerosol from childhood flu vaccines.

6) A ban on waterboarding, vetoed by Bush.

7) Farm bill, both chambers overrode the veto.

8) And then just last July, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. Overridden by both chambers.

In my book, nine equals "more than a handful." But who cares? There are something like 233 Dems in the House and 57 D's in the Senate. The D's have the White House. The power structure in Washington today makes what the Democrats did or didn't do over the previous two years irrelevant.

mt
Very few of those are wins for the Democrats. Most were vetoed, which does not count as a legislative "win".

If you'll notice, Harry Reid has caved already a couple times this year alone. He's allowed Mitch McConnel's fillibuster threat against seating Franken to convince him not to seek to seat Franken, and he's completely made an ass out of himself in the Burris affair.

I remain unconvinced that the Democrats' numerical advantage will translate into steamrolling over the Republican wishes at will.

[mysterytramp]

II remain unconvinced that the Democrats' numerical advantage will translate into steamrolling over the Republican wishes at will.

You're being cynical for cynicism's sake. You're ignoring:

1) Obama was elected winning over Red states, including four Clinton didn't get in 1996 (Colorado, Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia)

2) He got 45 percent or better in seven other Red states (Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina and South Dakota).

3) The loyal opposition will give him his honeymoon.

4) Even Pat Robertson (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/23/pat-robertson-remarkably_n_153188.html) is gushing.

Last, and possibly most important:

5) The GOP lacks any magic beans.

Republicans are irrelevant in the short term. They'll have to wait until Obama makes a major misstep. Reid, Pelosi and other congressional Democrats will go along for the ride.

mt

[mactastic]

You're being cynical for cynicism's sake. You're ignoring:

1) Obama was elected winning over Red states, including four Clinton didn't get in 1996 (Colorado, Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia)

2) He got 45 percent or better in seven other Red states (Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina and South Dakota).

3) The loyal opposition will give him his honeymoon.

4) Even Pat Robertson (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/23/pat-robertson-remarkably_n_153188.html) is gushing.

Last, and possibly most important:

5) The GOP lacks any magic beans.

Republicans are irrelevant in the short term. They'll have to wait until Obama makes a major misstep. Reid, Pelosi and other congressional Democrats will go along for the ride.

mt
I wish I was just being cynical for cynicism's sake.

You're ignoring:
1) The Democratic caucus is notoriously easy to split.

2) The Republican caucus moves in lockstep quite readily.

3) Democrats have shown themselves time and again to be spineless when charges of being weak on terrorism or support of the troops.

4) People like DiFi and Jay Rockefeller are already busy stabbing their own party in the back, hamstringing Obama's national security nominees.

5) The loyal opposition will not be giving Obama any honeymoon.

And perhaps most importantly,

6) Harry Reid is an ineffective leader. The Senate is where legislation will rise or fall for Obama, and he won't have much help from the likes of Harry Reid -- a guy who is up for re-election in a conservative state in '10; and who will be under tremendous pressure to appease the right in order to stave off a serious challenge to his seat.

[SactoGuy18]

6) Harry Reid is an ineffective leader. The Senate is where legislation will rise or fall for Obama, and he won't have much help from the likes of Harry Reid -- a guy who is up for re-election in a conservative state in '10; and who will be under tremendous pressure to appease the right in order to stave off a serious challenge to his seat.

You're not the only one to say so--a LOT of Democrats think that way, too. I'm surprised nobody has suggested Charles Schumer as Senate Majority Leader.

[rasmasyean]

Updating on status of infrastructure plan...

Educause, an advocacy group focused on IT use in higher education, called for a $100 billion broadband program in a policy paper (http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EPO0801.pdf) released a year ago. The Educause plan would bring 100Mbps broadband to every home and business in the U.S., and it called on the U.S. government to provide about a third of the money, with private funders making up the rest.


Full Story here: Billions for Broadband in Stimulus Bill Appear Likely (http://www.pcworld.com/article/157085/article.html?tk=nl_dnxnws)