Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: NYT article: Obama to call for $50 billion spending on public works

  1. #1
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Dec 2006
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    2,785

    NYT article: Obama to call for $50 billion spending on public works

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/us...7obama.html?hp

    Exceprt:
    "Mr. Obama’s new plan [separate from the stimulus] is different because it would focus on a “long-term vision” as well as create jobs in the near term.

    It was not included in the original $787 billion stimulus program in early 2009 because the administration and Congressional Democratic leaders wanted to pass that package as quickly as possible, given how rapidly the economy was sinking in the weeks before Mr. Obama took office. Changes in the way public projects are determined and financed would have met resistance in the large committees of Congress that have jurisdiction."

    I am wondering if the article is talking about renewing SAFETEA-LU, which was started under Bush but was not renewed under Obama?

    What are your thoughts?
    "This is great, honey. What's the crunchy stuff?"
    "M&Ms. I ran out of paprika."

    Family Guy

  2. #2
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    May 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    37
    This will get little, if any, support from Republicans, so it's probably dead on arrival.

  3. #3
    Cyburbia Administrator Dan's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 1996
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    14,527
    Blog entries
    3
    If it passes, it means even more opportunities for transportation planners and NEPA specialists, kind of like what we've been seeing with the first stimulus.
    Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell. -- Edward Abbey

  4. #4
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Dec 2006
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    2,785
    That sounds good to me
    "This is great, honey. What's the crunchy stuff?"
    "M&Ms. I ran out of paprika."

    Family Guy

  5. #5
    Cyburbian illinoisplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    The Fox Valley
    Posts
    4,640
    Blog entries
    1
    Sure, why not spend another $50 billion we don't have. Because the $100 billion for infrastructure with the first stimulus created so many jobs. Not.

    Yeah, I really envision all the people laid off from office jobs and manufacturing jobs with absolutely no experience constructing roads whatsoever are going to all of a sudden find work digging dirt or reviewing engineering plans.

    This is merely a political ploy and a kickback to provide more work for the existing labor unions, whose support Obama desperately needs.
    "Life's a journey, not a destination"
    -Steven Tyler

  6. #6
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    May 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    37
    Infrastructure actually provides a very strong job multiplier (up to 17,000 direct jobs per billion dollars). This proposal has very little chance of getting through a filibuster though.

    Here's a good short report on the economic benefits and need for infrastructure investment.

    http://www.newamerica.net/sites/newa...h%20Agenda.pdf

+ Reply to thread

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 1
    Last post: 30 Sep 2012, 12:12 PM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last post: 18 Mar 2009, 11:51 AM
  3. Replies: 58
    Last post: 19 Dec 2008, 11:45 AM
  4. Replies: 9
    Last post: 18 Jan 2007, 5:30 PM
  5. Replies: 14
    Last post: 04 Jan 2007, 9:27 AM