But the red tape did stand in the way during the stimulus. As the President had to admit, “there are no shovel ready projects”.
Also, why wouldn’t you also anticipate most regulations passing? The government also has to go with the cheapest bidders on projects in most cases. Couldn’t it be argued that cost shouldn’t be the primary consideration for infrastructure projects, but rather quality?
But the stimulus projects were completed. The red tape did not prevent completion of the projects.
A well planned project has quality specifications built in. All bidders must meet the same standards and specifications.
It’s not stimulus if it provides jobs years later.
I’d also note that on Keystone, we’re now going on 5 years of red tape. I’m not sure why this is appropriate for projects but not for regulations, which are just as costly and hurt real people.
Since when? All federal investments in infrastructure are stimulative.
The idea was to provide fiscal stimulus in the face of a terrible recession in 2009, not to provide fiscal stimulus in 2012.
But at least now we know, so next time a politician tells us that we must pass a stimulus right the hell now, we know they aren’t being fully honest with us.
Oh, you want to limit discussion to The Stimulus, not the stimulus of federal spending. I was thinking a little larger than one economic blip. Federal spending stimulates the economy; we should do more of it. That is my thesis.
I am not sure that is a solid argument. The economy could have been bollixed for years, creating long-term effects could be seen as simply a broadening of the stimulus, to make it more robust. If you think you can fix an economic catastrophe in short order, well, that is just stupid.
Keystone must be approved by Congress and the president, that is more than a little different than red tape. And the real people hurt by it number in the dozens or hundreds, which is better than thousands or millions. Gas is pretty cheap for us right now because we cannot seem to get rid of it, try selling that as a bad thing (it is, really, but more expensive motor fuel is a pretty hard sell for Americans).
Not exactly. ARRA was intended to both save and create jobs right away and also to provide temporary relief to those most impacted. That it was unable to do so immediately was because there was not enough money funneled into the stimulus, not because it was a bad idea. But it was also intended for some longer range programs. Spending for infrastructure projects unfortunately takes time, as the engineering and construction aspects of building things like bridges, etc. is complicated. Parts of the stimulus bill were earmarked for longer term things like energy, education and technological advances, as well. To quote two of the objectives:
Had more money been allocated, more could have been directed to immediate relief measures. There was plenty of blame to go around for that oversight.
I have to admit this seems to be a bit of a non-sequitur, since most road construction projects are approved, funded, etc at the state or local level.
That said, this particular bill seems completely ineffective as written, and will only lead to increased paperwork and hearings. You’re welcome to read it and make your own decision. But as I read it (and it’s dense, so I have no doubt I’m reading it at least 50% wrong) it just makes the agencies that already have rule-making power file some more paperwork when they make rules.
It seems to me, and perhaps I’m being a bit obtuse, that if you want to restrict the rule-making authority of, for example, the EPA, the right way to do it is to pass legislation restricting the rule-making authority of the EPA. Just making it a bigger and more costly headache for the EPA to make rules is kind of bullshit, right?
It’s like passing a law that requires everyone to call the ACA “the job-killing health-care law”. It doesn’t really do anything.
Must See TV!!
Ben Carson embarrasses himself again, this time comparing ISIS to American patriotswilling to die for their freedom. He somehow segues that into an attack on political correctness, because I dunno, he’s a crazy nut. This is the same guy who in 2013 called Obamacare the worst thing in America since slavery, because I guess he thinks being allowed to see a doctor and getting treatment for a cold is as bad as being tied to a tree and whipped.
Chug if she pauses during her speech to castrate a farm animal.
Textbook neo-Republican strategery: is it stupid? Double Down!
(gotta stop letting Texas design the textbooks)
. . . Well, they are willing to die for something but I wouldn’t call it that . . .
Gun nuts stage paintball-simulation of Charlie Hebdo massacre. The difference being, two of the “staff” were armed with their own paintball guns. Because the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun . . .
Well. Everybody died anyway.
Are you trying to tell me that it’s harder to survive in a shooting gallery by being a hero, than removing yourself from the situation? That’s un-'Murican! :mad:
Interesting that this failed under the most favorable possible circumstances — the “hero” knew that an attack was coming, he was personally acquainted with all the innocent victims, and the bad guys were very obviously the bad guys, so he knew whom to shoot.
But in the normal dream scenario of the gun nuts, they are in a store or restaurant, minding their own business, when the shooting starts somewhere nearby, and they rush to the rescue. They don’t know the people under attack, and the shooters may not be wearing ski masks and carrying assault rifles; they may just be wearing normal clothes, and using pistols.
In that case, if multiple gunmen start shooting, and local heroes start shooting back, how does a new hero arriving on the scene know who the bad guys are?
I mean, assuming none of them are black.