Romney a Lock - You Can Put it On the Board YESSSS!!

No. I disagree with the political game as it is currently constructed.

Each side plays to their constituency. That's what has to end.

 

I'd throw money at every infrastructure project there was before I'd provide another nickel in tax cuts for the wealthy.

 

What you call, "policies (that) would have had very real benefits for sectors of employment that are more highly populated with women and minorities," I call the Federal Government subsidizing state, and local budgets to pay the salaries of their workers.

That's the same thing as just giving them cash.

Plus, it just kicks the problem down the road. And, as we've seen, often when the Feds to give local governments money for these purposes, they don't spend it as planned, since they know they won't have it available in the next budget cycle.

And, based on the demographics of any industry, you could formulate "policies that would help" various ethnic, religious, racial, etc. groups by funding jobs, or research in a particular industry.

Not doing so doesn't mean you're "not helping" them.

 

Which helps contractors and construction workers -- the demographics of which skew heavily white, and male.

So, how do you defend that spending, when other groups come calling?

 

Not advocating this spending, while simultaneously advocating tax cuts for people who are wealthy beyond belief, is not only choosing winners and losers, it is choosing to let the winners run up the score. Both of them blow a hole in the budget and add to the debt. One of them is acceptable to the GOP.

 

A. Plenty of minority folks work construction.
B. It's work that's necessary and long overdue.

Again, what wouldn't happen is a continuation of tax breaks for the wealthy. That would be the expenditure I couldn't defend.

 

Economic end-zone dancing.

 

Compared to the number of whites? What's the percentage of women on a road crew?

Contractors too, are not usually an economically depressed group.

OK, so why wasn't the money already allocated at the State or Local level if it was so necessary, and overdue? What were they spending their money on instead?

And, why should the Feds step in and fund their projects when they wouldn't? Doesn't that just reward poor money management and planning?

They spend irresponsibly on other priorities, but still get their infrastructure projects funded?

Also, how do we choose?

If you build an additional runway at O'Hare, that helps Chicago, but hurts Atlanta. If I build a new bridge or highway exit, it helps those communities, but potentially at the expense of others.

Do we have a process that would fairly and equitably distribute these funds, or would projects get funds based on money, politics, and influence?

So, why didn't we end the tax breaks when they were set to expire? Didn't President Obama himself say ending them would have hurt the economy.

I'm all for "fairness", but not for "fairness" sake. A new tax, or raising a current one, has to actually bring in additional revenue, and at a higher rate than doing nothing would. It has to factor in the negative impact as well.

If it actually will work, fine. Propose it. Sell it. Prove it. But, don't raise taxes to make people "feel" better.

It's easy to make us all poor. Growing the economy is the hard part.

 

You get a new road or bridge through infrastructure. With tax breaks, you get to watch some buffoon in a yacht who calls himself "Captain".

 

And, a new bridge or road doesn't benefit some people or localities at the expense of others?

 

There's a ton to be done. Don't think it'll be too tough to demonstrate marked geographic balance.

 

You don't have to look further than Alaska GOP Congressman Don Young, and his earmarking Federal funds for a highway interchange in Florida that would benefit a developer/fundraiser.

That's a great process.