President Obama's New, Bad Economic Plan

President Obama's desire to spend another 50 billion dollars on roads, rail and runways seems like a Chicago machine politics kickback of times past to support local projects. Boeing headquartered in Chicago needs runways there are lots of asphalt roads and of course railroads also exist. These are stale areas to invest in, and puzzling.

The rest of the President's 350 billion dollar economic crap shoot seems to be less bad and has more potential to be of use for non-corporate business in the U.S.A.

The present U.S. national debt is 13.28 trillion dollars. It is scheduled to rise to 18.4 trillion dollars by the year 2014. That is bad news. Interest must be paid on those trillions that cannot be used for services to the poor, a moon research base or tax cuts for the poor (poor self-employed people must pay 10% tax even if there is no work--owing from the year before).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

President Obama suggests not to worry about the added debt or how to pay for it. On Demo talk radio this morning a host was saying that the nation's budget can easily stand another trillion or two of debt and that foreigners buying T-bills at less than 4% interest are not concerned about the debt---that all seems like traditionally spoilt and profligate economic management.

Deep national debt is an invariable evil and the consequence of bad and corrupt political-economic leadership. If the house of the nation collapses around them in flames eventually, I suppose they can stoically endure that with post-modernist detachment--even if it gets worse.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0719946120100907

It is the poor that will suffer from the bi-partisan perfidy of Democratic and Republican administrations.They will have no competent health care, they will be homeless and live in the penury of poverty without books, privacy, high speed internet access or the opportunity to date and invent birthing of new technologies locally owned.

The Democrats blame the Republicans for the economic mess. Yet the structuring of the mortgage and finance crisis was pervasively that of President Clinton who signed off on things like the repeal of Glass-Steagle. President Clinton structured a rotten economic profit talking flam economy in the 90's that made the nation a leaky economic bucket.

When banks are fundamentally unreliable where can an ordinary individual put their money for safekeeping and a modest rate of return of interest? The Clinton administration made banks and Wall Street bunk establishments through a variety of means. President Obama has brought back that Larry Summers school of bunk profit taking to set up another round of disasters.

Of course we know that President Bush II was unconcerned about the federal deficit in his headlong rush to enrich the military industrial complex with badly thought out foreign protracted engagements in conflict areas. A smart President like Ronald Reagan who seemed to understand human affairs a little better than subsequent Presidents who not have lost trillions to pursue Al Qa'eda, but would have kicked them anyway.

In Pakistan Al Qa'eda seems to be enjoying a second life post 9-11 in the terror underground while a new generation of terrorists under their loose leadership can enact winning tactics to trim U.S. interests. The Republicans gave President Clinton good advice inn saying he should fire his economic team--he should, and replace it with more innovative and competent ecological economic innovators determined to balance the federal budget, close up the leaky Mexican border and invest in projects that create U.S. national economic advantage with new technology infrastructure. The Presidential plan to invest in century old infrastructure was a union-corporatism venture. Highways support foreign made automobile industries...I would like for auto makers, airlines and railroads to pay for their own lines to run on or land on. When the people pay for them that is a foundation for corporatism. Corporatism is a global phenomenon today and extracts cash from the United States.

The other problem with the President’s immediate economic approaches is his reliance on making the middle class a wheedling opponent of the rich. If the medical plan he forced on the nation had been set aside until after a National Health Service for the poor was created many of the problems the middle class experience would have faded away. When the poor are left hanging twisting slowly in the wind in the U.S.A. problems will inevitably arise for the middle class. The rich are no more a friend of the middle class than they are of the poor.