Posted on 08/13/2005 5:52:01 PM PDT by Rodney King
The US administration aims to spend $286 billion on the development of the American transport system
US President George W. Bush released a remarkable statement a short time ago. The remark has not been highlighted in the world media yet, although there is every reason to do so. Bush virtually acknowledged that the USA was experiencing a serious economic crisis. Moreover, the US government was taking immense efforts to avoid a massive outbreak of social uneasiness, the American president believes.
One may come to this conclusion from the newly-signed law about the development of the US transport system. The implementation of the law will cost tax-payers too much money. The US government plans to spend $286 billion on the implementation of the law during the forthcoming six years. Furthermore, Bush had to cut the costs of the law, which originally made up $400 billion. The US Treasury, however, will have to spend only $12.3 billion during ten years to guarantee the energy security and independence within the scope of the recently passed energy policy law. NASA's annual budget makes up $16 billion. Therefore, the sum of $400 billion makes a huge sum of money even from the point of view of American financial standards.
Passing such highly expensive laws is usually accompanied with heated debate, numerous changes and so on and so forth. This time, however, a bill was transformed into a law a lot earlier than usual. As it was supposed, 24 billion dollars were supposed to be used for governmental subsidies to the states, which will be fulfilling the projects of the law. Adversaries of the law said that congressmen and senators would most likely spend the money inappropriately, trying to insinuate their electorate. In addition, many protest against the unwillingness of the US Congress to control the state spending at the moment, when the budgetary shortage is to exceed the record-breaking $333 during the current year.
The law envisages 6,300 special projects in all states: bridges, highways, landscape accomplishment, snowmobile tracks, etc. Is it all so bad with the US infrastructure? George W. Bush released the key statement, which dotted all i's at this point: the law is meant to generate more jobs and give an incentive to the economic development of the USA.
The triumphant leader of the world's strongest superpower would never utter such words. The above-mentioned statements from the American president do not characterize the USA as a great empire. Quite on the contrary, the White House is desperately looking for measures to find employment for crowds of unemployed American citizens and hungry migrants, which threaten to enrage the rest of the States.
There were 9.3 million unemployed American citizens registered in the USA in 2004. The foreign trade shortage of the USA made up $617.73 billion in 2004, which became the record-breaking index for the USA. To crown it all, the US state debt reached unimaginable $7.22 trillion in 2004 too.
All optimistic reports about the rising US economy carry the short-term efficiency only - they are presumably destined to save the demising US dollar. Quarterly changes in the number of the unemployed by 100-200 thousand people do not change the general situation.
The USA has already faced such hard periods in its history. Taking a look back at the previous experience of the USA and estimating the new initiative of the American government, one may thus infer that the law about the transport system is like the last glimmer of hope for the US administration to keep the nation under control.
When massive unemployment put the USA on the brink of survival during the Great Depression of the thirties, the government started funding the development of the transport infrastructure - it became the only way out of the crisis. Highways, on which the government spent billions and billions of dollars, rescued the entire nation. It is worth mentioning that the value of the US dollar used to be lower during that time.
Here is another example, which bears some similarity to the present-day USA. When Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933, Germany was suffering from massive unemployment and helpless economy. Hitler mobilized thousands of the unemployed to build autobahns, which Germany is proud of still. The road construction gave a very powerful impetus to the revival of the German industry. Huge state investments triggered the industrial development, and Germany turned into one of the strongest European superpowers.
The White House is going along the same path now. However, there is a certain aspect, which distinguishes the USA from the above-mentioned examples. Both Hitler's Germany and the USA of the Great Depression period were raising their economies up from the bottom. Nowadays, the USA enjoys the peak of its triumphant development, which is currently being damaged with the flaws of the American economic system. The USA obviously has something to lose.
Of course, the author does not understand the nature of Pork, and what happens if the congress and the president are from the same party, even if they claim to be conservatives.
What the writer doesn't understand is the essential strength of an economy which can survive a succession of socialist hits such as the "Transportation" and "Prescription Drug" bills.
And perhaps I should have capitalized "bills," as in what the taxpayers are forced at gunpoint to cover by their "conservative" President and congress.
I thought I was reading the LA Times.
I just look at the source...
Pravda ---- Russian for SeeBS! :)
For all the talk of Bush "acknowledging the collapsing US economy" in a "remarkable statement" I don't see a single Bush quote in the entire article.
Why even bother looking at "Pravda"? Their credibility is lower than that of supermarket tabloid with the cover page breathlessly informing the onlookers that clintons are space aliens. [Which, BTW, is wrong. Hillary is the third horn of the apocalyptic Beast, and not a space alien].
Typically clueless Pravda.
"breathlessly informing the onlookers that clintons are space aliens"
Now you've done it. Pravda's credibility just went up.
The "hard" Left does understand that Pork is a strain on Capitalism, which is why they support it.
The "soft" Left may be naive as you say, or they simply know that they benefit from working in public sector, and they don't care that they steal from taxpayers as a matter of principle.
I guess Pravda is just jealous there is more socialism here than in Russia.
Man, now this really speaks volumes about the value of free trade among nations, consider: the Soviet Union collapses, and all of those crusty Tass and Pravda Commies who used to crank out all of the Politburo's horseshit are able to find NEW jobs by just moving to North America and getting jobs with the New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Glob, LA Times, etc., and in the spirit of latter day perestroika, the aforementioned newspapers send THEIR 'Rat-trained writers to take over the Pravda and Tass editorial desks!
As Yakov Smirnoff might say "what a (pair of) countries!!!"
LOL. If I worked for Pravda, I might get offended at that.
LOL...this poor Russian thinks the porky transportation bill's cost of 286 Billion over 6 years is going to break us. He must not have Googled our Gross National Product, which currently is over 11 TRILLION dollars. In 2003, the most current figure available, the Purchasing Power Parity per capita was $37,600, while Russia's was $9,300. No need to send us CARE packages, Sergei. Our biggest problem among the "poor" in the US is obesity.
Sort of reminds me of the many media reports of unrest in China and Iran. The hype is always greater than the reality.
Of course, the Russians live in a fantasy world where their leaders consistently refuse to acknowledge problems. So when the American President acknowledges high gas prices, and says he's trying to improve the economy, they are astounded.
Russia criticizing us for too much socialism? :-)
Pravda is probably even out-there to Michael Moore.
I saw the title and expected this to be from Scrappleface
naw he is a editorial writer for them under a pen name. Mikal Mooreski
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.