Chuck Schumer: Focus on Obamacare was wrong.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Didn't health care come after the stimulus?

Yes, but the stimulus was passed relatively quickly while the healthcare debate took up much of late-2009 and early-2010.

I'm not sure what else Schumer wanted them to specifically focus on regarding the economy (a bigger stimulus? tax reform? regulatory reform? more job training programs? Higher education reform? He doesn't say) after ARRA passed, but I can see what he means when the public perception was that Dems were focusing too much on healthcare when the economy was bottoming out during that same timeframe.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Here's some interesting critique of the stimulus package: it was primarily focused on funding social programs (health care, education, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other social services) instead of "shovel-ready" jobs in infrastructure, construction, and manufacturing that the administration sold it on.

In fact, only 15% of the $360 billion in spending was spent on actual infrastructure projects ($425 billion was tax cuts). That's $54 billion to be divided amongst 50 states + DC.

I guess that's also a possible reason why Obama and the Dems haven't done so well amongst working class whites as well, because they relied on those jobs while stimulus funds went to sectors in the service economy that benefited Democratic groups. Of course, that's just speculation.

This article comes off as anti-feminist, but if you can put that aside it does make some good points: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/659dkrod.asp?page=2

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Here's some interesting critique of the stimulus package: it was primarily focused on funding social programs (health care, education, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other social services) instead of "shovel-ready" jobs in infrastructure, construction, and manufacturing that the administration sold it on.

That's hardly a fault given that some of those social programs would have ended altogether if the federal government had not provided them with funds at a time when state and municipal budgets were strained. There is nothing inherently virtuous about infrastructure spending, particularly when it is as poorly targeted as some projects funded by the stimulus were.

I never claimed that, and I never claimed that it was wrong to fund social programs, but whatever.

Most of the jobs lost during the recession were in construction and manufacturing. During the recession (and before the stimulus), the service sectors I mentioned were adding jobs. Sure, some of the social spending was good, but that's not what the Obama administration solid it on, and when you consider the fact that the American Society of Civil Engineers grades our infrastructure with a "D" and estimates we have to invest a whopping $3.6 trillion through 2020 to bring it up to date, and how improving our infrastructure not only provides an immediate boost to the economy, but also improves efficiency in transport and energy, and the fact that manufacturing and construction jobs pay much better than the aforementioned service sectors, yeah I'd say in this case the stimulus should've focused more on spending.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

The American Society of Civil Engineers is notorious for pushing overbuilt and unnecessary projects. Their scaremongering "report cards"¹ are essentially transparent lobbying and propaganda on behalf of an organization whose members would directly and disproportionately benefit from increased infrastructure spending.

¹To give you an idea of just how lacking in rigor these are, their 2013 report called for increased highway capacity without even mentioning induced demand.

So? Isn't that basically what all these organizations do? I don't see what's wrong with pushing more infrastructure spending, considering what a disaster our infrastructure is. It's not like they're the only ones who call for it.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

I'm not sure what you mean by "all of these organizations,"

Lobbying. AARP lobbies in healthcare. NRA lobbies against gun control. ASCE lobbies in infrastructure. Organizations lobby for their interests.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then what is it? The lack of wise investment? Sure I'd agree with you, but I don't see how that negates my point that the stimulus' focus on social services instead of the infrastructure spending it was sold on could have caused political problems for the Democrats. Seriously, what is even your point? Are you just arguing to be argumentative?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said the spending levels were "disastrous", I said the state of our infrastructure is. That's a viewpoint widely agreed upon. Don't twist my words.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How the ASCE not credible? A professional organization of over 140,000 people is not credible? What is a credible organization to you? How about the IMF calling for more infrastructure spending here in the U.S.? IMF not credible? Urban Land Institute? Congress and the states constantly debating infrastructure spending? The New Deal and Interstate Highway System not radically reshaping the American landscape and economy? Take a drive on our roads, try and use public transportation; it's pretty crappy. How much evidence do you need?