Yes, I do. Just give him some time. Our best days are not behind us but yet to come.

What's he going to do? Wave his magic wand?

I have hope under new direction, but then I thought McCain would have been just as good for the Economy. He just would have went a different way then I prefer. Hopefully by the time I graduate and do Teach for America, there will more jobs out there that suit my talent and more money for education and health care. That is all I really want out of the Economy for myself. And for my mother SS, she wasn't of a generation born (1953) to expect to have to pay for her retirement. We may be on the outs but I love her and don't want to have to worry about her before I make enough money to pitch out. She's been very selfless and sacrificing taking care of my mentally disabled sisters and as a single mom. She deserves the best retirement care.

Oh great now I'm being personal...I'm out.

I don't know why I capitalized economy. It was more of a compulsion than a typo.

Where is the "Nay - he's less competent than the last guy" option? Our choices are either: 1) Obama is our savior, or 2) Bush just buried us too far. There is a 3rd choice: Obama's government programs will push us further into this hole we are digging, and until the people begin digging themselves out, and the government quits bailing out businesses, instead of the people, we'll continue down the path we are on.

Yes I have hope that Obama can change things around.
Who knows when it will happen but I'm sure it'll come soon.

To me, this has nothing to do with Obama. Even if McCain had won, I would still say no. Yes, the economy is in the crapper, but what goes up, must come down. I know there are a lot of factors as to why, but in some ways, I really believe the economy is just righting itself. It had to happen sometime. I'm sure Obama will pass or veto legislation that can help (or hurt) our current situation... but I really think this is something that will take a lot of time to fix. And I don't think we can hope any one person will fix it for us.

lol dave- very liberal lean going on there. I was thinking the same thing.

I voted other.

I almost had a coronary last week when I read about his plan to boost the economy by pouring money into infrastructure. Has anyone ever seen a new road get built in anything less than an election cycle? In the DC area, the environmentalists have been blocking a very necessary road called the inter-county connector for more than 25 years.

I have also not been impressed by his economic team (Rubin, are you serious?), his 'big spending, fiscal restraint' platform (oxymoron), or his 'economic stimulus' which increases unemployment benefits (how is that encouraging businesses to create more jobs?).

BUT, I did read today that Obama is backtracking on his campaign promise to tax oil company windfall profits, so I have some hope that he has some realistic idea of how to fix things:

www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6143060.html

No. But I don't believe John McCain could've either. It is impossible for one person to undo all of this mess. I always find it funny when U.S. presidents are given undue credit and are unduly attacked for things that are out of their control...and then, when Obama isn't able to make all our wildest dreams come true, we'll vote for a Republican next election. It's such a stupid cycle.

Ugh. Nevermind.

Obama is going through on the middle class tax cuts:

biz.yahoo.com/cnnm/081202/120208_obama_stimulus_taxcut.html?.&.pf=taxes

Yes - spend more money, that's the ticket for debit-ridden Americans! (Yes, I am being sarcastic.)

Wait, I'm getting the feeling that you guys don't think makework projects get us out of the depression.

Didn't it work when FDR did it? That depression only lasted 10-15 years, depending on how you look at it.

Org - I KNOW you know this, but I am not saying this for your benefit.

FDR prolonged the Depression. It was WWII that got us out of it.

So by that logic, Kranky, what we need now is a good, old-fashioned world war? It would do two things, decrease the population (which would decrease our impact on global warming), and get us out of this depression. Makes sense to me. Europe here we come!!

It does seem inevitable sometimes, doesn't it UD? Here's hoping for the best...

Kranky mentioned the intercounty connecter; but when I think of these projects, my mind goes back to the Minnesota bridge collapse.
Last year I read several articles that estimated that 26% of the nations bridges were in need of structural repair or were obsolete. People are driving on roads and bridges that are in disrepair and possibly unsafe. The money to make these improvements is not there. The back log has been building for years. I have no problem with putting people to work doing a neccesary job.

Yes, WWII got us out of the Depression, but that was because we started manufacturing and selling weapons to other countries, not because we entered the war.

I don't think Obama will be able to fix the economy at all. Printing more money to give to people as a 'stimulus' does not make us a richer country. It just devalues our currency and will prolong the recession we're in.

lil-

I'm glad you brought that up. You have stated a common misconception about the state of our bridges. The Minnesota bridge did not collapse because it was old - there was a problem with the engineering. That is a fact.

Here is a link to an op-ed piece (warning: it's Fox!), but there is a pretty cohesive disucssion at the end about the real state of our roadways.

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,459745,00.html

If you don't care to read it based on the source, that's fine (full confession: I don't read NYT articles when posted). But, it does highlight some interesting points: namely, that "structurally deficient" means a need for regular inspections and repairs or upgrades - NOT that they are in danger of collapsing. Also, the percentage of "structurally deficient" bridges has decreased since the 90's because we are already putting a lot of money into road maintenance and repair.

I see this as throwing good money at a situation that does not require it, but others may disagree.

Kranky I am already aware that there was a design flaw. But the collapse brought more attention to the issue of bridge safety and repair. I also never stated that "structually deficient" bridges were on the verge of collapse. Should we wait until a bridge is on its last legs to take an interest? Cracking, corrosion, and miscalculations of weight limits are issues of concern. While improvements have been made there is still a back log of work to be done on our roads and bridges.

I think Obama and his team will get us out, but I think we're going to be in economic pain for several years. Someone's left us with quite a hideous mess, despite his claim that it was going on 'about a decade or so' before he took office.

I forgot to add that I have no problem reading the op-ed piece from foxnews.com.

"I think Obama and his team will get us out, but I think we're going to be in economic pain for several years. Someone's left us with quite a hideous mess, despite his claim that it was going on 'about a decade or so' before he took office."

Once again I agree with you Stephley.

I think the economy is going to right itself, providing Obama doesn't do too much to hinder it. And I would say the same thing if McCain had won. The economy is too big and complex to assign blame or credit to any one person.

Gooniette - That's an even better idea. We can get the other countries to fight each other, and just supply the weapons. That way we can save our troops, and still make money.

lil-

I'm sorry - I did not mean to imply that you used the term 'structurally deficient.' I brought that in more as an example of how this issue has become twisted in the media to seem worse than it actually is.

I do have to question why you brought up the Minnesota bridge in this context if you knew that it was NOT in need of repair.

From my understanding, there are very few bridges that are in danger of collapsing, and it is misleading to say there are and that there are enough of them to cause a huge uptick in current employment numbers (I have read this from a number of different sources). IMO - it is not a great idea to throw money at repairing bridges that may not need it for the sake of employing a miniscule number of people. We don't have money to waste these days.

Like I said before, these are my opinions, and I don't expect everyone to agree with me.

To lil and steph-

Honest question here: what do you think Obama is specifically doing to help the economy along?

I never said there are a lot of bridges about to collapse or in danger of collapsing. Were are you getting this from? I there a number of bridges and road in need of repair. I'd post links about the current condition of roads and bridges but I doubt you'd read them.

Where's the option for "No, if Obama proceeds with even half of his campaign promises, he'll dig us in even deeper"?

The only way to fund national health, infrastructure programs, etc. and still cut taxes is to print more monopoly money and/or borrow from foreign entities.

Do you want China, Russia, and the mideast to own our economy?

Here are remarks by Chris Dodd:

"When the bridge collapsed in Minneapolis, Mayor Rybak was among the first to respond. When the steam pipe exploded in New York City, Mayor Bloomberg was among the first to respond. And when the Mianus River Bridge collapsed in my home state of Connecticut in 1983, I know that several mayors in Fairfield County joined state officials in responding to that tragedy.

Here in Washington, we may cite alarming statistics like the 14,000 Americans who die each year at least in part because of crumbling roads and bridges. Or the 5,500 Americans who are sickened each year from some of the 850 billion gallons of storm water and raw sewage left untreated by obsolete wastewater systems. Or the average American who wastes 51.5 hours a year in traffic congestion.

However, our mayors see these alarming statistics as more than just numbers on a piece of paper. They witness how these statistics play out each and every day in their communities."

" I commend recent and comprehensive efforts undertaken by state and local governments to raise the awareness of our infrastructure needs nationwide – efforts such as Building America’s Future which Mayor Bloomberg has undertaken with Governors Rendell and Schwarzenegger.

The American Society of Engineers estimates that an investment of $1.6 trillion over five years is required just to bring our current infrastructure to an acceptable level. That translates into $320 billion a year – just to upgrade existing structures to serve the needs of our nation."
http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/4457/print

"A crumbling infrastructure cannot support a healthy economy,
so I urge you to join me in calling for national leadership on
this vital issue. Our future well-being as individuals, and the
well-being of our nation, depend on it."
http://magazine.njit.edu/2008/spring/hard-copy.pdf

I don't think improving and repairing the our nations infrastructure is a waste of money. But that's just my opinion.

lil-

I am not trying to pick a fight with you. Please reread my post where I clearly state that the media is whipping up hysteria about crumbling bridges.

If you post links, I probably will read them (unless from the NYT - which I almost always skip) if I have the time, and I thank you for posting the information you did.

I will restate my position. I do not believe that the economy will be resurrected by repairing new roads. The economy will not be helped by building new roads as those endeavors take years to get off the ground.

The statistics you sited are interesting, but IMO they do not justify the economic panecea that is infrastructure investement. They are also relying on data based on 'structurally deficient' bridges - which does not mean on the brink of collapse.

lil-

The last article you posted is from the American Society of Civil Engineers. Public works projects are how they make money. I would not call them an unbiased source.

I think investment in infrastucture is greatly needed, our highway system was designed and built for capacity of the 50s and 60s and not today. I also happen to live in the Northeast where I can see crumbling roads, unlike in Texas where they have beautiful new highways. Eh, maybe its a matter of prespective and what effects you. But regardless, I don't know how this will turn the economy around (if at all) on its own. The mess is a lot bigger than a single solution.

"Honest question here: what do you think Obama is specifically doing to help the economy along?"
As Obama's not yet president, this is premature. We still have to assess just how big a mess he's been left - my guess is we have much more to learn. I'm sure he's looking much more deeply into our actual infrastructure needs than you think, also into the need for and needs of schools and hospitals which many people say could be a valid focus rather than roads.
People have faith in him because Obama's intellectually curious, listens to and actually draws from different points of view and isn't locked in to one economic mindset.

Do you think he draws from my point of view that the government should be smaller?? I think not!

What Undave said.

Reagan and George W. didn't draw a smaller government either.

It's going to take more than a wave of a magic wand. But, now that we have someone who's competent and actually cares about the future of this country, rather than his and his friend's pocketbooks, in time, we will make it through. Not saying that it's going to be easy, for him, or us. We all need to learn to make sacrifices, and stop trying to "keep up with the Jones'."

Obama has picked a good team, but this is a deep enough hole that it's going to take a long time to climb out of it.

Tit for tat steph...