Obama "helps" manufacturing by creating PPPs

ScreamingEagle

Gold Member
Jul 5, 2004
13,399
1,706
245
Obama claims to be creating "jobs" but what is he REALLY doing.....?

Instead of setting Americans free from his onerous business Regulations.....he chooses to create more Public Private Partnerships (PPPs).....

....isn't that actually a form of GOVERNMENT CONTROL of business....? (i.e. socialism)

his "jobs creation" plan is more like a clusterfuck...:evil:
...from the article...
"promote cluster-based development in regions"
"entrepreneurial ecosystem"
"cluster development"
"regional innovation clusters"
"sustainable jobs"

WASHINGTON, May 29, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Obama Administration today announced a $26 million multi-agency Advanced Manufacturing Jobs and Innovation Accelerator Challenge to foster innovation-fueled job creation through public-private partnerships.

Read more here: Obama Administration Launches $26 Million Multi-Agency Competition to Strengthen Advanced Manufacturing Clusters Across the Nation - PR Newswire - The Sacramento Bee
 
I think socialism would be nationalizing things that are formerly private rather than just throwing money at the private sector.
 
I think socialism would be nationalizing things that are formerly private rather than just throwing money at the private sector.

"throwing money" always comes with a price tag.....

think of PPPs as "interim steps" toward textbook socialism....
 
I think socialism would be nationalizing things that are formerly private rather than just throwing money at the private sector.

"throwing money" always comes with a price tag.....

think of PPPs as "interim steps" toward textbook socialism....

I call BS. The state of VA and many of it's local governments have turned to PPPs as a way to help fund needed projects that the governments simply cannot fund themselves due to decreased tax revenue. It is a good way to get the government things that are needed, i.e., schools, courthouses, etc. while also stimulating the local private construction market.
 
I think socialism would be nationalizing things that are formerly private rather than just throwing money at the private sector.

"throwing money" always comes with a price tag.....

think of PPPs as "interim steps" toward textbook socialism....

If it weren't for PPPs, you'd see very little cancer drug development. You'd see near zero development for orphan diseases. Hell, if it were for PPPs, you wouldn't see canals or railroads.
 
I think socialism would be nationalizing things that are formerly private rather than just throwing money at the private sector.

"throwing money" always comes with a price tag.....

think of PPPs as "interim steps" toward textbook socialism....

I call BS. The state of VA and many of it's local governments have turned to PPPs as a way to help fund needed projects that the governments simply cannot fund themselves due to decreased tax revenue. It is a good way to get the government things that are needed, i.e., schools, courthouses, etc. while also stimulating the local private construction market.

so you LIKE eeeevil capitalists in bed with eeevil government politicians......? :eek:

you want your public property to be privately owned.....? (think Chinese ownership of our roads or schools)

you want your private property to be "publically" owned.....? (think 'emminent domain' of your private property)
 
"throwing money" always comes with a price tag.....

think of PPPs as "interim steps" toward textbook socialism....

I call BS. The state of VA and many of it's local governments have turned to PPPs as a way to help fund needed projects that the governments simply cannot fund themselves due to decreased tax revenue. It is a good way to get the government things that are needed, i.e., schools, courthouses, etc. while also stimulating the local private construction market.

so you LIKE eeeevil capitalists in bed with eeevil government politicians......? :eek:

you want your public property to be privately owned.....? (think Chinese ownership of our roads or schools)

you want your private property to be "publically" owned.....? (think 'emminent domain' of your private property)

I really thought you GOPers learned your lesson in 2008, when it became apparent that your fearmongering simply wasn't good enough to get your guy into the WH?
 
I think socialism would be nationalizing things that are formerly private rather than just throwing money at the private sector.

"throwing money" always comes with a price tag.....

think of PPPs as "interim steps" toward textbook socialism....

If it weren't for PPPs, you'd see very little cancer drug development. You'd see near zero development for orphan diseases. Hell, if it were for PPPs, you wouldn't see canals or railroads.

R&D is a bit different from general business....and canals and RR are for the public good.....however once upon a time private railroads did a better jobs than the government-funded ones....and why did we fund the Panama Canal just to later give it away.....? :cuckoo:
 
I call BS. The state of VA and many of it's local governments have turned to PPPs as a way to help fund needed projects that the governments simply cannot fund themselves due to decreased tax revenue. It is a good way to get the government things that are needed, i.e., schools, courthouses, etc. while also stimulating the local private construction market.

so you LIKE eeeevil capitalists in bed with eeevil government politicians......? :eek:

you want your public property to be privately owned.....? (think Chinese ownership of our roads or schools)

you want your private property to be "publically" owned.....? (think 'emminent domain' of your private property)

I really thought you GOPers learned your lesson in 2008, when it became apparent that your fearmongering simply wasn't good enough to get your guy into the WH?

can't really support your position can you....?
 
so you LIKE eeeevil capitalists in bed with eeevil government politicians......? :eek:

you want your public property to be privately owned.....? (think Chinese ownership of our roads or schools)

you want your private property to be "publically" owned.....? (think 'emminent domain' of your private property)

I really thought you GOPers learned your lesson in 2008, when it became apparent that your fearmongering simply wasn't good enough to get your guy into the WH?

can't really support your position can you....?

I have already stated that I felt PPPs were good for the public as well as the private because the public gets the government facilities the need and the private get sthe jobs they need. How is that not supporting my position?
 
"throwing money" always comes with a price tag.....

think of PPPs as "interim steps" toward textbook socialism....

If it weren't for PPPs, you'd see very little cancer drug development. You'd see near zero development for orphan diseases. Hell, if it were for PPPs, you wouldn't see canals or railroads.

R&D is a bit different from general business....and canals and RR are for the public good.....however once upon a time private railroads did a better jobs than the government-funded ones....and why did we fund the Panama Canal just to later give it away.....? :cuckoo:

Most PPPs are for R&D or startups. As for the canal, we signed a lease, and when it expired, we turned over the canal. That was the deal we made, and right wingers wanted to reneg on. I'd also say that most of the projects mentioned are not going to happen in the private sector, and are in the public interest.
 
R&D is a bit different from general business....and canals and RR are for the public good.....however once upon a time private railroads did a better jobs than the government-funded ones....and why did we fund the Panama Canal just to later give it away.....? :cuckoo:

Most PPPs are for R&D or startups. As for the canal, we signed a lease, and when it expired, we turned over the canal. That was the deal we made, and right wingers wanted to reneg on. I'd also say that most of the projects mentioned are not going to happen in the private sector, and are in the public interest.

Why does your sig line say the KKK is conservative?

It refers to a pissant, lying individual, who acts like a brownshirt.
 
I really thought you GOPers learned your lesson in 2008, when it became apparent that your fearmongering simply wasn't good enough to get your guy into the WH?

can't really support your position can you....?

I have already stated that I felt PPPs were good for the public as well as the private because the public gets the government facilities the need and the private get sthe jobs they need. How is that not supporting my position?

so you agree with me that your stated beliefs are nothing more than steps toward socialsim....? :eusa_whistle:
 
If it weren't for PPPs, you'd see very little cancer drug development. You'd see near zero development for orphan diseases. Hell, if it were for PPPs, you wouldn't see canals or railroads.

R&D is a bit different from general business....and canals and RR are for the public good.....however once upon a time private railroads did a better jobs than the government-funded ones....and why did we fund the Panama Canal just to later give it away.....? :cuckoo:

Most PPPs are for R&D or startups. As for the canal, we signed a lease, and when it expired, we turned over the canal. That was the deal we made, and right wingers wanted to reneg on. I'd also say that most of the projects mentioned are not going to happen in the private sector, and are in the public interest.

the Canal was willynilly turned over by Jimmie Carter even before the lease was up....he did not negotiate for an extended lease....

i am ok with some "projects" being funded by the government.....like the space program for instance....its R&D provides benefits to all...

i am not ok with government providing taxpayer money to selected businesses....which is what Obama does...
 

Forum List

Back
Top