Would building infrastructure and getting Americans back to work be enough to grow ou

[ScienceRocks]

Would building infrastructure and getting Americans back to work be enough to grow out of this mess? We have been focusing on building other countries besides are selfs and now we're in a mess. How about building ourselves??? China does it=good, India does it=good, Mexico does it=good, etc. What ever we do we DO NOT want to reduce our work force. We should cut the fat and make it easier to start a business through loosing some of the costly regs.

How about Union reform? They can only demand to a point until the corporation can't make a profit. This would save them from more problems. How about removing our troops from the middle east and transferring money into R@D??? Modernizing our entire military. It wouldn't cost as much bringing most of it within our borders either. We must have the best military no matter what we do. It seems that the developing world is doing pretty fucking good with this model. Why not use something like it? Parts of our country are going backwards, right?

We need not only cut but grow out of it.

 

[occupied]

Yes the future dividends earned through public works goes far beyond just jobs and associated economic activity.

 

[OKTexas]

Yes the future dividends earned through public works goes far beyond just jobs and associated economic activity.

Wrong, if it could be paid for you MIGHT have an arguement, but when the money is borrowed and you factor in the long term servicing of that debt, the benefit, if any would be minimal.

 

[occupied]

Yes the future dividends earned through public works goes far beyond just jobs and associated economic activity.

Wrong, if it could be paid for you MIGHT have an arguement, but when the money is borrowed and you factor in the long term servicing of that debt, the benefit, if any would be minimal.

I guess you just buy an expensive car and are just too cheap to maintain it. Cheaper in the short run to change your oil every 100,000 miles. Sounds pretty ridiculous when the republican infrastructure philosophy is applied to personal vehicle maintenance.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why is this so freaking difficult for people to understand? You do not "grow out of" an economic slump by growing GOVERNMENT. You do not combat unemployment by simply employing people with the government. Didn't work for the Great Depression, won't work now. Yes, I KNOW you liberals think FDR's make-work alphabet-soup programs saved the country, but you think a lot of stupid things.

Thomas Sowell said it best:

There is no free lunch in the job market, any more than there is anywhere else. The government can always create particular jobs or save particular jobs, but that does not mean that it is a net creation of jobs or a net saving of jobs.

The government can create a million jobs tomorrow, just by hiring that many people. But where does the government get the money to pay those people? From the private economy -- which loses the money that the government gains.

With less money in the private sector, the loss of jobs there can easily exceed the million jobs created in the government or in industries subsidized by the government.

Achieving 100% employment by merely employing 100% of all working-age adults in government jobs would not equal a strong, thriving economy.

 

[occupied]

Why is this so freaking difficult for people to understand? You do not "grow out of" an economic slump by growing GOVERNMENT. You do not combat unemployment by simply employing people with the government. Didn't work for the Great Depression, won't work now. Yes, I KNOW you liberals think FDR's make-work alphabet-soup programs saved the country, but you think a lot of stupid things.

Thomas Sowell said it best:

There is no free lunch in the job market, any more than there is anywhere else. The government can always create particular jobs or save particular jobs, but that does not mean that it is a net creation of jobs or a net saving of jobs.

The government can create a million jobs tomorrow, just by hiring that many people. But where does the government get the money to pay those people? From the private economy -- which loses the money that the government gains.

With less money in the private sector, the loss of jobs there can easily exceed the million jobs created in the government or in industries subsidized by the government.

Achieving 100% employment by merely employing 100% of all working-age adults in government jobs would not equal a strong, thriving economy.

And yet conservatives are fond of saying that massive government spending on WWII finally ended the depression, not really correct but how is government spending to level foreign cities good but government spending to rebuild our cities and roads bad? I guess you wait to replace your roof until after the leaks have rotted the floor.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Why is this so freaking difficult for people to understand? You do not "grow out of" an economic slump by growing GOVERNMENT. You do not combat unemployment by simply employing people with the government. Didn't work for the Great Depression, won't work now. Yes, I KNOW you liberals think FDR's make-work alphabet-soup programs saved the country, but you think a lot of stupid things.

Thomas Sowell said it best:

There is no free lunch in the job market, any more than there is anywhere else. The government can always create particular jobs or save particular jobs, but that does not mean that it is a net creation of jobs or a net saving of jobs.

The government can create a million jobs tomorrow, just by hiring that many people. But where does the government get the money to pay those people? From the private economy -- which loses the money that the government gains.

With less money in the private sector, the loss of jobs there can easily exceed the million jobs created in the government or in industries subsidized by the government.

Achieving 100% employment by merely employing 100% of all working-age adults in government jobs would not equal a strong, thriving economy.

nasa=100,000 high paid jobs
millitary=millions of jobs
Private contractors to rebuild our bridges, roads, etc isn't so much government as the government only pays them to do a job.


I'm NOT saying let the government centrally plan, but let the building and construction be within the hands of the private sector. Why is it ok to rebuild the middle east and not our own country?

 

[occupied]

Why is this so freaking difficult for people to understand? You do not "grow out of" an economic slump by growing GOVERNMENT. You do not combat unemployment by simply employing people with the government. Didn't work for the Great Depression, won't work now. Yes, I KNOW you liberals think FDR's make-work alphabet-soup programs saved the country, but you think a lot of stupid things.

Thomas Sowell said it best:

There is no free lunch in the job market, any more than there is anywhere else. The government can always create particular jobs or save particular jobs, but that does not mean that it is a net creation of jobs or a net saving of jobs.

The government can create a million jobs tomorrow, just by hiring that many people. But where does the government get the money to pay those people? From the private economy -- which loses the money that the government gains.

With less money in the private sector, the loss of jobs there can easily exceed the million jobs created in the government or in industries subsidized by the government.

Achieving 100% employment by merely employing 100% of all working-age adults in government jobs would not equal a strong, thriving economy.

nasa=100,000 high paid jobs
millitary=millions of jobs
Private contractors to rebuild our bridges, roads, etc isn't so much government as the government only pays them to do a job.


I'm NOT saying let the government centrally plan, but let the building and construction be within the hands of the private sector. Why is it ok to rebuild the middle east and not our own country?

I look at it like this, no one can say that this stuff is going to be cheaper in the future, and that is just on the stuff that is broken now. Plus we are all familiar with the speeches our dads gave us on preventive maintenance, how a few dollars and a little time now will save mucho cash in the future on major breakdowns or serious accidents. When you apply the conservative "wait till later" attitude to our cars and homes it sounds like the actions of a spoiled teen who did not buy their own car and would rather buy beer than brakes. Our fathers and grandfathers bought us a pretty nice ride with our roads and such and some of us are just too irresponsible to even put air in the tires, so to speak.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why is this so freaking difficult for people to understand? You do not "grow out of" an economic slump by growing GOVERNMENT. You do not combat unemployment by simply employing people with the government. Didn't work for the Great Depression, won't work now. Yes, I KNOW you liberals think FDR's make-work alphabet-soup programs saved the country, but you think a lot of stupid things.

Thomas Sowell said it best:

There is no free lunch in the job market, any more than there is anywhere else. The government can always create particular jobs or save particular jobs, but that does not mean that it is a net creation of jobs or a net saving of jobs.

The government can create a million jobs tomorrow, just by hiring that many people. But where does the government get the money to pay those people? From the private economy -- which loses the money that the government gains.

With less money in the private sector, the loss of jobs there can easily exceed the million jobs created in the government or in industries subsidized by the government.

Achieving 100% employment by merely employing 100% of all working-age adults in government jobs would not equal a strong, thriving economy.

nasa=100,000 high paid jobs
millitary=millions of jobs
Private contractors to rebuild our bridges, roads, etc isn't so much government as the government only pays them to do a job.


I'm NOT saying let the government centrally plan, but let the building and construction be within the hands of the private sector. Why is it ok to rebuild the middle east and not our own country?

You're still not getting it.

First of all, no one said there should be no government jobs. But it is NOT the primary purpose - or really any purpose at all - of government to create and provide jobs. NASA and the military perform actual functions of the government, and the jobs they employ people in exist NOT to employ those people, but to accomplish those functions. They do not generate their own revenue to pay for those jobs; they take it away from people who DO generate revenue in the form of taxes - the private sector - who presumably want those functions performed. (Yes, I'm sure we can argue about whether or not people want this or that thing done, but it's beside the point, so don't digress.)

Second of all, the federal government does not fund the building and upkeep of most infrastructure, whatever you might think. No, they don't even provide all, or usually even most, of the funding for putatively federal roads. That job largely falls to whichever lower government whose jurisdiction that infrastructure falls into. I don't know about you, but my city, county, and state are struggling with their budgets as it is, and I'm really not inclined to have my cost of living skyrocket just so you can build bridges and roads to nowhere and proudly proclaim that you employed people. Nor do I think shiny, spiffy new roads are a good trade for having every business in Tucson up stakes and leave, or go out of business, because they can no longer afford to operate here.

Third, the fact that the government uses "private contractors" to do these things does not make them "private sector jobs". Private sector jobs are jobs which serve a function which produces revenue, rather than getting its funding from tax dollars.

It's okay to rebuild the Middle East because we helped damage it, for starters. For another thing, how long do you think our fancy, shiny, spiffy country that you seem to think we could create if we would just pull back inside our borders and ignore everyone else would last - assuming for the moment that such pie-in-the-sky nonsense were true - if evil people are allowed to come to power and do as they wish without our interference? Once again, we can argue the details about HOW involved we should be and in what ways, but that's just digression. The bottom line is that comparing shoring up the attempts of other nations to live in peace and prosperity so that we don't have to live on a hostile planet and sprucing up every bridge and overpass in the country just so we can hand out tax money like Santa Claus at Christmas isn't just comparing apples and oranges; it's comparing apples and giraffes.

By the way, do you know what our interest in the Middle East is, other than any altruistic concerns about the population thereof which I optimistically hope we have? What does our economy run on? Do you know? If the left really wanted to boost our economy, grow out of this mess, and employ people, it could allow us to produce the basic fuel of the economy - pun intended - inside our own borders, instead of standing in the way and forcing us to be dependent on other nations for it, many of which are far from being our friends.

 

[waltky]

Naw, it wouldn't work...

... that would make too much sense...

... Washington will never go for it.

 

[editec]

We're headed in exactly the wrong direction policy-wise.

We're actually going to try to balance the budget in the middle of a recession.


Dumb!

 

[Two Thumbs]

obama dumped 900 billion in a few short months to crow that he saved or created 3 million jobs.

do you seriously think doing it again would work this time?

4th times a charm?

oh yeah, that's a cost of $3 Million per job

 

[editec]

Two Thumbs?

The original $780 Billion stimulus program (40+% of being tax cuts, I remind you) was passed by BUSH II.

It was distributed under Obama.

So are you going to admit that everything you think you know is mostly wrong?


Or how about just admitting that the STIMULUS BEGAN under Bush II and the TARP program (which cost TILLIONS, not billions) ALSO began under the Bush II admin?

Do you have the integrity and honor to admit even that?