JOBS

Good Post Yonni. The one prior to yours is entirely irrelevant in the sense that anyone with even a tiny brain knows by now that botard is deliberately spending us into servitude. Some people really are itinerant bed wetters.

What a moron, only one more year till he is gone. How about an even 20% tax or even less (just a number I am throwing out) on everybody and call it even. That would help things go a long way and then people couldn't claim so and so didn't pay their fair share cause everyone will pay the same percentage.

My problem with this plan of Mr Obama's is the fact that government money when placed in the hands of private sectors has the potential of being misappropriated. If you remember a line from Independence Day a guy says something to the effect of "You dont really thing they spend $100 on a hammer?" The same applies with the "stimulus" plan. You cant just throw money at the problem and expect it to go away.

There was a reason FDR was so loved. His job program strengthened America's infrastructure and created tangible jobs in the process. I personally feel that Obama could be on the right track, but needs to reevaluate his approach

Bax* wrote:

My problem with this plan of Mr Obama's is the fact that government money when placed in the hands of private sectors has the potential of being misappropriated. If you remember a line from Independence Day a guy says something to the effect of "You dont really thing they spend $100 on a hammer?" The same applies with the "stimulus" plan. You cant just throw money at the problem and expect it to go away.

There was a reason FDR was so loved. His job program strengthened America's infrastructure and created tangible jobs in the process. I personally feel that Obama could be on the right track, but needs to reevaluate his approach

Let's be careful, Bax. I'll give FDR a pass on the WPA and other "shovel-ready" jobs because we built useful projects like dams for electricity, roads to access natural resources and National Parks but if we did the same thing now Obama would have the crews destroying dams, closing access roads and building solar powered cars. Oh, wait!

fatbass wrote:

Let's be careful, Bax. I'll give FDR a pass on the WPA and other "shovel-ready" jobs because we built useful projects like dams for electricity, roads to access natural resources and National Parks but if we did the same thing now Obama would have the crews destroying dams, closing access roads and building solar powered cars. Oh, wait!

Dont you think that creating jobs to repair our crumbling infrastructure would be a big help to the economy? Especially in rural areas?

Now for solar powered cars... I thought he wanted solar flashlights

Bax* wrote:

fatbass wrote:

Let's be careful, Bax. I'll give FDR a pass on the WPA and other "shovel-ready" jobs because we built useful projects like dams for electricity, roads to access natural resources and National Parks but if we did the same thing now Obama would have the crews destroying dams, closing access roads and building solar powered cars. Oh, wait!

Dont you think that creating jobs to repair our crumbling infrastructure would be a big help to the economy? Especially in rural areas?

Now for solar powered cars... I thought he wanted solar flashlights

Repairing roads and bridges is a very small segment of the economy. I do not favor taking earners' income against their will nor borrowing more from our grandchildren in order to keep our roads smooth.

You spoke of rural areas...this administration has closed 10 times more miles of rural roads than it has graded or paved, thanks to the greenies.

It would be great if we could have some type of CCC nowadays, with some kind of mix of private and gov co-operation . . .

Lefty

Ummm...nope.


"The transcontinental railroad lost tons of money. The government never covered its costs, and most rail lines that used the tracks went bankrupt or continued to be subsidized by taxpayers. The Union Pacific and Northern Pacific -- all those rail lines we learned about in history class -- milked the taxpayer and then went broke. One line worked. The Great Northern never went bankrupt. It was the railroad that got no subsidies. We need infrastructure, but the beauty of leaving most of these things to the private sector -- without subsidies, bailouts and other privileges -- is that they would have to be justified by the profit-and-loss test. In a truly free market, when private companies make bad choices, investors lose their own money. This tends to make them careful. By contrast, when government loses money, it just spends more and raises your taxes, or borrows more, or inflates. Building giant government projects is no way to create jobs. When government spends on infrastructure, it takes money away from projects that consumers might think are more important. When government isn't killing jobs by sucking money out of the private sector, it kills jobs by smothering the private sector with regulation." --columnist John Stossel

ahhh your cut and paste job isnt really germain to the conversation . . .railroads back in the 1860s-70s and the ccc of the 1930's . . plus:

When government spends on infrastructure, it takes money away from projects that consumers might think are more important.

theres no premises to support this statement . . i say its false, or at least can be argued, id like to see 6 lane interstates the country over. . .

lefty

lefty wrote:

ahhh your cut and paste job isnt really germain to the conversation . . .railroads back in the 1860s-70s and the ccc of the 1930's . . plus:

When government spends on infrastructure, it takes money away from projects that consumers might think are more important.

theres no premises to support this statement . . i say its false, or at least can be argued, id like to see 6 lane interstates the country over. . .

lefty

No premise to support government waste verses companies who cut out all waste... come on lefty you can do better than that, everyone knows how wasteful government spending is! Every bit of what John Stossel said is true.

for safety/societal welfare projects such as roads, prisons, dams, bridges, schools, medical care its better to have some waste, and remove profit from the equation... nobody should profit on my mother's diabetes, nobody should profit by making the roads cheaper, cutting services like police, and ambulance because theyre 'for profit'

not everything is suited for the private sector, just like there are systems not suitable for government to be running . .

lefty

lefty wrote:

for safety/societal welfare projects such as roads, prisons, dams, bridges, schools, medical care its better to have some waste, and remove profit from the equation... nobody should profit on my mother's diabetes, nobody should profit by making the roads cheaper, cutting services like police, and ambulance because theyre 'for profit'

not everything is suited for the private sector, just like there are systems not suitable for government to be running . .

lefty

Your mothers diabetes care wouldn't be where it is if if wasn't the for profit companies, the tiny little machines have come from innovation from the for profits not the government. Your list of for safety is flawed, education, healthcare, and welfare projects would be much more beneficial/productive/not a waste of money. Services would not be cut if they where for profit, in fact they would allow competition and and provide an even better service. Why depend on the government for so many things?

lefty wrote:

ahhh your cut and paste job isnt really germain to the conversation . . .railroads back in the 1860s-70s and the ccc of the 1930's . . plus:

When government spends on infrastructure, it takes money away from projects that consumers might think are more important.

theres no premises to support this statement . . i say its false, or at least can be argued, id like to see 6 lane interstates the country over. . .

lefty

It's as germain as any other example and it isn't just about railroads 140 years ago. How many $billions do we pour down the Amtrak rathole every year? How many $billions go to propping up our bankrupt US Postal Service? Tell me again how the gov't is superior to the private sector?

we gave/spent $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2011 to amtrak . . . kinda special case, I guess at some point congress decided we couldnt lose our only intracontinental rail service, and started subsidizing them

and the postal service isnt broke, they just need some new accounting methods


lefty