Who says this was a do-nothing Congress? (Page 2): Talking jobs not start up biz....why do you imply that working for Govt. construction is not a "real job" and would include some form...

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

jay-are wrote:

Would those construction workers get rich? Why would you rather work for the government than a private company? Where is the humiliation in having a real job, where you take responsibility for yourself instead of just being dependent on government for handouts?

Talking jobs not start up biz....why do you imply that working for Govt. construction is not a "real job" and would include some form of humiliation? The idea is to rebuild the countries infrastructure while providing contracts for same to private company which would use people working for them, not the govt.. IE the workers would not be Govt. workers..

jay-are

permafrost wrote:

Talking jobs not start up biz....why do you imply that working for Govt. construction is not a "real job" and would include some form of humiliation? The idea is to rebuild the countries infrastructure while providing contracts for same to private company which would use people working for them, not the govt.. IE the workers would not be Govt. workers..

I didn't say a govt. job implied some form of humiliation. I was responding to what you said when you put down my suggestion that people work in the private sector. You seemed to imply that working on a govt. contract was a more worthy job. My point was that there is no humiliation to a private sector job, so conversely, a job provided by govt. is not inherently superior. That was my only point.

jay-are

permafrost wrote:

Talking jobs not start up biz....why do you imply that working for Govt. construction is not a "real job" and would include some form of humiliation? The idea is to rebuild the countries infrastructure while providing contracts for same to private company which would use people working for them, not the govt.. IE the workers would not be Govt. workers..

However, I would say that it is better for the economy to work at a private sector job than for a govt. contract job. That is because a private sector job generates wealth, where a govt. paid job consumes wealth generated by the private sector. Without the private sector providing wealth to the government, the government would not have the wealth to spend on those infrastructure jobs.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

jay-are wrote:

However, I would say that it is better for the economy to work at a private sector job than for a govt. contract job. That is because a private sector job generates wealth, where a govt. paid job consumes wealth generated by the private sector. Without the private sector providing wealth to the government, the government would not have the wealth to spend on those infrastructure jobs.

I did misunderstand you original post..and you are right on the generating wealth. But I see no way that those facts should result in v****g down the govt. attempts to move the economy which were v**ed down by congress.. In a recession the right move is getting jobs from any source possible...The consumed wealth goes back out to the market place in domestic spending by the employees and well as reinvesting by the contractor..

jay-are

permafrost wrote:

I did misunderstand you original post..and you are right on the generating wealth. But I see no way that those facts should result in v****g down the govt. attempts to move the economy which were v**ed down by congress.. In a recession the right move is getting jobs from any source possible...The consumed wealth goes back out to the market place in domestic spending by the employees and well as reinvesting by the contractor..

That is debatable. There are good arguments that FDR prolonged the recession after the depression with too much government spending, and too high taxes.

It is undeniable that the economy grew and expanded with great abundance after the tax cuts by Kennedy in the 60's and the tax cuts of Reagan in the 80's.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

permafrost wrote:

Trickle down came from the Reaganomics time..Never did work...

Perhaps you are unaware of the economic turnaround that took place after Reagan's policies were put in place -

Further, perhaps you are unaware of what Obama's shovel ready jobs from the stimulus was supposed to do - activate those shovel ready jobs by the trickle down of government contracts to the friends of the Democratic Party.

I'd take the Reagan economic turnaround 100 times over the Obama economic non turnaround.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Dave wrote:

Perhaps you are unaware of the economic turnaround that took place after Reagan's policies were put in place -

Further, perhaps you are unaware of what Obama's shovel ready jobs from the stimulus was supposed to do - activate those shovel ready jobs by the trickle down of government contracts to the friends of the Democratic Party.

I'd take the Reagan economic turnaround 100 times over the Obama economic non turnaround.

Reagans turnaround was based on giving the rich even more money. The flood of money gave a boost but the long term was a disaster. Globalization and trade agreements such as NAFTA, caused the economy to fade and result in the unfortunate dot-com collapse and the movement of American jobs over seas. We will never know how the shovel ready jobs would have worked because they never got passed in full..Congress blocked...more obstruction..

rumitoid

Dave wrote:

Perhaps you are unaware of the economic turnaround that took place after Reagan's policies were put in place -

Further, perhaps you are unaware of what Obama's shovel ready jobs from the stimulus was supposed to do - activate those shovel ready jobs by the trickle down of government contracts to the friends of the Democratic Party.

I'd take the Reagan economic turnaround 100 times over the Obama economic non turnaround.

Here are some opinions you may be interested in concerning Reaganomics, starting with the soft wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Reaganomics.html

http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2343/why-reagan-tax-cut-worked-1981-and-why-it-wouldn%E2%80%99t-work-today

Armageddun Loc: The show me state

catpaw wrote:

Question is did they accept gov't assistance out o... (show quote)

As they say, "anyone who is big or rich enough to give you what you want, is big enough to take back everything you got."

Armageddun Loc: The show me state

Armageddun wrote:

As they say, "anyone who is big or rich enough to give you what you want, is big enough to take back everything you got."

Missouri just passed a bill to give Boeing aircraft 1.7 billion dollars in goodies to bring their new plane building to St. Louis. And people raise cane if some one gets 500 a month for food stamps. tell me, who get the higher welfare? There are several states offering the same or more for the company to move to their states.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Armageddun wrote:

Missouri just passed a bill to give Boeing aircraft 1.7 billion dollars in goodies to bring their new plane building to St. Louis. And people raise cane if some one gets 500 a month for food stamps. tell me, who get the higher welfare? There are several states offering the same or more for the company to move to their states.

Everybody knows poor people don't deserve anything, because they're poor. Poor people should work -- wait, there aren't any jobs. Oops!

rumitoid

lpnmajor wrote:

Everybody knows poor people don't deserve anything, because they're poor. Poor people should work -- wait, there aren't any jobs. Oops!

That there are 3xs as many looking for work as there are jobs and add to that an estimate two thirds of these jobs, by today's economy, is not enough to support even an individual let alone a small family unit of three. A second job or government assistance is necessary. What is wrong? Is it the labor market? The irresponsible 47% getting gifts of short budget, hunger, and little opportunity?

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

lpnmajor wrote:

Everybody knows poor people don't deserve anything, because they're poor. Poor people should work -- wait, there aren't any jobs. Oops!

I wonder why there are no jobs

rumitoid

alex wrote:

I wonder why there are no jobs

Because American-based Corporations are not re-investing in this country but are either sitting on there 7 trillion dollars worth of assets in off-shore accounts or going China.

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

rumitoid wrote:

Because American-based Corporations are not re-investing in this country but are either sitting on there 7 trillion dollars worth of assets in off-shore accounts or going China.

and why do you suppose that is