Infrastructure: The big government lie in the name of 'jobs'

[Swingblade]

Originally Posted by wutitiz

Good video, thanks for the link.

The economist in the video is 100% right. If the bridge or road project is needed, fund it and build it. Forget the whole 'creating jobs' meme. That's utter garbage. It's the modern 21st century equivalent of cargo-cultism. In the first place, you're taking dollars out of taxpayers' pockets to 'create jobs.' Where do the dollars come from? The taxpayer's job. So this is essentially cannibalism--cutting at one job in order to 'create' another.' So that's illogical.

But suppose we argue that this is a good form of redistribution. Sure the original taxpayer suffers, but he gets to keep his job and at least 60 percent or so of what he earns, enough to live on, and we're helping some worker who builds the bridge, who otherwise is unemployed. But this line doesn't really fly either. Because if we let the original taxpayer keep the money, he would not bury it in his yard. He'd spend it, invest it, or save it (and the bank invest it for him). In all cases, the money is going to generate jobs, at least as many, and probably more, than gov't.

.

[Marv101]

That's why all of us knew that there were no 'shovel-ready' jobs in this country several months before Obama confessed to that being case.

Most of us are aware of the outsized amount of clout that environmentalists have in this country, and that the unemployment rate would drop substantially very quickly if it weren't for them & their Democratic Party endorsers.

Just start with the energy industry--that's an easy 1-2,000,000+ new jobs right there when you add all of the related industries.

Ditto for infrastructure; this country could not only used new airport in many major cities, but several new interstae routes where none current exist, but the existence of FDR's boneheaded 'put the unions to work at the expense of everybody else act (aka Davis Bacon in some places) ensure that any such projects would cost 25% or more thanks to civil service union mandates.

You can forget about the USA ever becoming energy-independent as long as envitronmentalists call ALL OF the shots; the pathetic thing is that 100% of them were never elected!!!!!!!!!

[Marv101]

That's why all of us knew that there were no 'shovel-ready' jobs in this country several months before Obama confessed to that being the case.

Most of us are aware of the outsized amount of clout that environmentalists have in this country, and that the unemployment rate would drop substantially very quickly if it weren't for them & their Democratic Party endorsers.

Just start with the energy industry--that's an easy 1-2,000,000+ new jobs right there when you add all of the related industries.

Ditto for infrastructure; this country could not only used new airports in many major cities, but several new intersttae routes where none current exist, but the existence of FDR's boneheaded 'Put the unions to work at the expense of everybody else act' (aka Davis-Bacon in some places) ensure that any such projects would cost 25% or more thanks to civil service union contracts and mandates mandates.

You can forget about the USA ever becoming energy-independent as long as envitronmentalists call ALL OF the shots; the pathetic thing is that 100% of them were never elected!!!!!!!!!

Anybody on this board who pulls out a map of the entire USA could immediately identify several pairs of major cities which could desperately use either a new interstate highway linking them, or a new interstate highway providing more direct routes between other major cities, which would save TRILLIONS of dollars in fuel for both diesel trucks and private automobiles.

Several which immediately come to mind would include Dallas-Denver, Dallas-Austin, Memphis-Jacksonville, Phoenix-Las Vegas-Reno, Albuquerque-KC-Chicago, Houston-Detroit and several others.

[GregW]

I know what Corten steel looks like and these are not that material. These are plain old mild steel rusting in the salt water.

Now we have the "big Bad environmentalists" to blame. How convenient. The shots, except for the coal industry funded anti nuclear power wackos, are being called by the military contractors and their congressional stooges. If we could hire Halliburton, General Dynamics or Boeing to build railroads, bridges and roads they would be funded in a split second. The problem is these companies know how to blow things up not build them.

PS: all of those cities are currently well connected by freight railroads. They really should have High Speed (250+ mph) passenger railroads powered by nuclear energy connecting them. That would reduce our imported petroleum use considerably. The days of auto and air travel based on cheap oil are just about over. It is time for this country to build for the next few of decades not the last.

[Marv101]

I agree with you about hiring Halliburton, Caterpillar & other world class engineering firms, which would undoubtedly lead to huge numbers of private citizens being put to work right away without being strangled by union work rules and busy-work rules which result in staggering amounts of waste.

However, every time the opportunity for hundreds of thousands of folks to be put back to work (or newly hired) in the energy exploration industry regardless of the industry presents itself, environmentalist and their Democrat Party lapdogs go apopleptic, and stonewall every project.

For that reason this country can forget about becoming energy independent until the environmentalists are neutralized, and the Democratic Party decide to pursue the best interests of everybody
in putting America back to work, as well as for their continued unrestrained sanctioning of outsourcing, due to an out-of-control legal system, as well as environmental zealots who don't give a damn about anybody except themselves.

You can slo thank government's rampaging regulators; the fact that FIVE different government bureaucracies have to sign off on the Keystone XL pipeline between Canada & Oklahoma before construction can be approved and initiated is downright moronic and asinine.

[lifelongMOgal]

Originally Posted by GregW

I have been driving long enough that, by looking at the bridges I drove under, I have come to believe rust is a structural material and that the paint companies are boycotting America.

Why are we building bridges in Afghanistan when we need to build them in Amsterdam (NY).

We won't be if Ron Paul is elected in 2012.

[Marv101]

Why does the US have a military presence in 170+ countries around the world?

Who says we can't cut our defense budget and put it to work within our borders?

[wutitiz]

I'm not an isolationist, but tend to agree that we could radically cut our overseas presence. Instead we're doing the opposite, now adding Libya and Uganda to our to-do-list.

However, this really has little bearing on the topic of infrastructure and spending. Military spending as a pct. of GDP is at a relative low point of less than 5 pct. (about 20 pct of the federal budget). In the 1960's it was rougly double that.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/exp...itary+spending
Even if we chop military spending in half, it's not going to solve our problems. In fact, as our system stands, the likely result of such cuts would be that all the savings would be immediately sucked up for new social programs.

Bottom line, the 'cut military' angle largely serves as a distraction in this discussion.

[pvande55]

First of all, consider the source. Infrastructure is wearing out under our feet and the government wants to let it rot. I 35 W was a wake up call, they hit the snooze. There are in fact many projects that were needed for years: adding lanes, new links, grade separations. That does not even include repairing existing roadways. And the water distribution systems in many cities are beyond their useful lives. But don't worry, according to this video, some private company can repair the bridges and charge you a toll. I also wonder when the coyote video was shot. In the off-hours on a holiday, most likely.