• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Govt. borrows 46 cents of every dollar it spends

That's not true. Many projects will take years. Also, it's not just construction jobs that would be created. Companies that make material for constriction and stores that sale that material will create jobs. Companies that build machinery will get business also. Then there is the money that gets spend locally. It is a proven method for mass job creation. This is how we got out of the Great Depression. The government invested in build new infrastructure. There were a wide range of projects like getting electrical poles and wiring to rual areas, building parks, Building roads and highways and so on. Study the Great Depression and you will see how long term job growth was stimulated by these government projects. If you have ever taken an economics course in college, you learn how government projects spur job growth in many areas.

Your view of the Great Depression "history" is a bit flawed, IMHO.

What Ended the Great Depression? : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education

The Great Depression - End of the Depression

When did the Great Depression end
 
That's not true. Many projects will take years. Also, it's not just construction jobs that would be created. Companies that make material for constriction and stores that sale that material will create jobs. Companies that build machinery will get business also. Then there is the money that gets spend locally. It is a proven method for mass job creation. This is how we got out of the Great Depression. The government invested in build new infrastructure. There were a wide range of projects like getting electrical poles and wiring to rual areas, building parks, Building roads and highways and so on. Study the Great Depression and you will see how long term job growth was stimulated by these government projects. If you have ever taken an economics course in college, you learn how government projects spur job growth in many areas.

I agree invested money creates jobs. That is how I read your post. Someone invests in a project to get a return, as a result that project employs others to created and develop on that project, which all spurs the economy.

I disagree that government should pick the investments. Last time we did that, a trillion dollars were flushed down the drains.
 
That's not true. Many projects will take years. Also, it's not just construction jobs that would be created. Companies that make material for constriction and stores that sale that material will create jobs. Companies that build machinery will get business also. Then there is the money that gets spend locally. It is a proven method for mass job creation. This is how we got out of the Great Depression. The government invested in build new infrastructure. There were a wide range of projects like getting electrical poles and wiring to rual areas, building parks, Building roads and highways and so on. Study the Great Depression and you will see how long term job growth was stimulated by these government projects. If you have ever taken an economics course in college, you learn how government projects spur job growth in many areas.

The people who benefit from paving projects are the oil companies whose materials are the big cost of asphalt, and the guys who drive the equipment. It isn't like they take people off welfare and give them a backhoe, dump truck, or asphalt roller or let them put down steel or even direct traffic. Perhaps if your idea of infrastructure were a little more modern than hacking your way through the Blue Ridge Mountain during the depression. The jobs created are highly concentrated in existing industry that just add aggregate demand for isolated things like concrete production, steel work, metal fabrication. That is great for those people, but adds no wide-spread job bump and to hold it out as some great hope for people in manufacturing is just cruel and manipulative.
 
I agree invested money creates jobs. That is how I read your post. Someone invests in a project to get a return, as a result that project employs others to created and develop on that project, which all spurs the economy.

I disagree that government should pick the investments. Last time we did that, a trillion dollars were flushed down the drains.

What, other than a gov't, can "invest" in a roadway, park or public school? I agree that direct gov't "investment" in a private company is wrong (crony capitalism) but that our "public" infrastructure/lands/schools should remain public.
 
Can you be more specific? FDR's work programs were a blessing for this country at a time when it was sorely needed.

The public works programs did not end the depression, but obviously did temporarily help ease the suffering of many - WWII was what actually ended the Great Depression.
 
The people who benefit from paving projects are the oil companies whose materials are the big cost of asphalt, and the guys who drive the equipment. It isn't like they take people off welfare and give them a backhoe, dump truck, or asphalt roller or let them put down steel or even direct traffic. Perhaps if your idea of infrastructure were a little more modern than hacking your way through the Blue Ridge Mountain during the depression. The jobs created are highly concentrated in existing industry that just add aggregate demand for isolated things like concrete production, steel work, metal fabrication. That is great for those people, but adds no wide-spread job bump and to hold it out as some great hope for people in manufacturing is just cruel and manipulative.
All across the country the infrastructure is old and crumbling and in need of modernization. Bridges, sewage systems and the electrical grid are in disrepair and in need of upgrading. Lakes and streams are polluted and need reviving. There are superfund sites that have been waiting decades to be cleaned up. Global warming is upon us and we need to start preparing for the worst with research and development to deal with drought, mass migrations, coastal flooding, diminshing resources, etc. Schools need more teachers because children are our future workforce and will be competing in a global economy. There's a shortage of doctors and engineers and we need to make it cheaper so more students can afford to take those courses. Thats just off the top of my head but I bet if you actually gave it some thought you could think of infrastructure jobs to help the economy, too.
 
The public works programs did not end the depression, but obviously did temporarily help ease the suffering of many - WWII was what actually ended the Great Depression.
And then there was the GI bill that gave veterans an education and improved their quality of life which in turn helped to create the middle class and the largest economic expansion the world has ever seen.
 
What, other than a gov't, can "invest" in a roadway, park or public school? I agree that direct gov't "investment" in a private company is wrong (crony capitalism) but that our "public" infrastructure/lands/schools should remain public.

I give up, who?

Government is the only one who can invest in roads, schools and parks. At our local and state level we have more of a say on which projects we invest in. As for the federal level, we have no direct say, but I always hope our representatives will do the right thing.

I believe more in my local government to appropriate funds for projects, on the larger level...sigh.
 
All across the country the infrastructure is old and crumbling and in need of modernization. Bridges, sewage systems and the electrical grid are in disrepair and in need of upgrading. Lakes and streams are polluted and need reviving. There are superfund sites that have been waiting decades to be cleaned up. Global warming is upon us and we need to start preparing for the worst with research and development to deal with drought, mass migrations, coastal flooding, diminshing resources, etc. Schools need more teachers because children are our future workforce and will be competing in a global economy. There's a shortage of doctors and engineers and we need to make it cheaper so more students can afford to take those courses. Thats just off the top of my head but I bet if you actually gave it some thought you could think of infrastructure jobs to help the economy, too.

You have many good points, but you also mix the levels of gov't that should provide these services. The simple facts are that many gov'ts (federal, state and local) have bitten off far more than they can chew, and must make serious choices as to their (our?) priorities. A prime example is just how much is "owed" to those that have "served the public" or "need our help": Federal Gov

There is, regardless of political lean, a finite amount that may be collected by taxation to fund these gov't services without destroying the private economy needed to supply these tax funds. Just as in a household budget, choices must be made as to the allocation of our income to our expenses, and credit must be used sparingly and responsibly. If it is truely more important to do A rather than B, then that decision can (must?) be made; we are at a point where we can no longer afford to do A and B and also add C.
 
All across the country the infrastructure is old and crumbling and in need of modernization. Bridges, sewage systems and the electrical grid are in disrepair and in need of upgrading. Lakes and streams are polluted and need reviving. There are superfund sites that have been waiting decades to be cleaned up. Global warming is upon us and we need to start preparing for the worst with research and development to deal with drought, mass migrations, coastal flooding, diminshing resources, etc. Schools need more teachers because children are our future workforce and will be competing in a global economy. There's a shortage of doctors and engineers and we need to make it cheaper so more students can afford to take those courses. Thats just off the top of my head but I bet if you actually gave it some thought you could think of infrastructure jobs to help the economy, too.

Well, if I were to think about it, I certainly wouldn't include global warming research, teachers, doctors, and engineers in the category of infrastructure spending. That said, I did not say it isn't necessary, just that it is a false promise to those who have lost their jobs in manufacturing all over the place to think that they will go from baking twinkies for Hostess to building bridges.
 
You have many good points, but you also mix the levels of gov't that should provide these services. The simple facts are that many gov'ts (federal, state and local) have bitten off far more than they can chew, and must make serious choices as to their (our?) priorities. A prime example is just how much is "owed" to those that have "served the public" or "need our help": Federal Gov

There is, regardless of political lean, a finite amount that may be collected by taxation to fund these gov't services without destroying the private economy needed to supply these tax funds. Just as in a household budget, choices must be made as to the allocation of our income to our expenses, and credit must be used sparingly and responsibly. If it is truely more important to do A rather than B, then that decision can (must?) be made; we are at a point where we can no longer afford to do A and B and also add C.

I think you're right, the states just don't have the funding to do infrasture and pay for all those benefits and medicare on their own. This recession has caused the states to pare down as much as possible without crippling their communities. Some of it was for the good, imo but a lot of it hurt people real bad. Soon the stimulus funding will end and a lot of states are going to find themselves in trouble again and just when they're starting to come out the hole. What a fine mess we're in, Ollie.
 
Obama saw the war in Afghanistan as being more valid than the war in Iraq. As for Iraq, it isn't our business how other people run their country.

In fact it is important to all of us how other people run their countries because one day we may be strongly effected by their policies. This has happened throughout history. America was at war with Iraq and Afghanistan and Barrack Obama then decides, after many good Service people were killed or wounded, that Iraq was isn't worthwhile (it was) but another is. Then he announces a retreat from that war as well.

In other American wars there was a continuity of policy, often lasting years as with the Cold war, but everyone knew where America stood. Now there is confusion and malaise, and all coming from the American side. America looks foolish and weak as a result because there is no longer any continuity. This is no longer American Wars being fought, it is Presidential wars, one who decides attack and the next who decides retreat. And as a result foreign interests are already having more interest and input into US politics and policies. America ran from Iraq and now they are retreating from a country that is as third world as they come. This is really opening the US to long term danger.

Americans are getting killed during these 'training projects' in Afghanistan. Get the hell out now. You have lost. Get the planes ready and move on and the hell with those training programs. You're only training the enemy anyway because the Taleban will be back in power the moment the last plan leaves. ! You want a finely coordinated retreat while Americans are being killed? Run before there are more good people killed.
As for the bailouts, the president doesn't have to have business experience to act on the powers cranted to him by the constitution and the laws congress has enacted.

So he can buy any company or corporation he wants, fire the president and board of that company, and just have his people take over. He can give tax dollars to any person who fits his personal criteria in order to start up a company of which he approves, again despite not having any training or experience. And you're saying this is okay because it's in the Constitution? I had respected the US Constitution as being second only to the Magna Carta as one of the most important documents ever devised by man but this seems to illegitimatize the entire work of the forefathers if any politician can take taxpayer money and give it away to their political cronies. What surprises further is that many of the American people seem to be okay with this. No wonder Hugo Chavez supports Barrack Obama!

We should have never gone into Iraq to begin with. It was only right to get out when we did. If they people of Iraq want the Muslim Brotherhood to rule their country, so be it. It takes time to withdraw from a war. We have to coordinate movement of our equipment and troops as well as wrap up any training projects we have going on. That is taking place now.

If the people want the Muslim Brotherhood so be it? I remember a Dem in the Clinton Administration once, during the Clinton administration saying that if the people of Cuba want a communist government they should have one. You don't know anything of the Muslim Brotherhood, do you? You'll see it in Libya and Iraq in a decade.

The projection for a reduction in spending is being hashed out now. Obama hasn't had much cooperation from congress on this, which he must have in order to develop a budget.

Really? Where does BHO want to reduce spending? Does it come anywhere near $1,000,000,000,000 a year?

Spending cuts are being negotiated, but the Republicans want to cut medicare and SS as a part of the deal and Obama will not do it. Cutting SS and Medicare will not effect the budget and debt. It is a program funded directly by working Americans.

So you think all that money is stored away is a safe place somewhere ready to be accessed when you need it?

The jobs bills Obama has put before congress involved rebuilding the infrastructure which will create jobs. He also wants to stop corporate welfare for corporations that ship jobs over seas. There is a lot our government can do to effect job growth.

And all these jobs will be paid for with money the American people don't have, keeping in mind that the government has to repay over $16,000,000,000,000 before they have nothing. So how will they pay for it? Borrow the money? Print it? My guess is on the latter because their credit has already been downgraded and will be downgraded again. Inflation is coming.
He also wants to stop corporate welfare for corporations that ship jobs over seas. There is a lot our government can do to effect job growth.

How is he going to stop corporations from moving overseas? Force people to stay? Put up a Berlin type Wall? At one time not that long ago everyone wanted to invest in the US, that is was a safe place to put your money, and entrepreneurial types were confident that this was the place to follow their dream. What went wrong? Have you given that much thought?

Maybe it was all George Bush, huh?
 
Well, if I were to think about it, I certainly wouldn't include global warming research, teachers, doctors, and engineers in the category of infrastructure spending. That said, I did not say it isn't necessary, just that it is a false promise to those who have lost their jobs in manufacturing all over the place to think that they will go from baking twinkies for Hostess to building bridges.
It doesn't neccessarily have to be infrastructure jobs, it just has to be something that gets people back to work. I like your twinkie analogy which reminded me of something I read or heard about those that have a college education are doing a lot better at finding and keeping jobs than those who don't. It used to be you could get a good job right out of HS and move up the ladder. But now even working for McDonalds requires a PhD...of course I'm exagerrating but you get the idea. I was looking at statistics earlier and manufacturing is doing well now. So there are jobs for those without a degrees. But there I think the problem is that people can't relocate as easily as they used to because they got bogged down buying homes and they can't sell them so they can't move to where the jobs are. It's a catch-22 everywhere you look.
 
It doesn't neccessarily have to be infrastructure jobs, it just has to be something that gets people back to work. I like your twinkie analogy which reminded me of something I read or heard about those that have a college education are doing a lot better at finding and keeping jobs than those who don't. It used to be you could get a good job right out of HS and move up the ladder. But now even working for McDonalds requires a PhD...of course I'm exagerrating but you get the idea. I was looking at statistics earlier and manufacturing is doing well now. So there are jobs for those without a degrees. But there I think the problem is that people can't relocate as easily as they used to because they got bogged down buying homes and they can't sell them so they can't move to where the jobs are. It's a catch-22 everywhere you look.

You want jobs, build Keystone. That's a start. And the best part it does not cost the government a dime.
 
Last edited:
In fact it is important to all of us how other people run their countries because one day we may be strongly effected by their policies. This has happened throughout history. America was at war with Iraq and Afghanistan and Barrack Obama then decides, after many good Service people were killed or wounded, that Iraq was isn't worthwhile (it was) but another is. Then he announces a retreat from that war as well.

In other American wars there was a continuity of policy, often lasting years as with the Cold war, but everyone knew where America stood. Now there is confusion and malaise, and all coming from the American side. America looks foolish and weak as a result because there is no longer any continuity. This is no longer American Wars being fought, it is Presidential wars, one who decides attack and the next who decides retreat. And as a result foreign interests are already having more interest and input into US politics and policies. America ran from Iraq and now they are retreating from a country that is as third world as they come. This is really opening the US to long term danger.

Americans are getting killed during these 'training projects' in Afghanistan. Get the hell out now. You have lost. Get the planes ready and move on and the hell with those training programs. You're only training the enemy anyway because the Taleban will be back in power the moment the last plan leaves. ! You want a finely coordinated retreat while Americans are being killed? Run before there are more good people killed.


So he can buy any company or corporation he wants, fire the president and board of that company, and just have his people take over. He can give tax dollars to any person who fits his personal criteria in order to start up a company of which he approves, again despite not having any training or experience. And you're saying this is okay because it's in the Constitution? I had respected the US Constitution as being second only to the Magna Carta as one of the most important documents ever devised by man but this seems to illegitimatize the entire work of the forefathers if any politician can take taxpayer money and give it away to their political cronies. What surprises further is that many of the American people seem to be okay with this. No wonder Hugo Chavez supports Barrack Obama!



If the people want the Muslim Brotherhood so be it? I remember a Dem in the Clinton Administration once, during the Clinton administration saying that if the people of Cuba want a communist government they should have one. You don't know anything of the Muslim Brotherhood, do you? You'll see it in Libya and Iraq in a decade.



Really? Where does BHO want to reduce spending? Does it come anywhere near $1,000,000,000,000 a year?



So you think all that money is stored away is a safe place somewhere ready to be accessed when you need it?



And all these jobs will be paid for with money the American people don't have, keeping in mind that the government has to repay over $16,000,000,000,000 before they have nothing. So how will they pay for it? Borrow the money? Print it? My guess is on the latter because their credit has already been downgraded and will be downgraded again. Inflation is coming.


How is he going to stop corporations from moving overseas? Force people to stay? Put up a Berlin type Wall? At one time not that long ago everyone wanted to invest in the US, that is was a safe place to put your money, and entrepreneurial types were confident that this was the place to follow their dream. What went wrong? Have you given that much thought?

Maybe it was all George Bush, huh?

They don't get it never have, never will.
 
You want jobs, build Keystone. That's a start.
What good is that going to do? The oil will be piped down from canada and then exported to other countries and it's not going to create that many long term jobs once it's built. So whats in it for us once the pipeline is built? Not too mention, Canada is raping its land just to get that poor quality oil. Anyway, the last I heard Obama approved part of the pipeline to be built but the problem is some of the governors of the states it needs to go through, including Republican ones, are worried about it polluting their drinking water so it's been put on hold until they negotiate where and how to locate it. And imo, water is going to be a rare commodity in the not so distant future and we're allowing oil companies to use up that resource to make energy? I gotta stop now, I'm getting too depressed.
 
What good is that going to do?

I have always said, liberals have never been about jobs. "Creating jobs by building Keystone" and you come back and say "What good is that going to do?" You are a perfect example of a job killing liberal.
 
What good is that going to do?

It will create jobs and supply energy.
The oil will be piped down from canada and then exported to other countries

And the US will make money from any exports.
and it's not going to create that many long term jobs once it's built.

Are you actually fussy about how many jobs it creates or how much energy it supplies? What's the minimum amount of jobs you find acceptable when jobs are being created?
So whats in it for us once the pipeline is built?

Jobs and more energy.
Not too mention, Canada is raping its land just to get that poor quality oil.

The land is Canada is not being raped. Canada is a first world country.
Anyway, the last I heard Obama approved part of the pipeline to be built but the problem is some of the governors of the states it needs to go through, including Republican ones, are worried about it polluting their drinking water so it's been put on hold until they negotiate where and how to locate it. And imo, water is going to be a rare commodity in the not so distant future and we're allowing oil companies to use up that resource to make energy? I gotta stop now, I'm getting too depressed.

Canada has the world's largest fresh water supply.

Romney was on to a very good idea about a continental energy agreement. Too bad more Americans didn't pay more attention to that than whether or now he was too successful.
 
I have always said, liberals have never been about jobs. "Creating jobs by building Keystone" and you come back and say "What good is that going to do?" You are a perfect example of a job killing liberal.

The pipeline would be made of Russian Steel, and only will create about 5000 temporary American jobs. When it starts leaking, which all Transcanada pipelines have, we will have a huge mess of toxic chemicals and sludge everywhere. The Canadian people have already said NO to a transCanada pipeline to the west coast and for good reason. We need to leave that tar in the ground for future Generations and develop our own cleaner Natural gas resources FIRST. We need to start converting our trucks and cars to run on natural gas and free ourselves from imported oil for good.
 
Last edited:
The pipeline would be made of Russian Steel, and only will create about 5000 temporary American jobs. When it starts leaking, which all Transcanada pipelines have, we will have a huge mess of toxic chemicals and sludge everywhere. The Canadian people have already said NO to a transCanada pipeline to the west coast and for good reason. We need to leave that tar in the ground for future Generations and develop our own cleaner Natural gas resources FIRST. We need to start converting our trucks and cars to run on natural gas and free ourselves from imported oil for good.

In response read post #195

Like I said, liberals have never been about jobs. Never have never will.

But I am glad you said to use our natural gas, which I have always said this green crap cannot compete with. Yet we continue to pour billion of tax payer money into green stuff that can't compete in price with coal or natural gas, of which we has a thousand year supply. Our power plants use coal or natural gas for fuel not oil.
 
In response read post #195

Like I said, liberals have never been about jobs. Never have never will.

But I am glad you said to use our natural gas, which I have always said this green crap cannot compete with. Yet we continue to pour billion of tax payer money into green stuff that can't compete in price with coal or natural gas, of which we has a thousand year supply. Our power plants use coal or natural gas for fuel not oil.

Then why do Republican Administrations create so few jobs? Conservatives hate low unemployment it drives up wages.

The Republican Party claims that it is the party of pro-business, pro-growth, and job creating policies, but the statistics do not support that contention, according to job data compiled by the U.S. Labor Department.

In the modern era, since 1933, over 43 years the Democratic total is about 73.4 million jobs for an average of 1.7 million jobs per year.

Meanwhile, over 36 years Republican presidents created about 34.8 million jobs for an average of 967,000 jobs per year.

U.S. Presidents from Which Party Create More Jobs - Democratic or Republican?
 
It is YOUR claim that congress voted unanimously to pass the bill
This is a false claim, as no such thing happened; you know this to be true, and yet you stand by the claim.
-That- means you are lying.
:dunno:

My point is that all congressional Republicans voted for the $600 billion in spending. Yes, 90 Democrats voted against the spending. Congratulation! Some of the Democrats are the only ones that give a **** about the deficit! Excellent point you've made there!
 
Back
Top Bottom