Follow the money trail, private sector jobs paid out of tax revenue (and 41 cents on the dollar borrowed) are in reality public sector jobs.
Roads and bridges need to be built and maintained. The government hires general contractors to perform this work. These contractors hire subcontractors - steel workers, concrete workers, earth movers, electricians, pipe fitters, engineers, architects - who all work on projects regardless of who is paying them. These contractors all work with suppliers - concrete producers, steel mills, pipe manufacturers, wire producers...
You're suggesting that everyone in the chain here is a public sector employee. I say "So what?"
The government is getting their services at a discount, because the private sector isn't hiring. If you're ever going to take out a loan, the time to do it is when it allows you to purchase discounted supplies.
__________________
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
As the midterm election season approaches, new road signs are popping up everywhere - millions of dollars worth of signs touting "The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act" and reminding passers-by that the program is "Putting America Back to Work."
A look at where the stimulus money is going.
On the road leading to Dulles Airport outside Washington, DC there's a 10' x 11' road sign touting a runway improvement project funded by the federal stimulus. The project cost nearly $15 million and has created 17 jobs, according to recovery.gov.
As the midterm election season approaches, new road signs are popping up everywhere - millions of dollars worth of signs touting "The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act" and reminding passers-by that the program is "Putting America Back to Work."
A look at where the stimulus money is going.
On the road leading to Dulles Airport outside Washington, DC there's a 10' x 11' road sign touting a runway improvement project funded by the federal stimulus. The project cost nearly $15 million and has created 17 jobs, according to recovery.gov.
Dulles is a Federally owned facility. Sounds like they're getting runway improvements. My question is this: They're spending 15 million dollars. Are you suggesting that those 17 people have paychecks of almost a million bucks each?
Or is it more likely that a lot of this 15 million is going to the material suppliers who are paying their own employees?
Are you trying to suggest that the runways at Dulles don't require regular maintenance? Are you trying to suggest that the government should not hire contractors to perform this work unless those contractors are already gainfully employed by the private sector?
Or is it a better idea to take advantage of the relatively low labor costs available during a recession and conduct maintenance and infrastructure improvement projects during that time?
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
I think he tries to suggest we're as gullible as tea thugs.
Quote:
?The day that the president became president gasoline was $1.79 a gallon. Look at what it is today,? she said at an event in Greenville, S.C.. ?Under President Bachmann, you will see gasoline come down below $2 a gallon again. That will happen.?
The average price for a gallon of gasoline is currently $3.58 per gallon, according to AAA.
Bachmann didn?t detail how she would cut the price of gasoline, which is tied to the global price of oil. She briefly mentioned the prospect of oil shale development in Western states and has been an active proponent of increased domestic oil drilling, including in Alaska?s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Dulles is a Federally owned facility. Sounds like they're getting runway improvements. My question is this: They're spending 15 million dollars. Are you suggesting that those 17 people have paychecks of almost a million bucks each?
Or is it more likely that a lot of this 15 million is going to the material suppliers who are paying their own employees?
Are you trying to suggest that the runways at Dulles don't require regular maintenance? Are you trying to suggest that the government should not hire contractors to perform this work unless those contractors are already gainfully employed by the private sector?
Or is it a better idea to take advantage of the relatively low labor costs available during a recession and conduct maintenance and infrastructure improvement projects during that time?
Let's see, with 41 cents on the dollar borrowed money . . . We can always borrow more if any of that was wasted.
Let's see, with 41 cents on the dollar borrowed money . . . We can always borrow more if any of that was wasted.
Yes, as a matter of fact. Again, smart household finances do not scale up to the federal level. For example, it's pretty difficult for an individual to reduce the real value of his debt by adjusting the nation's entire monetary supply. But, you're also assuming that the money will be wasted; that fact is not in evidence. Does Dulles not need this runway improvement project?
By waiting to perform that maintenance, we increase the dollar cost of the needed maintenance due to inflation. We increase the amount of maintenance that needs to be done, thus the real cost of the job. By waiting until the economy is booming, we wait until contractors don't need the work and we pay a premium for hiring them. We decrease passenger safety and increase wear and tear on aircraft, privately and publicly owned.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
We can borrow money for infrastructure but without reducing regulations to promote manufacturing the infrastructure may not be needed except for the rich which you deplore. And yes poor financial practice does scale upward as can be seen with the present economy.
We can borrow money for infrastructure but without reducing regulations to promote manufacturing the infrastructure may not be needed except for the rich which you deplore.
Falling back to generality when the specifics fail you? Switching from spending issues to political issues when cornered?
We were talking about Dulles. We can look at the number of passengers and tonnage of cargo that has been passing through Dulles under current regulations. Those numbers apparently justified the 15 million dollar project.
Furthermore, who said anything about deploring the rich? I don't think anyone in here begrudges the rich for being rich. I think just about everyone is upset and annoyed at governmental policies that offer benefit to nobody but those with the least need for such benefit.
Quote:
And yes poor financial practice does scale upward as can be seen with the present economy.
I've presented numerous points demonstrating the fact that household finances don't scale up to the federal level. Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "Nuh Uh, Nuh Uh, Nuh Uh" is less persuasive than you might think. We have a fiat currency system, and the government's interest rate is practically equal to the inflation rate. When the government can effectively declare the value of the money it borrows, all the rules we've learned about appropriate household budgeting, finances and handling of credit are simply idiotic when applied at the federal level.
Common sense says to pay down credit cards early to avoid interest charges. What about situations where the interest is less than or equal to inflation? It's generally unfeasible for consumers to have inflation reduce the real value of their debt, and yet, the interest rates the government can demand on its borrowing frequently allow it to do exactly this. Where this is possible, the smart move is to maintain as much debt as possible.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Falling back to generality when the specifics fail you? Switching from spending issues to political issues when cornered?
We were talking about Dulles. We can look at the number of passengers and tonnage of cargo that has been passing through Dulles under current regulations. Those numbers apparently justified the 15 million dollar project.
Furthermore, who said anything about deploring the rich? I don't think anyone in here begrudges the rich for being rich. I think just about everyone is upset and annoyed at governmental policies that offer benefit to nobody but those with the least need for such benefit.
I've presented numerous points demonstrating the fact that household finances don't scale up to the federal level. Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "Nuh Uh, Nuh Uh, Nuh Uh" is less persuasive than you might think. We have a fiat currency system, and the government's interest rate is practically equal to the inflation rate. When the government can effectively declare the value of the money it borrows, all the rules we've learned about appropriate household budgeting, finances and handling of credit are simply idiotic when applied at the federal level.
Common sense says to pay down credit cards early to avoid interest charges. What about situations where the interest is less than or equal to inflation? It's generally unfeasible for consumers to have inflation reduce the real value of their debt, and yet, the interest rates the government can demand on its borrowing frequently allow it to do exactly this. Where this is possible, the smart move is to maintain as much debt as possible.
Credit card interest is never less than inflation. Now as far as the fed's latest move it creates little incentive to save as interest earned is substantially less than inflation. There may be some incentive for venture capitalists to invest since there is no gain for savings. On loans and mortgages it's closer to even money, however money will not be available for loans if there is no gain. I think the current plan is to let inflation solve the debt crisis, but the price of those hot dogs and bananas will rise exponentially.
Credit card interest is never less than inflation.
For consumers, of course not. But the interest the government pays on its debt is very close to inflation, and frequently below. Again, smart household fiscal policies DO NOT scale up to the federal level.
Quote:
Now as far as the fed's latest move it creates little incentive to save as interest earned is substantially less than inflation. There may be some incentive for venture capitalists to invest since there is no gain for savings. On loans and mortgages it's closer to even money, however money will not be available for loans if there is no gain. I think the current plan is to let inflation solve the debt crisis, but the price of those hot dogs and bananas will rise exponentially.
There is no "debt" crisis. There was/is a "debt ceiling" crisis. Ireland is suffering from a debt crisis. Greece is suffering from a debt crisis. Their debts, as a percentage of their GDP and/or per capita, are vastly larger than our own, as are a lot of other nations that are not generally considered to be suffering from a "debt crisis".
The "debt ceiling crisis" was entirely manufactured by house teapublicans in a misguided attempt to discredit democrats at the expense of the economy. Frankly, I think it backfired. The tea party and the GOP took far greater hits on their approval ratings than the Dems and Obama.
__________________
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Linear Mode
