4 ms·
How about putting back together giant structures that are falling apart? Our infrastructure is rotting away --- that Minneapolis bridge collapse in 2007 was a
by rst 16y ago
How about putting back together giant structures that are falling apart? Our infrastructure is rotting away --- that Minneapolis bridge collapse in 2007 was a bit of a wake-up call. There's no shortage of stuff in the United States that needs to get fixed.
- prostoalex 16y agoWouldn't you need some specialized skills for that? Trusting unemployed psychology majors with bridge reenforcement doesn't inspire much confidence.
- wonderzombie 16y agoAfter the housing bust, I'm thinking you could find plenty of construction workers with necessary and/or relevant skills.
- VladRussian 16y ago"unemployed psychology majors" could do some work in special education or nursing homes for disabled and old or half-way homes for addicts, etc.. . Their skills would definitely be of much help there.
- adrianN 16y agoYou only need one brain to tell the hands what to do.
- yummyfajitas 16y agoWait, didn't we already drop hundreds of billions fixing that? Or was that money just wasted? http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/Pages/JobSummary.aspx http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/P...
- mkr-hn 16y agoNot all of it, and what did wasn't enough to fix much of what's broken.
- pmb 16y agoYou mean some sort of administration that would give people money to work on projects? Like a Work Projects Administration? Sorry, Roosevelt did that, but nowadays I am pretty sure it would be called socialism.
- Unseelie 16y agoSo...when the government pays people to do things, that's socialism? I seriously doubt that's how a governmental program training and employing the youth to repair the infrastructure would be viewed, and especially not as proposed to the more socialistic policy of welfare.
- mmt 16y agoSo...when the government pays people to do things, that's socialism? Of course, but the statement itself is a bit meaningless and appeared to me to be flippant, at that. When the government pays people not to do things, that's a more extreme form of socialism. To me, the question is one of subsidy. UI[1] is a 100% subsidy. A WPA type of deal could potentially be no subsidy at all, at least to the individuals. It would merely be directing tax money at a particular kind of boondoggle. [1] Notwithstanding that the I stands for "insurance," since it's structured as a tax, at least here in the US.
- earl 16y agoSeriously? Have you lived in the US for the last 10 years or seen a Republican recently? rst, if anything, understated how Republicans would attack such a program.
- rst 16y agoNot nearly as socialistic as Nixon's mandatory wage and price controls. (Cue Glenn Beck rant: there's a reason Nixon went to China!) You're quite right about the rhetoric, but it's completely unmoored from reality.
- anamax 16y ago> You mean some sort of administration that would give people money to work on projects? Like a Work Projects Administration? Those sorts of projects/spending got killed in 08 because womens' groups objected to money going to "burly men" projects. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/659dkrod.asp http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/00... Of course, govt spending is always political. At one time, one could both pay off supporters and build up the country. When we have to choose, the former always wins.