4 ms·

You mean some sort of administration that would give people money to work on projects? Like a Work Projects Administration? Sorry, Roosevelt did that, but nowa

by pmb 16y ago

You 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 ago
So...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 ago
  So...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 ago
  Seriously? 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 ago
Not 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.
- anamax 16y ago
  Note that this has been a "mancession". See http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/06/happy-fathers-day-its-still-mancession.html http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/06/happy-fathers-day-its-st... and the update http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/male-female-un-rate1.jpg http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2011/... .

by pmb 16y ago

Unseelie 16y ago

So...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 ago
So...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 ago
Seriously? 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 ago

Not 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.

anamax 16y ago
Note that this has been a "mancession". See http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/06/happy-fathers-day-its-still-mancession.html http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/06/happy-fathers-day-its-st... and the update http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/male-female-un-rate1.jpg http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2011/... .