End of the welfare State - the CBO #s

[TGHusker]

http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/end-of-the-line-for-the-welfare-state/

 

Always good for a conversation starter, here is Pat's views on the CBO's report that Obamacare will cost us 2.5 million jobs.

 

Bottom line - the cash cows have only so much to give before the system collapses under its own weight.

[sd'sker]

the simple fact that there are not enough jobs for the unemployed and productivity continues to increase tells me that the welfare state should be much bigger. and the fact that the government continually forces the military to build things the military has no use for, nor no room for, tells me that the gov't is trying to create a larger welfare state in an acceptable fashion.

[carlfense]

. . . the CBO's report that Obamacare will cost us 2.5 million jobs.

no.

[Junior]

http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/end-of-the-line-for-the-welfare-state/

 

Always good for a conversation starter, here is Pat's views on the CBO's report that Obamacare will cost us 2.5 million jobs.

 

Bottom line - the cash cows have only so much to give before the system collapses under its own weight.

 

Pat often reports on things that are not true. I wonder why that is?

[knapplc]

Right about now would be a good time for those "job creators" we've been hearing so much about to start creating some jobs.

[NUpolo8]

Right about now would be a good time for those "job creators" we've been hearing so much about to start creating some jobs.

 

Can't make me.

[carlfense]

Pat often reports on things that are not true. I wonder why that is?

Because his readers don't care so long as it reinforces what they already believe.

[sd'sker]

Right about now would be a good time for those "job creators" we've been hearing so much about to start creating some jobs.

that would be nice. but i think what we need is a permanent public works department where gov't hires people to fix our infrastructure (roads, bridges, power grid). the economical benefits would be exponential and the investments would pay great dividends.

[BigRedBuster]

Right about now would be a good time for those "job creators" we've been hearing so much about to start creating some jobs.

that would be nice. but i think what we need is a permanent public works department where gov't hires people to fix our infrastructure (roads, bridges, power grid). the economical benefits would be exponential and the investments would pay great dividends.

 

Why have a government entity instead of doing more projects with private companies?

[carlfense]

Right about now would be a good time for those "job creators" we've been hearing so much about to start creating some jobs.

that would be nice. but i think what we need is a permanent public works department where gov't hires people to fix our infrastructure (roads, bridges, power grid). the economical benefits would be exponential and the investments would pay great dividends.

Why have a government entity instead of doing more projects with private companies?

If the projects are the same . . . why not pay employees directly?

[BigRedBuster]

You still would need managers to manage the employees. I find value in private firms being financially responsible for the success of the project and the bidding process of different companies vying for the business.

[sd'sker]

Why have a government entity instead of doing more projects with private companies?

i am certainly not opposed to that. but i just think there needs to be more public works projects, however they may be effectuated. but the purpose would be creating good jobs and fixing the infrastructure. i would be opposed to a bidding process that would undercut wages or creates bonuses for the company rather than the employees. i would not want it to function as essentially a corporate handout and a few low wage jobs.

[BigRedBuster]

Why have a government entity instead of doing more projects with private companies?

i am certainly not opposed to that. but i just think there needs to be more public works projects, however they may be effectuated. but the purpose would be creating good jobs and fixing the infrastructure. i would be opposed to a bidding process that would undercut wages or creates bonuses for the company rather than the employees. i would not want it to function as essentially a corporate handout and a few low wage jobs.

 

 

Infrastructure projects all across the country happen every year. The system works. There are strict requirements in the contracts that workers need to be paid certain wages...etc. I'm fine with tweaking them if they need tweaked.

 

I am all for bringing most military personnel home from over seas and closing most of the over 700 military installations we have outside our borders. Take that money and pay for infrastructure and put the remaining military personnel on the Mexican border protecting us from the impending civil war that is bound to happen south of the border.

[carlfense]

You still would need managers to manage the employees.

Sure . . . just like in a private firm.

 

I find value in private firms being financially responsible for the success of the project and the bidding process of different companies vying for the business.

Maybe. You see potential value . . . but I see more opportunity for political corruption.

[knapplc]

sd'sker, you mean like the Eisenhower Works Projects?

 

 

 

BRB is right - our infrastructure needs a major overhaul. Our bridges are falling apart, our roads are antiquated, and a reinvestment into our public infrastructure is long overdue. I'd cautiously support something like that.