Infrastructure improvements and jobs in America?

Post Reply New Topic

It's not make-work. This is actual needed projects and activities. Still, a question of how much, how soon.

And, although it may currently be unpopular, I remain a Keynesian. Yes, , a Keynesian.

The following is an interesting video (although a crapola 15 or 30 second commercial at the beginning).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO-NObj_TrQ

What you mean some crazy liberal idea like that the rising tide will raise all ships. Its been tried. Remember the new deal see how that just destroyed the economy and cost jobs.
Seems like thats how the teabaggers remember it anyway.

We keep hearing politicians go on about the need for a smart grid. The taxpayers will end up stuck with the bill
Directly or through tax incentives, why not use this as an engine to drive job growth instead of the profits payed to the limited few.

When will the military budget be trimmed so we can fix our bridges, roads and water mains?

ruveyn

The military isn't the problem, it is all the crony capitalism. Several million dollars of stimulus went to "Operation Fast & Furious" which was sending guns to Mexican Drug Cartels.

Military spending can do wonders for the economy when done right and in conjunction with other measures in other aspects of our society. The problem is that military spending hasn't been done right to improve the economy in 20 years, and there have been lots of anti-growth policies and tolerance of corruption, both resulting in more red tape and inefficient spending, as well. Making stuff in America with American labor out of American raw materials with American made machinery is great for the economy. Unfortunately that's fallen out of practice.

That is partly true. But our military budget is three times larger than it need be.

You are right. The -basic- problem is crony capitalism which is indistinguishable from crony socialism.

ruveyn

I favor a healthy interchange between theory and practice, and let me give an example.

In the early 1990s, the city of Houston was looking at either demolishing or renovating a large public housing project called Allen Parkway Village. There was expensive studies. At least one court case, probably more. There was an activist group, including some current residents, who I think were treated in some ways dismissively. (and it looks like the decision was made far earlier to demolish)
http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2009/ ... omment.php

Well, why don't we do a medium study, renovate part of it, and see how that goes? That's the interchange between theory and practice. (It was a series of kind of rowhouses with a lot of grassland between it. Would have been very easy just to renovate some of the buildings.)

And even though people preach this, and preach that they are being very practical, that good healthy interchange between theory and practice and that upward spiral only sometimes happen.

Last edited by AardvarkGoodSwimmer on 16 Jul 2011, 1:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I agree, change done on a massive scale will be hard to implement.

I would be interested in seeing a military base stripped down to the bare essentials so that the local economy would benefit more instead of using tax payer's money to pay for military benefits that are of little to no use. Remove the bowling alleys, movie theaters and golf courses from a base. Hire civilians to do all non-essential government work. Move military members less. Moving families around costs a lot of money. The loss would be felt in shipping and moving companies, however.

This wasn't my idea. It's been discussed before, but coming from a military viewpoint would be welcome.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/feat ... dget_hero/


check that out.

Okay, I'm going to shoot down your entire argument.

1. Bowling alleys, movie theaters, and golf courses on permanent bases are there for our soldiers to be able to have entertainment which is good for morale, in some places it is safer for our troops to be on base than it is outside of the base. Our soldiers do not spend their time in leisure all day, most of the time they are on the job, but to say they can't have any ability to have fun and deal with stress is idiotic.

2. They already hire civilians to do non-essential work.

3. They move military members as needed, they aren't pulling a pleasure cruise.

4. Keeping people seperated from their families especially when the base isn't on the front lines, but rather in an allied country so we can respond quickly if we have to is also bad for troop morale.


In all honesty the Military probably spends money the most efficiently out of any part of the Government.

1. The bowling alleys, movie theaters and golf courses are hardly used by military members by choice. They are usually guilted into military functions. Especially stateside. Most military personnel prefer to do their leisure activities off base, NOT where they spend all day working. The only exception would be overseas and I am not sure that it is even a good idea overseas. It is debatable. In a place like Turkey, it would be necessary since they are often not allowed off base. In a place like Portugal, it creates a fishbowl type experience where the military member is unfamiliar with the culture so prefers to stay on base. A lot of times, the fact that the military members are in the host country and not spending their money in the community causes strain.

2. They don't hire civilians to do all non-essential jobs. That is just a flat out lie. While their hiring has been over the years more civilian, they have plenty of jobs that would benefit from not moving the manager and getting new employees every four years. It is just bad management. The whole "well rounded soldier" is based on a World War 2 model. What we need now are experts very proficient in one field. Not a jack of all trades.

3. They move military members based on an old system. It is not efficient, fair, or even logical. It needs to be updated. I can give examples of this if needed.

4. I never made that point.

I have pondered infrastructure improvements. places that have not developed do not need them, and there are more than a few, New Orleans and Detroit, that need a lot just torn down. Neither produces more than short term income for a few large companies.

High speed trains look cool, but only work on dedicated tracks. Carving a swath from DC to Boston would get expensive, and destroy long term businesses, that would not survive the move. It also cuts up a city.

Building new cities is better, but there is no economy. Pennsylvania through the Great Lakes, Ohio Valley, is a rust belt losing people and jobs. A high speed rail and new cities would destroy what is left, and the tax base.

Any project large enough to make a dent in unemployment, would also cost a lot of money we do not have. It would consume energy, driving up prices.

While we do have a lot that should be torn down, someone owns it. So do you take it and pay, or tear it down and leave them with the cleared ground. After Katrina New Orleans wanted to tear down whole areas, and turn it into parks, It would have cost billions. None of their plans would produce income, long term jobs, All it would do is produce larger public expense to keep the grass cut, forever.

We have a baby bust, schools now have sixteen in a class, teacher, teachers aid, public employee unions, that will soon want to keep full employment at eight to the class. The main problem is after high school, the kids have an eigth grade education. More schools and more teachers is not the answer. The student product is not fit for work, trade school, or higher education. Besides that there are no jobs, and a degree is not worth the cost.

Jobs come from producing things people want, and everytime we do, China buys a case, and builds a factory.

With hundreds of thousands being cut from State and Local government, reducing the millitary is a horrible thing to do, they cannot get jobs, and do not qualify for unemployment. Our entire armed forces is fairly small. North Korea has more.

The planes being designed and developed for twenty years from now do provide jobs. At the same time it is not WWII, we cannot take a year and ramp up production. A B-17 could be mass produced, and a lot crashed. The new planes cost a lot more, and if you do not have them, you would never get a chance to build them.

Build them, and a few years later they become a 286 with 8Mb.

Spinoffs do drive technology, and technology does reduce jobs.

Building houses was labor and material intensive. That bubble over produced a decade of houses to keep the economy going.

Optional wars like Iraq used up a lot of machines, other supplies, that were heading for the scrap heap. Our industructable Abrams tanks in Bagdad were quickly pulled out, for an IED could take them out. Better to learn about that in a little war.

Our Navy is reduced to first strike, When you launch the planes they cannot expect to come back to land. That is why our around the world planes are kept in the middle of the country. Any attack on America, they are going to throw everything they have to start with.

"The well rounded soldier," is because we may lose half in a few minutes. Keeping them spread out around the world protects them. Whatever is left must be able to do it all. Our main training bases are all along a coast. An attack on America is an attack on the planet. Survive, strikeback, win, is the only choice. Plan B would incinerate the planet, and that counts as a loss.

We are doing our best to make all forms of war unpopular.

At home we have a few minor problems. Employment would be best solved locally. If every four workers would hire one, we would have a labor shortage. Even part time would do it. These people are costing us, unemployment, food stamps, and would rather be paying into Social Security, spending money, and paying sales taxes. A labor surplus drives down wages, and slows hiring.

Raise taxes, it is the only incentive to invest. Low taxes leads to speculation. At 50%, do I give half to the government, or hire a worker for half off? At 90% a worker costs 10%.

When things are in short supply, it is natural to horde, when it is labor, companies hire a few spares.

Life is great, the banks will fail. That will take the bubble out of housing, and full employment will quickly produce buyers. The banks will be a small loss compared to all the homeowners who have just been hanging on, making payments, who will see prices stabilize, then start rising. Housing is most of the net worth of America.

Reregulate banks, take them out of brokerage, and make laws that bring back the local Savings and Loans, that loan for local mortgages and hold them. Alowing banks to create mortgage securities is what caused this.

Demand a progressive tax code, less deductions, like mortgage interest, that funds speculators. Pay off the National Debt, and the dollar will gain value. The cost of government will drop, no interest payments, and those who have been in bonds, will have to put their money in something productive. Most pensions and 401Ks are stock market dependent.

Raise the income subject to Social Security to $250,000. It will quickly become solvent for hundreds of years.

Call all the Chinese holdings, and pay them in cash. No interest, and they will have to do something. The same with our oil suppliers. 3% inflation will make it worthless in thirty years. They will have to spend it. The world economy will get a $15 Trillion bump.

Neo-Keynsian. Some deficits do matter, evidently.

We have a lot of bridges that need repair. I mean, seriously a lot. One in four, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers report card.

I agree we need an expeditionary force of well rounded soldiers as well as those trained to replace them. I would also like to see benefits that benefit the soldier and not what looks good on paper. No body will cry over the bowling alley and it costs tons to maintain. However, removing the commissary would be a crying matter.

I'm also not saying to remove the military from bases, but only keep the ones that have a mission or support the mission. Personnel needs to be overhauled. Dealing with military pay is a disaster. It is not a well oiled machine.

I won't be keeping up with this thread anymore because of family coming in. If you want to message me directly you can and I'll get to it eventually.

Kind regards.

There's a scene in Larry McMurtry's book THE LAST PICTURE SHOW in which two 18 or 19-year-old guys are entering or exiting a dinner and they eyeball two young airmen as if they want to want fight them, as if they're competition. And of course they are. The young servicemen are competition to date the local women.

So, I guess like a lot of things, my initial reaction would be either-or and individual choice. Should be enough stuff on base that, just on an evening a serviceman or woman does feel like putting up with all this, he or she does have enough activities on base. (and I guess the base can try offering different activities and see which find takers)

I do not really come from a military family. My Dad was in the U.S. army for two years in the late 1950s, but he hardly talks about his past. I was in high school JROTC for my freshman and sophomore years age 14 - 16, but that hardly counts. I had a friend from high school who joined the navy and served a 6 year hitch.

I do think service men and women should get a square deal, especially on such things as GI Bill resources when they come back.

I remember a charity poker tournament (which makes it legal) in Vermont for a sports team. A young man, who I think was a cadet at Annapolis or other military college but I think it was Annapolis, won the tournament. The nice lady organizing the tournament handled him the envelope of money which was around 800 dollars. He said, no, no, no, give it to the team, as if he wanted to make the donation and not think about it too much.

And I remembering thinking, wow, what a good young man. Our elected leaders should have policy and goals and ethics as good as this young man.

Gen. David Petraeus when he was in Iraq worked on job creation for people in Iraq, paid out compensation to families for people killed as civilians (around $5,000 which is not an enormous amount, but is a sign of respect), put up a sign that said, What have you and your unit done today to win over the hearts and minds of the people. And overall, seemed an active and energetic guy. I think we should have done what rebuilding we can in six months and then left. And at this point we have worn out our welcome.

And there certainly are things that need to be talked about. I read in a liberal/left-wing publication that at one point, young men were not allowed to leave Fallujah, as if all young men were insurgent fighters, and then the city was massively bombed. I hope not. Not so cool if it was done. And the important thing is to not beat ourselves up about it, but to make a conscious effort not to make this mistake again.

Regretfully we are doing worse in Afganistan. Boys of ten and old men are called insurgents. Those who do not join the army of occupied Afaganistan, had best vanish.

In the local culture a man puts on his hat and coat, to go to the village, on the way out the door picks up his AK-74, and joins with the other men to talk. Villages are in tribal areas, and the local men provide the services of police, army, and mostly drink tea. Many of them fought the Russians, with little outside help. Their tribes are related, blood, marraige, for the last thousand years.

The Americans did supply some help to fight the Russians, and the deal was, you should rule yourselves. They won, and they produced their own government, and even ended opium production.

Their government was made up of religious students, because they do not trust politicians. Taliban were sworn to uphold the faith. From an Afgan point of view it worked well for ten years, where tribal warfare was low level, but constant, as it had always been.

The main group is Pashtun. As were the Taliban. The Northern Tribes are not. They are a minority, and another culture. Under Pashtunwari, the code of conduct, hospitality is demanded. Everyone is entitled to at least three cups of tea. A guest is protected, and someone who served your cause moreso. Those who came to stand with them and fight the Russians could often not go home again.

They were freedom fighters who put their lives on the line to do what is happening in Egypt, Tunisia, and all over the mid east. Self rule, elections, and getting rid of the people who have been in office since the cold war.

It is their culture and their way, and Arabia was tribal, until the British armed the Saud Tribe, not long ago, and now they call themselves The Royal Family. They even made war on Mecca and took it from the rightful keepers. It is an offense to the tribes and the religion.

So yes, some did want to export revolution, and bring freedom from Kings set up by western powers.

Imagine Obama supported by the Chinese and ruling till one of his daughters becomes Queen. Then her children and theirs.

Their cause is just.

The tribes are bound by blood, and if you kill one, they are obligated to revenge. It is better that a hundred more die with honor, than one death is forgotten. This is friends, and also generations to come. They will take revenge.

They are the only people who beat Alexander the Great. He tore down their houses, cut their trees, filled wells and irrigation ditches, killed any he could find, and they won, for they will never quit. They will truly fight you to the last man woman and child.

When the mighty wanted to pass through, they sent people bringing gifts to ask, and permission was granted. Gengis had a problem with Iran, passed through and back, after removing all traces of three large cities from Iran. He turned them to grass.

Balbour when he invaded India, gave gifts, passed through, and won a land.

The Afgans have always been a social and good hearted people. To those who treat them well.

When the British invaded, they did not come as friends, and those who made it out alive, never wanted to go back. The Crown did, so there was a second invasion, with the same result.

When all thirteen time zones of Russia invaded, the war continued, Russians died. Lots of Afgans died, they never stopped, in fact one of their tactics is just wearing out an invader, and when they start falling back, that is when the all out attack comes. When the Russians left, the Afgans killed all who supported them.

They are not insurgents, they are the people. They will not be ruled by anyone but themselves. They will fight till the invaders leave, kill everyone who supported them, then go back to tribal ways, and fighting with each other. It is their chosen form of government, and has worked since before Alexander.

The choice is ours, we can lose tomorrow, next week, month, year, ten years, a hundred, we will lose, so how long do we bleed?