Hubbs Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I've seen this argument made in multiple threads, so I figured I'd condense it into one. If you've been browsing the recent stimulus threads, you've probably seen more than one person post one of those long lists of seemingly stupid things included in the stimulus bill. Inevitably, what you'll also see is someone else post a response in which they quote each of those stupid things and respond to almost all of them with something along the lines of, "People have to be paid to do this. Thus, it creates jobs." The problem is that, if such economic reasoning proved to work, it would make sense for the government to pay for almost anything. The Bridge to Nowhere would be good for the economy, because, after all, people have to be paid to build it - thus it creates jobs. Hell, that hilarious would make legitimate sense, because people would have to be paid to dig it.I'm not gonna make this post overly complicated by dragging in numbers about tax efficiency and so forth. My point is simple - judging by discussions that happened during campaign season, it seems that pretty much everybody agrees that the Bridge to Nowhere doesn't make economic sense. Similarly, we all laugh at the thought of the government paying people to dig a big hole. So if those ideas don't make sense, simply saying "it creates jobs" about any given program doesn't mean that it actually helps the economy. There has to be more than that - a certain value gotten in return for the amount of money spent. Otherwise, it's a net loss, even if 100 people are paid to build an "ethnic heritage trail." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 The Bridge to Nowhere would make sense in that it would create jobs. But after that it would serve very little purpose. The kind of stuff I want to see done would not only create jobs, but have long-term benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 You actually want to sell the idea that with four different economic threads going, all with very active discussions, this was a needed addition for another thread and not just should have been a post in one of the others? I think your brain needs a bailout. But, hey, what the hell. I'll let someone else shut it down if they want. Did I mention we offered zoony a $5 bounty for every NNT? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Did I mention we offered zoony a $5 bounty for every NNT? :laugh:that would explain why I got NNTed 18 times last week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted February 16, 2009 Author Share Posted February 16, 2009 You actually want to sell the idea that with four different economic threads going, all with very active discussions, this was a needed addition for another thread and not just should have been a post in one of the others?I think your brain needs a bailout. But, hey, what the hell. I'll let someone else shut it down if they want. Did I mention we offered zoony a $5 bounty for every NNT? :laugh: Ha, I was trying to a consolidate a discussion that was aimlessly weaving amongst all four of those threads. Each of them is tackling all sorts of aspects about the stimulus and its political implications - posts about jobs would pop up, but a lot of them could have interacted with each other and didn't because they were in separate threads. And only $5 per NNT? Man, the economy's worse than I thought.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted February 16, 2009 Author Share Posted February 16, 2009 The Bridge to Nowhere would make sense in that it would create jobs. But after that it would serve very little purpose.The kind of stuff I want to see done would not only create jobs, but have long-term benefits. So, literally no matter what the project, it would "make sense" as long as someone, somewhere was paid to do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 So, literally no matter what the project, it would "make sense" as long as someone, somewhere was paid to do it? No, the second part of his response shows why it doesn't make sense. Not just any project is a good one, because if it has no purpose, then it's not worth building. If there were NO other projects out there that could put people to work, then maybe. But since there's thousands of bridges out there that need repair, and thousands of other public works projects out there that absolutely need work, then there's no reason to waste money building a bridge to nowhere just to create jobs. This is simple common sense. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 No, the second part of his response shows why it doesn't make sense. Not just any project is a good one, because if it has no purpose, then it's not worth building.If there were NO other projects out there that could put people to work, then maybe. But since there's thousands of bridges out there that need repair, and thousands of other public works projects out there that absolutely need work, then there's no reason to waste money building a bridge to nowhere just to create jobs. This is simple common sense. ~Bang Yep. But I think what he is saying is that the current stimulus is loaded with "Projects to Nowhere" but the reasoning for those is "it creates jobs." And hence its all stupid politics. Hubbs, was that what you were getting at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I think you could technically have called the "Bridge to Nowhere" a stimulus project, but there were two differences... the first was pointed out... 1) It served little if any purpose. I'd argue that upgrading schools, federal buildings, investing money in alternative energy research, and even providing condoms serves a greater and more productive service than a mega million dollar bridge for a dozen people who've successfully used alternative routes for centuries. 2) Alaska didn't need a stimulus. They went for the pork for the bridge to nowhere during the oil craze and Alaska was making money hand over fist. There was nothing that needed to be stimulated. It was simple excess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Yep. But I think what he is saying is that the current stimulus is loaded with "Projects to Nowhere" but the reasoning for those is "it creates jobs." And hence its all stupid politics. Well, I would hope that with all the talk of change that they will seriously try to curtail the pork that will go into these projects. It's no doubt some people will get rich off of all of this, and there's nothing wrong with that if it comes honestly,,, contractors get paid,, but they better be getting paid for work that actually needs doing. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Sure the bridge to no-where was a stimulus for their area, but that was never the issue, the issue was that 1) it was wasteful spending that was highlighted in the campaign because McCain was against earmarks yet his running mate supported that earmark and many others. 2) it wasn't needed 3) when it was being built the country didn't need a stimulus package. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 1) It served little if any purpose. I'd argue that upgrading schools, federal buildings, investing money in alternative energy research, and even providing condoms serves a greater and more productive service than a mega million dollar bridge for a dozen people who've successfully used alternative routes for centuries. 2) Alaska didn't need a stimulus. They went for the pork for the bridge to nowhere during the oil craze and Alaska was making money hand over fist. There was nothing that needed to be stimulated. It was simple excess. What he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 This is simple common sense. ~Bang Come on Bang this has nothing to do with common sense, someone is trying to rationalize the spending that was so heavily attacked during the last campaign, this has nothing to do with logic but is just trying to make Palin look better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Come on Bang this has nothing to do with common sense, someone is trying to rationalize the spending that was so heavily attacked during the last campaign, this has nothing to do with logic but is just trying to make Palin look better. I disagree. It's more about context. The why's and the when's matter. We change our definitions to meet the needs of the time. That's why we called the "Bridge to Nowhere" pork instead of stimulus. The "Bridge" could have been a stimulus and I'm sure it did create jobs and pumped money into the Alaskan economy, however, it did so at a time when Alaska was already rich and didn't need artificial stimulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 "A wise man offers his millet to be shared among the village, for his gift will be repaid a thousand times in gratitude. A wiser man takes somebody else's millet and offers it to the village. Guess what? Same gratitude, and extra millet for good ol' numero uno." Ethiopian "The power of the leader is like his loincloth: worn too tight it will ride up and chafe, worn too loose it will expose all his junk." Ibo http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 This is the point of spending "just" to spend. For 14 of the last 17years we didn't "spend" this money and everyone had a job. Don't throw money at a problem: Throw the solution at the problem: its cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I disagree. It's more about context. The why's and the when's matter. We change our definitions to meet the needs of the time. That's why we called the "Bridge to Nowhere" pork instead of stimulus. The "Bridge" could have been a stimulus and I'm sure it did create jobs and pumped money into the Alaskan economy, however, it did so at a time when Alaska was already rich and didn't need artificial stimulation. Both and. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 This is the point of spending "just" to spend.For 14 of the last 17years we didn't "spend" this money and everyone had a job. Don't throw money at a problem: Throw the solution at the problem: its cheaper. The money is the solution, because it puts people who are out of work back to work and it allows companies to keep employees without laying them off. You act like they are just chucking money out the window. What would be your solution? Tax cuts for the rich so they can invest it in their companies...keeping in mind that we tried that already without much luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Burgold 200,000,000 dollars to build a bridge for 5,000 people to use. Thats more of a whipit shot that lasts 5 seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Burgold 200,000,000 dollars to build a bridge for 5,000 people to use.Thats more of a whipit shot that lasts 5 seconds. I don't think anyone is saying that the bridge was an example of good spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 No, the second part of his response shows why it doesn't make sense. Not just any project is a good one, because if it has no purpose, then it's not worth building.If there were NO other projects out there that could put people to work, then maybe. But since there's thousands of bridges out there that need repair, and thousands of other public works projects out there that absolutely need work, then there's no reason to waste money building a bridge to nowhere just to create jobs. This is simple common sense. ~Bang Bang nailed it. (As, I observe, he often does.) Yes, the Bridge to Nowhere is stimulus. No, it isn't good stimulus. If you spend the money repairing the Brooklyn Bridge, then when you're done spending the money, you've got a repaired Brooklyn Bridge. Spend the same money on Bridge to Nowhere, and you'll employ the same number of workers, for the same length of time, in the same industries. But when you're done, you've got nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 The money is the solution, because it puts people who are out of work back to work and it allows companies to keep employees without laying them off. You act like they are just chucking money out the window.What would be your solution? Tax cuts for the rich so they can invest it in their companies...keeping in mind that we tried that already without much luck. My solution at this point would be a 4% mortgage rate. My solution at this point is for no taxes on anyone under 50k till September. My solution at this point is for something the GAO says could work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 My solution at this point would be a 4% mortgage rate.My solution at this point is for no taxes on anyone under 50k till September. My solution at this point is for something the GAO says could work. To little. I hear that the GAO says it could work, but if people are afraid to spend then they are not going to get into a new mortgage, what's more is that the banks are not lending so you may offer 4% but if the banks are not giving the money then you've done nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 To little. I hear that the GAO says it could work, but if people are afraid to spend then they are not going to get into a new mortgage, what's more is that the banks are not lending so you may offer 4% but if the banks are not giving the money then you've done nothing. I've heard the GAO said this wont work by itself. That means there needs to be MORE!!! The banks don't have a freaking choice at this point.. any bailout bank that will not lend should have the money RIPPED out of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted February 16, 2009 Author Share Posted February 16, 2009 Yep. But I think what he is saying is that the current stimulus is loaded with "Projects to Nowhere" but the reasoning for those is "it creates jobs." And hence its all stupid politics. Hubbs, was that what you were getting at? Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.