Bridges and roads falling apart, economic Depression -- why no Public Works?

[KurtNYC]

America achieved its peak after things like the interstate hwys and the Hoover Dam developed the infrastructure to do that.

It seems so obvious. Bridges are falling down. Put some people to work.

Why isn't the WPA part of the play book this time?

[arcane1]

1. Sadly, I doubt the Interstate Highways could be done today

I can't imagine the whining and crying over "spending" that would accompany such a project :(

[msongs]

2. because all our wealth for that is being squandered in Afghanistan and Iraq? nt

[truthlives]

9. Because the wealth exists to be transferred to the top 2%

And, investing in bridges and roads and spending on public works would take the money away from that endeavor.

It is surreal to watch the wealth go after ss and increase taxes on the poorest, and people still not seeing what is right before their very own eyes.

[gratuitous]

33. Welcome to DU

And you are correct. The fruits of the labor of America are not to be squandered on the proles, it is created to be funneled to the wealthy. Because somehow, in Labor's act of creating wealth, it automatically "belongs" to the wealthy.

[tranche]

3. It took 100x the people to build Hoover dam than it would today.

I think that's one of the reasons why something like the WPA would not be nearly as effective today. It's too capital intensive. There'd still be a lot of money spent, but it would go to executives and shareholders of big engineering companies.

[tularetom]

22. That's a bit of an exaggeration

Employment on the dam peaked at 5,251 in July 1934.

Modern construction techniques and equipment would definitely reduce that number, but to suggest that 50 people could build such a massive structure regardless of what computerized machines they had helping them is unrealistic.

I've been involved in heavy construction projects both in the US and abroad and IMO you would still need at the very least 2 to 3 thousand employees in order to complete the dam project in the same time frame as the original.

[Davis_X_Machina]

4. 60 votes in the Senate...

...and they aren't there.

[NutmegYankee]

5. Can't have socialist transportation right?

We have to let the free market decide which road to build...

:sarcasm:

[CoffeeCat]

6. So many reasons why that would be a bad idea!

Oh come now! We can't have government money being funneled to working class people
and lifting them out of misery, now can we?

That money is for Wall Street executives, bank CEOs who screw up really, really
bad and yacht owners who need windfall tax cuts!

Shame on you--suggesting that the rich be overlooked in order to benefit hard-working
Americans!

If you want to help (and I seriously doubt it!) you could write your Senator and tell
him how important it is that our government hire companies like Blackwater and Haliburton
to do those jobs. Now that would be helpful! A government that helps multi-billion
dollar corporations flourish even more!

Live the dream! Will you help?

...or will you continue with these crazy ideas that the government actually help
average, hard-working, middle-class folkks?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

7. I'd take one of those jobs in a heartbeat

There are so many people out of work, however, I fear I wouldn't even get one.

[Paper Roses]

12. I hosey one of those jobs. Never mind I'm 68.

I can swing a shovel with the best of them. No computer skills required.

Maybe they'd start in my area, the roads and bridges here are a mess. Corroded underpinnings on the bridges, potholes big enough to swallow your car or at lease kill the tire and rim. I know lots of people who would line up for the chance. Most with degrees in some field. Work is work.

Like it would ever happen!

[KurtNYC]

34. I would love to drive down a road I helped build (or re-build)

[Auggie]

8. Shock Doctrine at work...

waiting for infrastructure and public service(s) to get so bad -- so inept -- and people to get so desparate-- that they'll welcome change in any form or from any source, especially at the expense of beloved social programs.

[Bobbieo]

11. What ever happened to the Civilian Conservation Corps? That was

a good one during the Great Depression.

[lostnfound]

16. Yep, and then that infrastructure can be privatized and sold at firesale prices

Schools, water facilities, highways, etc.

[Auggie]

18. That's what they're waiting for...

there's a ton of profit to be made.

[socialist_n_TN]

24. As you said earlier Auggie.............

CLASSIC Shock Doctrine, right down to selling off the public utilities at fire sale prices.

[BOG PERSON]

26. thats weird

i always thought something *shocking* had to happen rather suddenly, as to evoke surprise - not over the course of thirty or fourty years

[socialist_n_TN]

31. The set up takes a while.................

then all it takes is a trigger event to bring it to fruition. We've been setting it up for 30 years.

[MadMaddie]

35. Bingo!

Moving us even further into 3rd world status.

[dkf]

10. We missed our opportunity.

We had the best argument for this earlier and we didn't capitalize on it.

[Cleita]

13. I wonder if the state providing jobs during economic

crisis could be considered a right under our rights to be equal. In order to be equal we all need access to the same necessities, like food, water, shelter and health care. I wonder if there is anyway this could be done to force our governments to do it?

[WyLoochka]

14. Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge

was finally opened October 19. Not a new project though - it was a ten lo-o-o-o-ong years project. Had they waited until now to start, it probably wouldn't have been approved.

http://www.hooverdambypass.org/default.htm

[Wilms]

27. According to that link, the bypass was inspired by NAFTA needs.

Probably some Fatherland Security concerns, too.

[lostnfound]

15. Because they want to break us? Seems like Shock Doctrine all over the place. nt

[HowHasItComeToThis]

17. BECAUSE THEY MIGHT WORK, AND WE NEED A DEPRESSION TO SCARE THE LIBERALS

[Autumn]

19. Not a priority n/t

[pitohui]

20. because the loudest ignorant voices are the yahoos who don't want it, the tea baggers

we give all the publicity to the yahoos and even give them the likes of their own teevee shows and then wonder why it is considered "the will of the people" that we don't want gov't programs?

it is our duty as democrats and progressives to start yelling loud and long for the programs we want

where the people lead, the leaders will follow...but obama can't do it all on his own, he ain't jesus

we need to start YELLING that we WANT the programs and we need to start PROVING that the teabaggers are idiots (shouldn't be real hard since they are)

we're getting a fuck load of road work done here in the greater new orleans area, why, because bush was embarrassed and shamed by his fuck up with katrina, and we made it clear we DEMANDED this (and mary landrieu backed us up in the senate and wasn't afraid to make some noise)

[Laelth]

21. Good question. Doubt you'll get a good answer. n/t

-Laelth

[David Zephyr]

23. K&R. After all, we need good roads & bridges for transport of all the goods made in China.

We are too busy building roads and bridges in Afghanistan and Iraq with money we borrowed from the Chinese with interest to be building bridges and roads in America.

[flvegan]

25. Oh, you mean like what Kucinich proposed?

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=217846

[TheDebbieDee]

28. Publik werks is soshilist-wellfair!

[Brilliantrocket]

30. Anything public is socialist!

If the right wingers had their way all roads would be privately owned. Imagine paying $20 to use a highway.

[snagglepuss]

29. Have you been asleep? There have been a lot of public work projects

in Iraq and Afganistan. :evilgrin:

[Bigmack]

32. See... the problem is...

none of those People In Charge has ever read a fucking history book. None of them ever heard of the WPA, CCC, or PWA. All those expensive Ivy League educations, and none of those fucks have the slightest understanding of what "work" means.

[lonestarnot]

36. Because the richies need the dough so badly.

:puke:

[Better Believe It]

37. President Obama: "I've never believed that governments role is to create jobs or prosperity"

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release September 08, 2010
Remarks by the President on the Economy in Parma, Ohio
Cuyahoga Community College West Campus, Parma, Ohio


"Now, we have a different vision for the future. See, I’ve never believed that government has all the answers to our problems. I’ve never believed that government’s role is to create jobs or prosperity. I believe it’s the drive and the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs, our small businesses; the skill and dedication of our workers -- (applause) -- that’s made us the wealthiest nation on Earth. (Applause.) I believe it’s the private sector that must be the main engine for our recovery.

I believe government should be lean; government should be efficient. I believe government should leave people free to make the choices they think are best for themselves and their families, so long as those choices don’t hurt others. (Applause.)"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/08/remarks-president-economy-parma-ohio


-----------------------------------------------


Now I understand why the Obama Administration won't lift President Reagan's ban prohibiting direct WPA type federal jobs programs. President Obama believes it's not the governments role to lead this nation out of the Great Recession by creating useful public works jobs and demand. Government must slim down and stay out of the way in order to allow Wall Street and corporate America to perform their magic.

Some magic.

Well, they did make almost 10 million jobs disappear.

BBI

---------------------------------------------

Excerpts from two articles by Alec MacGillis -

By Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 8, 2009 and
Monday, November 9, 2009

Why has a White House that talks so much about boosting employment steered clear of the most direct strategy that could keep Americans on the job? .... aside from a small summer employment program for young people, it has not sought to create jobs on the public payroll, something the country did in the 1930s and 1970s.

President Richard Nixon gave jobs programs another go in the doldrums of 1973-74 with the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA).

The program withered under President Ronald Reagan, who added prohibitions against public service employment (except for summer programs and natural disasters) that endure today. That the Obama administration shows little indication of lifting this taboo is a sign of how free-market tenets persist even when financial turmoil has called them into doubt, said John Russo, co-director of Youngstown State University's Center for Working-Class Studies.

As for direct job creation: there's a real nervousness about setting up anything that looks like a WPA-style jobs program. It's that reluctance that my piece is calling into question -- after all, is it really more politically damaging to be seen as doing a jobs program than to be facing double-digit unemployment?

.... we had direct job creation programs in place throughout the '70s, as my article recounts. It was called CETA, and it ramped up under Nixon in '73-'74 recession. Reagan ended the program, and implemented a new federal restriction against federal jobs programs, with exception for summer youth programs and national emergencies.

The Labor Department does have various job training programs in place, such as Job Corps. But the federal government is prohibited against doing direct jobs-program style hiring a ban that Reagan put in place and that the Democrats so far have balked at trying to lift.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/06/AR2009110601900.html?sid=ST2009110604712

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/11/06/DI2009110603214.html

[DefenseLawyer]

38. There's no money in it.

Same reason that when Bush took over, his original pre-9/11 plan for the military was a higher budget, but far fewer soldiers and lots more spent on weapons. There is no profit is paying soldiers, or ditch diggers.

[Starry Messenger]

39. It wouldn't benefit profits.

No one is really running this show, capitalism is. I'm guessing a robust work force doesn't look like it improves the bottom line in this cycle.

[somone]

40. Rich people don't have to drive

like normal people do