PDA

View Full Version : Sen. Bernie Sanders Introduces Bill to Create 13 Million New Jobs



TrueBlue
01-03-2015, 01:58 PM
Bernie Sanders Flexes His Muscles By Introducing Bill To Create 13 Million New Jobs

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/03/bernie-sanders-flexes-muscles-introducing-bill-create-13-million-jobs.html


"What Boehner and McConnell do about issues like infrastructure spending will signal how serious they are about governing. What is certain though is that liberals will have a loud voice in the new Congress, and Bernie Sanders will be leading the charge to create millions of new middle-class jobs."

===========================================

Yes, now that Republicans are in control of the Senate they will also be under the microscope you can bet on that. Let's see how amenable they are to issues with regard to infrastructure and jobs that are so important to this country. We need to keep a notebook to log their actions and how they vote from now on starting the moment they are sworn into office.

hanger4
01-03-2015, 02:10 PM
So the ARRA didn't work ??


Who knew ??

hanger4
01-03-2015, 02:12 PM
Bernie Sanders Flexes His Muscles By Introducing Bill To Create 13 Million New Jobs

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/03/bernie-sanders-flexes-muscles-introducing-bill-create-13-million-jobs.html



===========================================

Yes, now that Republicans are in control of the Senate they will also be under the microscope you can bet on that. Let's see how amenable they are to issues with regard to infrastructure and jobs that are so important to this country. We need to keep a notebook to log their actions and how they vote from now on starting the moment they are sworn into office.

You do know that infrastructure jobs are temporary

kink a like the Keystone pipeline ??

The Sage of Main Street
01-03-2015, 02:20 PM
Bernie Sanders Flexes His Muscles By Introducing Bill To Create 13 Million New Jobs

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/03/bernie-sanders-flexes-muscles-introducing-bill-create-13-million-jobs.html



===========================================

Yes, now that Republicans are in control of the Senate they will also be under the microscope you can bet on that. Let's see how amenable they are to issues with regard to infrastructure and jobs that are so important to this country. We need to keep a notebook to log their actions and how they vote from now on starting the moment they are sworn into office. Since Cigar already provided evidence that the Rethuglicans voted anti-veteran and anti-Catholic, I'm sure he'll expose their anti-jobs votes, too.

TrueBlue
01-03-2015, 02:21 PM
You do know that infrastructure jobs are temporary

kink a like the Keystone pipeline ??
Well it all depends on the management aspect of the jobs. If they are managed right and they produce then the jobs can last a lot longer. As for Keystone Pipeline, I think that project is DOA already.

Chris
01-03-2015, 02:27 PM
Well it all depends on the management aspect of the jobs. If they are managed right and they produce then the jobs can last a lot longer. As for Keystone Pipeline, I think that project is DOA already.

No, infrastructure jobs are temporary. When the infrastructure is (re)built, the jobs disappear.

And that's what's seen. What's unseen is the wealth used for infrastructure is taken from what it would have been spent on. Thus it's a wash, if not a loss for administrative costs, unless someone can demonstrate a multiplier effect.

hanger4
01-03-2015, 02:27 PM
Well it all depends on the management aspect of the jobs. If they are managed right and they produce then the jobs can last a lot longer. As for Keystone Pipeline, I think that project is DOA already.

Construction jobs are all temporary by nature TrueBlue

Whether they be bridges or roads or pipelines.

iustitia
01-03-2015, 02:28 PM
If the government spending money magically creates jobs then how is anyone unemployed with an 18 trillion dollar debt? Could it be because government waste doesn't create commerce which is what an actual job does?

hanger4
01-03-2015, 02:30 PM
If the government spending money magically creates jobs then how is anyone unemployed with an 18 trillion dollar debt? Could it be because government waste doesn't create commerce which is what an actual job does?

shhhhhhhh

TrueBlue
01-03-2015, 02:50 PM
Construction jobs are all temporary by nature @TrueBlue (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1308)

Whether they be bridges or roads or pipelines.
But you have to be optimistic and look at the bigger picture hanger4 Those type of jobs usually keep people employed for a long time during the run of the project. And with a good track record on production and good workers that can not only allow a company to expand operations and have many notice them but it can also create a permanent job for the temp. workers as well in the same or other fields as they become better noticed for their good work ethic and through word of mouth.

hanger4
01-03-2015, 02:55 PM
But you have to be optimistic and look at the bigger picture @hanger4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=403) Those type of jobs usually keep people employed for a long time during the run of the project. And with a good track record on production and good workers that can not only allow a company to expand operations and have many notice them but it can also create a permanent job for the temp. workers as well in the same or other fields as they become better noticed for their good work ethic and through word of mouth.

I'm well aware TrueBlue I've worked in the

construction field for over 40 years,

also by your reasoning Keystone should move forward.

Calypso Jones
01-03-2015, 03:03 PM
smoke and mirrors..to take our minds off the fact that Obama is killing the economy. Government doesn't create jobs. And what do you do with these currently employed or laid off by the construction industry...you gonna take credit for pumping money into that you're printing already to pay these guys further deflating the economy. Here's an idea, Bernie..for you and Barrack. Mind your own damn business. YOu do nothing. Get the hell out of the way and Americans will fix this economy. pcirks.

iustitia
01-03-2015, 03:25 PM
But you have to be optimistic and look at the bigger picture @hanger4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=403) Those type of jobs usually keep people employed for a long time during the run of the project. And with a good track record on production and good workers that can not only allow a company to expand operations and have many notice them but it can also create a permanent job for the temp. workers as well in the same or other fields as they become better noticed for their good work ethic and through word of mouth.
So basically, have faith. That's the rationale for wasting billions on fake jobs and gov spending. Seems legit.

TrueBlue
01-03-2015, 03:40 PM
I'm well aware @TrueBlue (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1308) I've worked in the

construction field for over 40 years,

also by your reasoning Keystone should move forward.
No, it shouldn't. Keystone pipeline has many different factors involved that weigh in to the equation since it is coming from Canada. And as a reminder, even Canadians are against it being in their country and are protesting other pipelines as well, so that should be very telling.

'The Tar Sands Disaster': Canadians Against Keystone XL, in The New York Times

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/04/01/tar-sands-disaster-canadians-against-keystone-xl-new-york-times-148477


"If President Obama blocks the Keystone XL pipeline once and for all, he’ll do Canada a favor," writes Thomas Homer-Dixon, an international affairs instructor at the Balsillie School of International Affairs in Waterloo, Ontario."

Canadians Rise Up Against Their Own Keystone Pipelines

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26029


"Besides the climate-related dangers of expanding tar sands extraction and the inevitable leaks and ruptures of the pipeline, the port is in Beluga whale calving grounds."

Peter1469
01-03-2015, 03:45 PM
Only some Canadians are against it. I believe you are talking about the First Nations. They don't speak for Canada.


No, it shouldn't. Keystone pipeline has many different factors involved that weigh in to the equation since it is coming from Canada. And as a reminder, even Canadians are against it being in their country and are protesting other pipelines as well, so that should be very telling.

'The Tar Sands Disaster': Canadians Against Keystone XL, in The New York Times

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/04/01/tar-sands-disaster-canadians-against-keystone-xl-new-york-times-148477



Canadians Rise Up Against Their Own Keystone Pipelines

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26029

Professor Peabody
01-03-2015, 03:49 PM
Bernie Sanders Flexes His Muscles By Introducing Bill To Create 13 Million New Jobs http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/03/bernie-sanders-flexes-muscles-introducing-bill-create-13-million-jobs.html =========================================== Yes, now that Republicans are in control of the Senate they will also be under the microscope you can bet on that. Let's see how amenable they are to issues with regard to infrastructure and jobs that are so important to this country. We need to keep a notebook to log their actions and how they vote from now on starting the moment they are sworn into office.

Like the Stimulus that spent all of 3% of the total package on infrastructure? I think Sanders is an idiot.


Finding Infrastructure in the Stimulus Plan

Philip K. Howard

Posted: 02/18/2014 11:50 am EST Updated: 04/20/2014 5:59 am EDT

Yesterday's White House report (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/cea_arra_report.pdf), claiming 6 million jobs saved by the $800 billion stimulus plan, predictably prompted partisan debate on fiscal waste.

Probably the wisest investment is in rebuilding America's decaying infrastructure. This was the focus of the president's push for the stimulus back in 2009, and also the headliner in the report issued yesterday: The stimulus "initiated more than 15,000 transportation projects, which will improve nearly 42,000 miles of road, mend or replace over 2,700 bridges, and provide funds for over 12,220 transit vehicles," plus improving 6,000 miles of rail.

These all sound like good investments to me, but I was curious how much of the stimulus plan went to these transportation infrastructure projects. Toward the back of the report (Table 8 on p. 34) there's a chart that gives the number: $30 billion. That's a little more than 3 percent of the total stimulus plan.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-k-howard/howards-daily-finding-inf_b_4808898.html

protectionist
01-03-2015, 03:57 PM
Bernie Sanders Flexes His Muscles By Introducing Bill To Create 13 Million New Jobs

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/03/bernie-sanders-flexes-muscles-introducing-bill-create-13-million-jobs.html

===========================================

Yes, now that Republicans are in control of the Senate they will also be under the microscope you can bet on that. Let's see how amenable they are to issues with regard to infrastructure and jobs that are so important to this country. We need to keep a notebook to log their actions and how they vote from now on starting the moment they are sworn into office.

Obama introduced 2 jobs bills to repair infrastructure, and Republicans shot them down in the House. As I recall, the reasoning for that was 2 things. That the hiring would have discriminated against Whites by way of affirmative action, and secondly, that the overwhelming majority of jobs would have gone to foreigners, not unemployed Americans. They have plenty to back that up, as recent studies have shown that almost all newly created jobs in America, since 2000, have been going to illegal aliens, and foreigners on work visas, leaving 15 million Americans still unemployed.

Let Obama stop the AA discrimination, and the discrimination against Americans, through the use of immigration and cheap foreign labor, and just maybe this Sanders idea will get somewhere. Not likely to happen with Obama going full stride on Executive Action on immigration, and I haven't heard a peep from him on affirmative action, either.

Also, there are more pressing infrastructure needs right now than roads and bridges. The top 3 are the nationwide electric grid, dams (especially the Wolf Creek), and the levees in the California Delta.

Chris
01-03-2015, 04:13 PM
So basically, have faith. That's the rationale for wasting billions on fake jobs and gov spending. Seems legit.

Statism is a religion.

Bo-4
01-03-2015, 04:24 PM
You do know that infrastructure jobs are temporary

kink a like the Keystone pipeline ??

Keystone? Lol.. that is NOT a jobs creation bill of any substance - what a thousand temporary and under 50 permanent full time?

Infrastructure would create a million new jobs.. and for those willing to travel, for YEARS.

webrockk
01-03-2015, 04:26 PM
Milton Friedman addressed the folly of this with his famous "spoons" comment.

Bo-4
01-03-2015, 04:26 PM
smoke and mirrors..to take our minds off the fact that Obama is killing the economy. Government doesn't create jobs. And what do you do with these currently employed or laid off by the construction industry...you gonna take credit for pumping money into that you're printing already to pay these guys further deflating the economy. Here's an idea, Bernie..for you and Barrack. Mind your own damn business. YOu do nothing. Get the hell out of the way and Americans will fix this economy. pcirks.

Sorry, but government creates MILLIONS of jobs. Tell that to your anti-gubment congressional TeaFleas (who are among the beneficiaries).

TrueBlue
01-03-2015, 04:34 PM
Like the Stimulus that spent all of 3% of the total package on infrastructure? I think Sanders is an idiot.
Republican Plan Contains Minuscule Revenue Increase Alongside Deep Cuts in Medicare and Medicaid

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3606


"The Republican plan also would make far deeper cuts in Medicaid — $185 billion versus $75 billion over ten years under the Democratic plan. Cuts of this depth would shift substantial costs to state governments, which would lead to state actions that limit care for the low-income children, parents, seniors, and people with disabilities whom Medicaid serves."

Peter1469
01-03-2015, 04:35 PM
When you use the word revenue increase, do you actually mean to say tax increase?


Republican Plan Contains Minuscule Revenue Increase Alongside Deep Cuts in Medicare and Medicaid

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3606

TrueBlue
01-03-2015, 05:08 PM
Only some Canadians are against it. I believe you are talking about the First Nations. They don't speak for Canada.
No, I'm not talking about the First Nations. A great majority of regular Canadians are diametrically opposed to the Keystone pipeline being built as well as other pipelines and with good reason.

NEWS: Ottawa Keystone pipeline expansion protest planned for Sept. 26

http://www.canadians.org/fr/node/7580


“There comes a time when you need to take a stand,” says the invitation to the Ottawa sit-in, sent out two weeks ago by the Council of Canadians, Greenpeace Canada and the Indigenous Environmental Network."


Unprecedented opposition may make British Columbia pipeline a non-starter

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/09/10/unprecedented_opposition_may_make_british_columbia _pipeline_a_nonstarter.html


"He said Ottawa has jurisdiction over pipelines but “Mr. Harper, who has 21 Conservative seats in B.C., is between a rock and hard place on this.”


"That point is borne out by a poll released Aug. 23 by Abacus Data Inc. that found 56 per cent of British Columbians oppose the pipeline, with 40 per cent strongly opposed. Supporters totalled 24 per cent, with 7 per cent expressing strong support."


So there you have it. Great opposition to the pipeline(s) by Canadians as well as Americans.

Peter1469
01-03-2015, 05:26 PM
No, I'm not talking about the First Nations. A great majority of regular Canadians are diametrically opposed to the Keystone pipeline being built as well as other pipelines and with good reason.

NEWS: Ottawa Keystone pipeline expansion protest planned for Sept. 26

http://www.canadians.org/fr/node/7580



Unprecedented opposition may make British Columbia pipeline a non-starter

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/09/10/unprecedented_opposition_may_make_british_columbia _pipeline_a_nonstarter.html





So there you have it. Great opposition to the pipeline(s) by Canadians as well as Americans.

It's their oil. If they don't want the pipeline we can't force them to have it.

Chris
01-03-2015, 05:32 PM
Sorry, but government creates MILLIONS of jobs. Tell that to your anti-gubment congressional TeaFleas (who are among the beneficiaries).

Millions of non-wealth-producing wealth-sucking jobs.

Mini Me
01-03-2015, 05:55 PM
Millions of non-wealth-producing wealth-sucking jobs.

So you are against job creation!

And for high unemployment!

And you try to tell is you are not a Rethuglican, Sure, riiiiiight!

Mini Me
01-03-2015, 05:57 PM
It's their oil. If they don't want the pipeline we can't force them to have it.

The keystone pipeline is DOA now. The low price of oil put the kabosh on it.

Chris
01-03-2015, 05:59 PM
So you are against job creation!

And for high unemployment!

And you try to tell is you are not a Rethuglican, Sure, riiiiiight!



You have an amazing capacity for distorting what people say, strange, much more even than bo.

Peter1469
01-03-2015, 06:09 PM
The keystone pipeline is DOA now. The low price of oil put the kabosh on it.

When the price goes back up, will it be a zombie pipeline? :smiley:

zelmo1234
01-03-2015, 06:22 PM
No, it shouldn't. Keystone pipeline has many different factors involved that weigh in to the equation since it is coming from Canada. And as a reminder, even Canadians are against it being in their country and are protesting other pipelines as well, so that should be very telling.

'The Tar Sands Disaster': Canadians Against Keystone XL, in The New York Times

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/04/01/tar-sands-disaster-canadians-against-keystone-xl-new-york-times-148477



Canadians Rise Up Against Their Own Keystone Pipelines

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26029

The biggest factor is that it would not cost the US taxpayer.

Where is Mr. Sanders going to get the trillion dollars. The USA is broke, 18 trillion in debt is flat out busted.

So while is sounds really nice, there is NO money

zelmo1234
01-03-2015, 06:24 PM
Keystone? Lol.. that is NOT a jobs creation bill of any substance - what a thousand temporary and under 50 permanent full time?

Infrastructure would create a million new jobs.. and for those willing to travel, for YEARS.

So where does the money come from? That is all I want to know

zelmo1234
01-03-2015, 06:25 PM
Sorry, but government creates MILLIONS of jobs. Tell that to your anti-gubment congressional TeaFleas (who are among the beneficiaries).

All government jobs are at the expense of the economy. The government creates nothing, they take and re distribute.

And while some government jobs are needed, they are all an expense.

zelmo1234
01-03-2015, 06:29 PM
So you are against job creation!

And for high unemployment!

And you try to tell is you are not a Rethuglican, Sure, riiiiiight!


Unfortunately there is no difference in a government job and unemployment, they are both 100% expense to the people

So you really need private sector jobs to not only help the people but to provide revenue to the government

protectionist
01-03-2015, 06:43 PM
All government jobs are at the expense of the economy. The government creates nothing, they take and re distribute.

And while some government jobs are needed, they are all an expense.

It really depends on the jobs. If the jobs are to stop illegal immigration, and they do that, that will save the govt tens of Billions$$$, currently being lost to welfare for illegal families, and remittances ($123 Billion/year loss from the economy in remittances alone) The govt jobs could also prevent big losses due to infrastructure failure.

hanger4
01-03-2015, 06:54 PM
Keystone? Lol.. that is NOT a jobs creation bill of any substance - what a thousand temporary and under 50 permanent full time?

Infrastructure would create a million new jobs.. and for those willing to travel, for YEARS.

So

Temporary construction financed via private industry = Bad

Temporary construction financed via taxpayer dollars = Good

Got jah Bo-4

Reminds of a song by Tommy James and the Shondells

Anyone remember the title/catch line ??

Chris
01-03-2015, 07:07 PM
Unfortunately there is no difference in a government job and unemployment, they are both 100% expense to the people

So you really need private sector jobs to not only help the people but to provide revenue to the government

At least the unemployed do nothing. :D

Professor Peabody
01-04-2015, 05:08 AM
Republican Plan Contains Minuscule Revenue Increase Alongside Deep Cuts in Medicare and Medicaid

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3606

Big scoop of dung from a Soros shill.

BB-35
01-04-2015, 05:42 AM
Since @Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=294) already provided evidence that the Rethuglicans voted anti-veteran and anti-Catholic, I'm sure he'll expose their anti-jobs votes, too.

'rethuglican':rollseyes:

donttread
01-04-2015, 06:57 AM
You do know that infrastructure jobs are temporary

kink a like the Keystone pipeline ??

Not to mentioned financed with more debt

Bo-4
01-04-2015, 10:50 AM
So

Temporary construction financed via private industry = Bad

Temporary construction financed via taxpayer dollars = Good

Got jah @Bo-4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1297)

Reminds of a song by Tommy James and the Shondells

Anyone remember the title/catch line ??

How has private industry done in the last 40 years with crumbling bridges/schools, potholed interstate highways and bursting 100 year old pipelines hanger4?

I'll wait ;-)

Mac-7
01-04-2015, 10:53 AM
How has private industry done in the last 40 years with crumbling bridges/schools, potholed interstate highways and bursting 100 year old pipelines @hanger4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=403)?

I'll wait ;-)

Government had enough money to maintain the infrastructure but spent it on social welfare programs instead.

Chris
01-04-2015, 11:51 AM
How has private industry done in the last 40 years with crumbling bridges/schools, potholed interstate highways and bursting 100 year old pipelines hanger4?

I'll wait ;-)



Let private industry pay for infrastructure then. If it's to their benefit, they should, and will.

Bo-4
01-04-2015, 11:54 AM
Let private industry pay for infrastructure then. If it's to their benefit, they should, and will.

No they won't, and they've proved it for several decades running.

Chris
01-04-2015, 12:06 PM
No they won't, and they've proved it for several decades running.

Because our government is willing to foot the bill, with our money.

Look at any infrastructure, historically. Initially, highways, waterways, levees and so on were built by the wealthy to provide for and protect their property, land and industries. It was only in time that they discovered they could lobby government to pay for it with public funds. And why not, with passage of the 16th amendment, government has free access to our income.

If government stopped doing it, in order to obtain resources, transport goods to market, and profit, business would pay for it. It's in their own self-interest to do so.

Bo-4
01-04-2015, 12:09 PM
Because our government is willing to foot the bill, with our money.

Look at any infrastructure, historically. Initially, highways, waterways, levees and so on were built by the wealthy to provide for and protect their property, land and industries. It was only in time that they discovered they could lobby government to pay for it with public funds. And why not, with passage of the 16th amendment, government has free access to our income.

If government stopped doing it, in order to obtain resources, transport goods to market, and profit, business would pay for it. It's in their own self-interest to do so.

Was it private industry or the wealthy who built the interstate highway system and Hoover Dam?

Chris
01-04-2015, 12:59 PM
Was it private industry or the wealthy who built the interstate highway system and Hoover Dam?

Again, historically highways and damns and etc were built by the wealthy until they figured out they could more cheaply rent seek and buy government favors.

Codename Section
01-04-2015, 01:08 PM
Bernie Sanders Flexes His Muscles By Introducing Bill To Create 13 Million New Jobs

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/03/bernie-sanders-flexes-muscles-introducing-bill-create-13-million-jobs.html



===========================================

Yes, now that Republicans are in control of the Senate they will also be under the microscope you can bet on that. Let's see how amenable they are to issues with regard to infrastructure and jobs that are so important to this country. We need to keep a notebook to log their actions and how they vote from now on starting the moment they are sworn into office.

If he intended to have this implemented where was this Bill prior to Republicans coming into power when he had the Senate and the White House?

Methinks this is more politicking to make the other team look stupid.

zelmo1234
01-04-2015, 01:21 PM
How has private industry done in the last 40 years with crumbling bridges/schools, potholed interstate highways and bursting 100 year old pipelines @hanger4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=403)?

I'll wait ;-)

Very well. here is the thing these road contractors are not going to add crews and equipment for temporary spending, so they are gong to add a few workers and work a lot of overtime! You can't spend millions on something that is not going to last

So how do you get more bang for the buck.

#1 many states have what they call is prevailing wage for crews working on state highways and bridges. suspend or eliminate this and you now get 20% more work for the same money. Then you give bonuses for early completion now the company will pay overtime or put on morning and night crews. As they finish jobs, assign them other jobs that still can be completed during the construction season in the north.

Now let the states and citizens of those states decide how or if they want to raise extra revenue for the roads.

the result better roads with no deficit spending.

Mac-7
01-04-2015, 01:49 PM
Again, historically highways and $#@!s and etc were built by the wealthy until they figured out they could more cheaply rent seek and buy government favors.

Chris just pulled that claim from nowhere.

the rich never built public roads for everyone to use.

zelmo1234
01-04-2015, 02:10 PM
Chris just pulled that claim from nowhere.

the rich never built public roads for everyone to use.

Actually the Rockefeller's build the first pipeline network. Vanderbilt and that other railroad barrens build the rails and Carnegie build a lot of roads and bridges to support his steel business. and JP Morgan actually bailed out the US government twice

Once upon a time it was not up to the government to fund everything. I think that Eisenhower might have been the president that really put money into the roads.

PolWatch
01-04-2015, 02:17 PM
let's not forget that Ike built the interstate for troop movement within the nation....not for public use

Chris
01-04-2015, 02:30 PM
Chris just pulled that claim from nowhere.

the rich never built public roads for everyone to use.


That's a surprising accusation coming from someone who demonstrably makes up his own history.


Private Highways in America, 1792-1916 (http://fee.org/freeman/detail/private-highways-in-america-1792-1916)


...The notion of private highways, which would seem fantastic to our parents, was commonplace to our great-great-grandparents. Initiated in the 1790s in the growing Republic, these roads stimulated commerce, settlement, and population. During the nineteenth century more than 2,000 private companies financed, built, and operated toll roads. States turned to private initiative for much the same reason they are doing so today: fiscal constraints and insufficient administrative manpower. Knowledge of our toll-road heritage may help encourage today’s budding toll-road movement.

http://i.snag.gy/W0Zcd.jpg

<snip long history>

It wasn't till nearly the 1900s that the federal government started "building" roads: How the Wheels Got Turning: A Historical Perspective on American Roads (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blcar3.htm).

lynn
01-04-2015, 03:17 PM
Bernie Sanders Flexes His Muscles By Introducing Bill To Create 13 Million New Jobs

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/03/bernie-sanders-flexes-muscles-introducing-bill-create-13-million-jobs.html



===========================================

Yes, now that Republicans are in control of the Senate they will also be under the microscope you can bet on that. Let's see how amenable they are to issues with regard to infrastructure and jobs that are so important to this country. We need to keep a notebook to log their actions and how they vote from now on starting the moment they are sworn into office.


Does he mean 13 million jobs working for the government since that is all they have control of?

Newpublius
01-04-2015, 03:21 PM
If we genuinely need infrastructure, spend that which you need. But to say it's stimulative over and above other expenditures is ridiculous. Infrastructure is actually insidious because it actually creates perpetual maintenance costs.

Peter1469
01-04-2015, 03:36 PM
If we genuinely need infrastructure, spend that which you need. But to say it's stimulative over and above other expenditures is ridiculous. Infrastructure is actually insidious because it actually creates perpetual maintenance costs.

I can get to work faster on a modern highway than a dirt road. At least with traffic. My SUV would do fine on a dirt road.

iustitia
01-04-2015, 04:35 PM
That's a surprising accusation coming from someone who demonstrably makes up his own history.


Private Highways in America, 1792-1916 (http://fee.org/freeman/detail/private-highways-in-america-1792-1916)



It wasn't till nearly the 1900s that the federal government started "building" roads: How the Wheels Got Turning: A Historical Perspective on American Roads (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blcar3.htm).

Ouch. Don't worry, Mac-7. At least you've been right on every other historical topic. Like Reagan using his Jesus powers to win the Cold War, and the CIA being necessary.

Oh. Wait.

The Sage of Main Street
01-04-2015, 05:26 PM
Only some Canadians are against it. I believe you are talking about the First Nations. They don't speak for Canada. They speak for Siberia, which is where they all came from as criminal fugitives.

The Sage of Main Street
01-04-2015, 05:33 PM
Milton Friedman addressed the folly of this with his famous "spoons" comment. Was that when Miltie said we should worship anyone born with a silver spoon in his mouth?

This is your brain on pig-product oinkonomics: It's fried, man.

Bo-4
01-04-2015, 06:08 PM
Actually the Rockefeller's build the first pipeline network. Vanderbilt and that other railroad barrens build the rails and Carnegie build a lot of roads and bridges to support his steel business. and JP Morgan actually bailed out the US government twice

Once upon a time it was not up to the government to fund everything. I think that Eisenhower might have been the president that really put money into the roads.

Yeah, things are EXACTLY the same now as they were in the 40s & 50s! :rolleyes:

Bo-4
01-04-2015, 06:11 PM
Ouch. Don't worry, @Mac-7 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1014). At least you've been right on every other historical topic. Like Reagan using his Jesus powers to win the Cold War, and the CIA being necessary.

Oh. Wait.

Cool, we agree that Bonzo had "Jesus powers".

Still does actually, even though he'd fail (since TeaWad infiltration) on 6 of 10 of the GOP Purity Tests! ;)

zelmo1234
01-04-2015, 06:12 PM
Yeah, things are EXACTLY the same now as they were in the 40s & 50s! :rolleyes:

Yes, you might want to check your history, more like the 1890 through the 1930's but if that works for you?

And yes things did change, the government started to medal where they had no constitutional business medaling

iustitia
01-04-2015, 06:14 PM
Much like FDR is the Democrat Jesus, Reagan is venerated by the GOP as Republican Jesus. That's why every election 8 or so candidates trip over themselves to out-Reagan eachother and make every answer to a question into a creepy Reagan montage.

Bo-4
01-04-2015, 06:17 PM
Yes, you might want to check your history, more like the 1890 through the 1930's but if that works for you?

And yes things did change, the government started to medal where they had no constitutional business medaling

Suggest a time machine Zelmo, for you and like-minded brethren.

Your time is done.. come to grips with it. ;-)

Chris
01-04-2015, 06:19 PM
Suggest a time machine Zelmo, for you and like-minded brethren.

Your time is done.. come to grips with it. ;-)


^^Cigar-lite.

Bo-4
01-04-2015, 06:19 PM
Good deal, open the borders and pay illegals $1.50 an hour to rebuild our infrastructure.

You people are magnifique!!

Bo-4
01-04-2015, 06:20 PM
At least the unemployed do nothing. :D

Yeah i guess @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) .. nothing (the majority) except look for a livable wage in their field of expertise.

Wanna talk about education, education cuts, and the fact that we're not graduating enough qualified people to fill domestic high-skill/ high-pay positions?

Doubt it.

Chris
01-04-2015, 06:24 PM
Yeah i guess @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) .. nothing (the majority) except look for a livable wage in their field of expertise.

Wanna talk about education, education cuts, and the fact that we're not graduating enough qualified people to fill domestic high-skill/ high-pay positions?

Doubt it.


Bo, when you mention me, please have something to say to me. Then I'll be happy to respond in kind. --You missed my :D-ing humor.

Bo-4
01-04-2015, 06:33 PM
Bo, when you mention me, please have something to say to me. Then I'll be happy to respond in kind. --You missed my :D-ing humor.

Your "humor" sucks .. just sayin' ;)

Howey
01-04-2015, 06:34 PM
Bernie Sanders Flexes His Muscles By Introducing Bill To Create 13 Million New Jobs

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/03/bernie-sanders-flexes-muscles-introducing-bill-create-13-million-jobs.html



===========================================

Yes, now that Republicans are in control of the Senate they will also be under the microscope you can bet on that. Let's see how amenable they are to issues with regard to infrastructure and jobs that are so important to this country. We need to keep a notebook to log their actions and how they vote from now on starting the moment they are sworn into office.

Infrastructure spending by the government has been on the republican chopping block for two decades, only to be doled out in earmarks.

This is probably the most important bill to be introduced this year and for years to come.


Now I'll go back and read all the libertarians and republicans moan about how terrible it is. :)

Bo-4
01-04-2015, 06:35 PM
I can get to work faster on a modern highway than a dirt road. At least with traffic. My SUV would do fine on a dirt road.

Translation.. I got my SUV, and YOU can suck it.

Am i right Peter?

Howey
01-04-2015, 06:35 PM
No, infrastructure jobs are temporary. When the infrastructure is (re)built, the jobs disappear.

And that's what's seen. What's unseen is the wealth used for infrastructure is taken from what it would have been spent on. Thus it's a wash, if not a loss for administrative costs, unless someone can demonstrate a multiplier effect.


ooooooooooooooooooooooooookay!

Here goes!

What about upkeep?

http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2014/infrastructure-jobs#/M10420

Howey
01-04-2015, 06:37 PM
Construction jobs are all temporary by nature TrueBlue

Whether they be bridges or roads or pipelines.

See above, hanger4

Howey
01-04-2015, 06:40 PM
smoke and mirrors..to take our minds off the fact that Obama is killing the economy. Government doesn't create jobs. And what do you do with these currently employed or laid off by the construction industry...you gonna take credit for pumping money into that you're printing already to pay these guys further deflating the economy. Here's an idea, Bernie..for you and Barrack. Mind your own $#@! business. YOu do nothing. Get the hell out of the way and Americans will fix this economy. pcirks.


*sigh* I'm less than two pages in!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/feb/10/michael-steele/steele-government-never-created-job-opposite/

Howey
01-04-2015, 06:47 PM
Like the Stimulus that spent all of 3% of the total package on infrastructure? I think Sanders is an idiot.

It was a pittance overall. Most of the infrastructure funding was taken out. It was later included in the second stimulus bill, last year's American Jobs Act, which the republicans defeated.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/07/30/senate-republicans-vote-american-jobs-blocking-bill-outsourcing-tax-breaks.html

Howey
01-04-2015, 06:49 PM
The biggest factor is that it would not cost the US taxpayer.

Where is Mr. Sanders going to get the trillion dollars. The USA is broke, 18 trillion in debt is flat out busted.

So while is sounds really nice, there is NO money

Read the bill. And the US isn't broke.

Howey
01-04-2015, 06:51 PM
Big scoop of dung from a Soros shill.

Everything you guys disagree with is, isn't it?

Howey
01-04-2015, 06:52 PM
Government had enough money to maintain the infrastructure but spent it on social welfare programs instead.

Voila! More unsubstantiated bs from Mac-7!

(It was spent on two unnecessary wars)

Howey
01-04-2015, 06:54 PM
If he intended to have this implemented where was this Bill prior to Republicans coming into power when he had the Senate and the White House?

Methinks this is more politicking to make the other team look stupid.

Democrats effectively had control of the House and Senate for a whopping 72 days.

Howey
01-04-2015, 06:56 PM
I can get to work faster on a modern highway than a dirt road. At least with traffic. My SUV would do fine on a dirt road.

I refuse to take my Audi Quattro on anything but the smoothest roads.

Howey
01-04-2015, 06:57 PM
Ouch. Don't worry, Mac-7. At least you've been right on every other historical topic. Like Reagan using his Jesus powers to win the Cold War, and the CIA being necessary.

Oh. Wait.

Gawd...you know Mac-7 has problems when even his fellow staunch righties laugh at him!

PolWatch
01-04-2015, 06:57 PM
I refuse to take my Audi Quattro on anything but the smoothest roads.

you wouldn't get to drive it much around here! :wink:

hanger4
01-04-2015, 06:58 PM
See above, hanger4

I'm well aware Howey like I've said I've been in the Trades over 40 years. Maintenance is now and always has been part of the Trades. Now with all your new found info with the trades Keystone's a go right ??

Howey
01-04-2015, 07:00 PM
I'm well aware Howey like I've said I've been in the Trades over 40 years. Maintenance is now and always has been part of the Trades. Now with all your new found info with the trades Keystone's a go right ??

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/11/anna-kooiman/fox-news-host-keystone-pipeline-would-create-tens-/

Chris
01-04-2015, 07:11 PM
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/11/anna-kooiman/fox-news-host-keystone-pipeline-would-create-tens-/

Republicans are no different than Democrats spinning jobs.

Peter1469
01-04-2015, 07:16 PM
Translation.. I got my SUV, and YOU can suck it.

Am i right Peter?

No.

hanger4
01-04-2015, 07:24 PM
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/11/anna-kooiman/fox-news-host-keystone-pipeline-would-create-tens-/

How many jobs for the trades on the pipe line and how long Howey ?? And how much will it cost ?? And where's the money come from ?? And do we need to fund infrastructure again ?? Where did the ARRA money go ??

nathanbforrest45
01-04-2015, 07:34 PM
But you have to be optimistic and look at the bigger picture @hanger4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=403) Those type of jobs usually keep people employed for a long time during the run of the project. And with a good track record on production and good workers that can not only allow a company to expand operations and have many notice them but it can also create a permanent job for the temp. workers as well in the same or other fields as they become better noticed for their good work ethic and through word of mouth.

Building a road or a bridge can do that but building a pipeline cannot? There is only one pipeline built in the lifetime of the worker? A company building an oil pipeline can't possibly build anything else?

Redrose
01-04-2015, 07:44 PM
Bernie Sanders Flexes His Muscles By Introducing Bill To Create 13 Million New Jobs

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/03/bernie-sanders-flexes-muscles-introducing-bill-create-13-million-jobs.html



===========================================

Yes, now that Republicans are in control of the Senate they will also be under the microscope you can bet on that. Let's see how amenable they are to issues with regard to infrastructure and jobs that are so important to this country. We need to keep a notebook to log their actions and how they vote from now on starting the moment they are sworn into office.


Yes we do need to keep a log. Let's see what this Congress passes and let's see what Obama vetos.

The Dems don't have Harry "the blocker" Reid anymore to run interference for Obama. Now Obama has to do his own dirty work. I wonder how he'll spin this. He'll probably say it's Bushes fault.

The American people will finally see wo the real obstructionists are.

PolWatch
01-04-2015, 08:01 PM
After the final 2014 vote for the credit-card extravaganza, I wonder if the veto will be used at all. They all seem to agree to spend as much money as possible as fast as they can.
How many Republicans voted yes: 169.
How many Democrats voted yes: 163.

zelmo1234
01-04-2015, 08:41 PM
Good deal, open the borders and pay illegals $1.50 an hour to rebuild our infrastructure.

You people are magnifique!!

A better Idea? how about we put the work requirement back into welfare, you know the law that Clinton signed.

And we take the able bodied welfare recipients and all of those harmless prisoners that are serving for non violent drug charges

And we put the to work on the chain gangs working on the roads and bridges. That would cut the cost to the companies doing the work, it would give then work experience. and we would be getting something for the money that is spent

zelmo1234
01-04-2015, 08:44 PM
Yeah i guess @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) .. nothing (the majority) except look for a livable wage in their field of expertise.

Wanna talk about education, education cuts, and the fact that we're not graduating enough qualified people to fill domestic high-skill/ high-pay positions?

Doubt it.

Love to talk about education!

We invest more per student than any other country in the world. Have the highest paid teachers in the world an average of 47K for 8 months work.

And we have a failing system ever since the inception of the DOE!

So what do you want to do.

I say get rid of the DOE take those billions and give them to the schools and make students accountable, don't learn the material, stay in the same grad until you do!

zelmo1234
01-04-2015, 08:45 PM
Infrastructure spending by the government has been on the republican chopping block for two decades, only to be doled out in earmarks.

This is probably the most important bill to be introduced this year and for years to come.


Now I'll go back and read all the libertarians and republicans moan about how terrible it is. :)

Still need to know where the money is coming from?

zelmo1234
01-04-2015, 08:46 PM
ooooooooooooooooooooooooookay!

Here goes!

What about upkeep?

http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2014/infrastructure-jobs#/M10420

Like it, where does the money come from?

zelmo1234
01-04-2015, 08:48 PM
*sigh* I'm less than two pages in!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/feb/10/michael-steele/steele-government-never-created-job-opposite/

Sure the government creates jobs, they are just a 100% expense on the economy, more if we are printing the money to create them.

Government spending takes the money out of the economy, deducts the substantial operating costs and returns what is left to the economy. from which they deducted it in the first place.

zelmo1234
01-04-2015, 08:50 PM
Read the bill. And the US isn't broke.

Yes Greece was not broke either?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

18 trillion in debt = broke

zelmo1234
01-04-2015, 08:52 PM
Voila! More unsubstantiated bs from @Mac-7 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1014)!

(It was spent on two unnecessary wars)

You mean the ones that Obama is still fighting? Why are they necessary now.

Howey
01-04-2015, 09:03 PM
How many jobs for the trades on the pipe line and how long Howey ?? And how much will it cost ?? And where's the money come from ?? And do we need to fund infrastructure again ?? Where did the ARRA money go ??
You can start by informing yourself. Go back and read my posts and links.

PolWatch
01-04-2015, 11:17 PM
A better Idea? how about we put the work requirement back into welfare, you know the law that Clinton signed.

And we take the able bodied welfare recipients and all of those harmless prisoners that are serving for non violent drug charges

And we put the to work on the chain gangs working on the roads and bridges. That would cut the cost to the companies doing the work, it would give then work experience. and we would be getting something for the money that is spent

I agree with a good portion of your suggestion. The Welfare to Work program was a start at real reform of the system. After Clinton, Bush & Obama allowed it to fade into nothing. There have been several good proposals for welfare reform (from both sides of the aisle) that have been ignored in favor of partisan politics. Results don't matter, only making sure the party faithful (which ever party they belong to) believes they have stood firm against cooperation.

Now, on the subject of non-violent criminals. Why keep them in jail? We are seeing violent criminals released to make room for non-violent drug offenses. Do away with our stupid War on Drugs and admit that adults have the right to make their own choices. We allow people to drink themselves to death...who are we to choose their drug of choice? Just doing this will make lots more room for violent criminals.

I can't begin to guess how many women are in jail because they had poor sense to have boyfriend/husband/brother/son dealing drugs. The women get sent up because of their association...not because they were dealing themselves. Just think of the reduction of pressure on the welfare system if these mothers were returned home to take care of their families.

Reducing the population of jails would mean enough money to hire people to clean up the roads...instead of taxpayer money using to house & feed them.

momsapplepie
01-04-2015, 11:31 PM
Pol, releasing women to take care of their families is going to reduce welfare? You know as well as anyone here, most times they end up on welfare, so I don't see ant reduction. I see an increase.

PolWatch
01-05-2015, 12:47 AM
Some of them may...but some won't. If they stay in jail, we know we get to support them & their families. Even if they do go on welfare, its cheaper to the taxpayer than keeping them in prison. If even a small percentage stay off welfare, that will save money.

The entire system is so warped...welfare, prison....who knows where to start?

Mac-7
01-05-2015, 06:14 AM
I agree with a good portion of your suggestion. The Welfare to Work program was a start at real reform of the system. After Clinton, Bush & Obama allowed it to fade into nothing. There have been several good proposals for welfare reform (from both sides of the aisle) that have been ignored in favor of partisan politics. Results don't matter, only making sure the party faithful (which ever party they belong to) believes they have stood firm against cooperation.

Now, on the subject of non-violent criminals. Why keep them in jail? We are seeing violent criminals released to make room for non-violent drug offenses. Do away with our stupid War on Drugs and admit that adults have the right to make their own choices. We allow people to drink themselves to death...who are we to choose their drug of choice? Just doing this will make lots more room for violent criminals.

I can't begin to guess how many women are in jail because they had poor sense to have boyfriend/husband/brother/son dealing drugs. The women get sent up because of their association...not because they were dealing themselves. Just think of the reduction of pressure on the welfare system if these mothers were returned home to take care of their families.

Reducing the population of jails would mean enough money to hire people to clean up the roads...instead of taxpayer money using to house & feed them.

If we are going to end the war on drug lets end the war on poverty at the same time.

if people are free to become drug zombies let them be free to provide their own food and shelter too.

zelmo1234
01-05-2015, 07:38 AM
I agree with a good portion of your suggestion. The Welfare to Work program was a start at real reform of the system. After Clinton, Bush & Obama allowed it to fade into nothing. There have been several good proposals for welfare reform (from both sides of the aisle) that have been ignored in favor of partisan politics. Results don't matter, only making sure the party faithful (which ever party they belong to) believes they have stood firm against cooperation.

Now, on the subject of non-violent criminals. Why keep them in jail? We are seeing violent criminals released to make room for non-violent drug offenses. Do away with our stupid War on Drugs and admit that adults have the right to make their own choices. We allow people to drink themselves to death...who are we to choose their drug of choice? Just doing this will make lots more room for violent criminals.

I can't begin to guess how many women are in jail because they had poor sense to have boyfriend/husband/brother/son dealing drugs. The women get sent up because of their association...not because they were dealing themselves. Just think of the reduction of pressure on the welfare system if these mothers were returned home to take care of their families.

Reducing the population of jails would mean enough money to hire people to clean up the roads...instead of taxpayer money using to house & feed them.

I don't believe in relaxing the drug laws, unless we make drug and alcohol testing for welfare and unemployment mandatory Alcohol sucks but there are many functioning alcoholics. As far as drug use, I have never been able to keep one employed, they get the F%#% it's

But I an all for halfway houses and labor camps instead of jail that way you get reduced cost and free labor for your roads

zelmo1234
01-05-2015, 07:40 AM
If we are going to end the war on drug lets end the war on poverty at the same time.

if people are free to become drug zombies let them be free to provide their own food and shelter too.

This is what needs to happen. asking others to support drug habits is wrong

PolWatch
01-05-2015, 07:53 AM
I have no issue with requiring drug tests for those on welfare....every job requires one. I do have an issue with a politician having direct financial ties to the company that does the tests (Florida). I have to think about unemployment. That is a program with a start & an end, available only in certain circumstances. Anyone who loses their job for flubbing a drug test is not eligible for unemployment in the first place...release with cause.

I have worked with both functioning drunks & drug addicts. Not a lot of difference....except drug testing usually eliminates the drug addicts while the drunks can continue making a mess of things forever.

zelmo1234
01-05-2015, 07:57 AM
I have no issue with requiring drug tests for those on welfare....every job requires one. I do have an issue with a politician having direct financial ties to the company that does the tests (Florida). I have to think about unemployment. That is a program with a start & an end, available only in certain circumstances. Anyone who loses their job for flubbing a drug test is not eligible for unemployment in the first place...release with cause.

I have worked with both functioning drunks & drug addicts. Not a lot of difference....except drug testing usually eliminates the drug addicts while the drunks can continue making a mess of things forever.

I am glad to hear that, I have not been fortunate enough to find a drug user that can continue to come to work on time or at all! My best Super is a functioning alcoholic, I keep trying to help him but he is not ready.

However we once again had to let one of our painters go last fall. Just could not get his ass out of bed and come to work, Smokes his weed and thought that was good enough

Mac-7
01-05-2015, 07:58 AM
If libs want to end the war on drugs because it has not worked then end the war on poverty for the same reason.

Scrap welfare and there will be no need to drug test people on welfare.

PolWatch
01-05-2015, 08:10 AM
Which is better: one who doesn't come in at all or one who comes in with a hangover & shaky? Neither one is a joy.

Florida's experiment in testing welfare recipients proved to be an embarrassment for everyone there. First, the company was owned by a politician who benefited financially from the program; second, they found the % of drug use was actually lower than the average population figures. I suspect that nationally we would see the same thing.

I had thought that Regan's welfare Cadillac myth had been disproved but I see on the forum that some still cling to it. Yes, there are people who take advantage of welfare but I suspect they are few and they need to be removed from the system. When times are hard, we see more resentment of those that some see as leeches. Its easy to forget that some people do have legitimate reasons for needing help. I think we can't say we are a civilized country if we allow those people to fall through the cracks. We will be judged on how we treat the poorest & most helpless of our fellow citizens.

We had a start on reform with the Welfare to Work program and it was allowed to just fade into nothing while politicians (of both variety) gave lip service to reform. My father-in-law used to say that he was willing to give anyone a leg up unless they sat so long he wondered if they any legs at all.

Mac-7
01-05-2015, 08:28 AM
Government welfare workers paint by the numbers and treat the leaches exactly like the truly needy.

Thats the reason there are so many lazy bums in the program.

Matty
01-05-2015, 09:35 AM
Bernie Sanders Flexes His Muscles By Introducing Bill To Create 13 Million New Jobs

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/03/bernie-sanders-flexes-muscles-introducing-bill-create-13-million-jobs.html



===========================================

Yes, now that Republicans are in control of the Senate they will also be under the microscope you can bet on that. Let's see how amenable they are to issues with regard to infrastructure and jobs that are so important to this country. We need to keep a notebook to log their actions and how they vote from now on starting the moment they are sworn into office.



Did you ask yourself why Bernie Sanders didn't flex his muscle and write such a bill while his party was in the majority?

Bo-4
01-05-2015, 09:39 AM
Gawd...you know @Mac-7 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1014) has problems when even his fellow staunch righties laugh at him!

They all have issues ... just a matter of degree ;-)

Chris
01-05-2015, 09:44 AM
Gawd...you know Mac-7 has problems when even his fellow staunch righties laugh at him!


They all have issues ... just a matter of degree ;-)

Righties do. But iustitia and I and others who disagree with mac are not righties.

BTW, mac has the same problem bo does, it's called partisanship blindness, toe the party line, repeat till you believe, mock those who don't follow your pied piers.

Bo-4
01-05-2015, 09:44 AM
A better Idea? how about we put the work requirement back into welfare, you know the law that Clinton signed.

And we take the able bodied welfare recipients and all of those harmless prisoners that are serving for non violent drug charges

And we put the to work on the chain gangs working on the roads and bridges. That would cut the cost to the companies doing the work, it would give then work experience. and we would be getting something for the money that is spent

I'm with you for the most part.. fine, but you realize that a high percentage of the "able-bodied welfare recipients" are single Moms with 0-4 year olds. Are you going to pay for their daycare?

Bo-4
01-05-2015, 09:48 AM
This is what needs to happen. asking others to support drug habits is wrong

You do realize what happened when pRick Scott initiated mandatory drug testing (to enrich him and his wife) at a cost of tens of millions to taxpayers ... Right?

They found that under 2% tested positive.. around HALF the percentage of the public at large who'd have failed.

Assuming that a good percentage of welfare recipients have drug habits is patently false.

Mac-7
01-05-2015, 09:50 AM
That's a surprising accusation coming from someone who demonstrably makes up his own history.


Private Highways in America, 1792-1916 (http://fee.org/freeman/detail/private-highways-in-america-1792-1916)



It wasn't till nearly the 1900s that the federal government started "building" roads: How the Wheels Got Turning: A Historical Perspective on American Roads (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blcar3.htm).

So the rich just built these new highways and let the public use them for free?

No.

They were toll roads.

Mac-7
01-05-2015, 09:52 AM
Voila! More unsubstantiated bs from @Mac-7 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1014)!

(It was spent on two unnecessary wars)

Three wars when you include the failed war on poverty.

Bo-4
01-05-2015, 09:54 AM
If the government spending money magically creates jobs then how is anyone unemployed with an 18 trillion dollar debt? Could it be because government waste doesn't create commerce which is what an actual job does?

Talk to the last president about his unfunded wars, unfunded script bennies, and unfunded ginormous gub-ment creating trillions in debt and a 1.4 trillion dollar annual fiscal deficit.. then get back to me.

Bo-4
01-05-2015, 09:57 AM
If libs want to end the war on drugs because it has not worked then end the war on poverty for the same reason.

Scrap welfare and there will be no need to drug test people on welfare.

Let them die in the streets and turn them into Soylent Green -- BRILLIANT! :rolleyes:

http://www.jokeblogger.com/sites/default/files/category_pictures/Soylent-Green1376061038.jpg

Matty
01-05-2015, 09:57 AM
Did you ask yourself why Bernie Sanders didn't flex his muscle and write such a bill while his party was in the majority?



Bernie Sanders is one big pile of manure!

Bo-4
01-05-2015, 09:59 AM
I have no issue with requiring drug tests for those on welfare....every job requires one. I do have an issue with a politician having direct financial ties to the company that does the tests (Florida). I have to think about unemployment. That is a program with a start & an end, available only in certain circumstances. Anyone who loses their job for flubbing a drug test is not eligible for unemployment in the first place...release with cause.

I have worked with both functioning drunks & drug addicts. Not a lot of difference....except drug testing usually eliminates the drug addicts while the drunks can continue making a mess of things forever.

Rick Scott's crooked program turned up a ridiculously low percentage (about 2) of positive results. The vast majority of people on welfare can't afford drugs.

Mac-7
01-05-2015, 10:01 AM
Let them die in the streets and turn them into Soylent Green -- BRILLIANT! :rolleyes:



Or maybe they would find jobs and feed themselves.

texan
01-05-2015, 10:05 AM
Since @Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=294) already provided evidence that the Rethuglicans voted anti-veteran and anti-Catholic, I'm sure he'll expose their anti-jobs votes, too.

Who ran on fixing the VA and who ran the VA and covered up the issues genius? You want to go on a CEEE'Gar cut and paste like he even read anything but a headline? LOL, make yourself look dimmer if you want.

Based on teh comment let's see how the republicans handle the problems? Another LOL fail! I am glad you admit that your party didn't handle them, see the VA for proof.

Chris
01-05-2015, 10:28 AM
So the rich just built these new highways and let the public use them for free?

No.

They were toll roads.


No, they were not all toll roads, mac. But even if they were, so what? They're private roads, their owners can charge a toll if they so desire. Why are you against free-market capitalism?

Chris
01-05-2015, 10:30 AM
Talk to the last president about his unfunded wars, unfunded script bennies, and unfunded ginormous gub-ment creating trillions in debt and a 1.4 trillion dollar annual fiscal deficit.. then get back to me.


True that, but even more so under the current prez.

Howey
01-05-2015, 11:17 AM
Yes Greece was not broke either?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

18 trillion in debt = broke

Greece has the economy the size of Washington State. Big difference.

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2012/0112millersciacchitano.html

Howey
01-05-2015, 11:19 AM
I don't believe in relaxing the drug laws, unless we make drug and alcohol testing for welfare and unemployment mandatory

Like that really worked well for states like Florida.

Howey
01-05-2015, 11:23 AM
Who ran on fixing the VA and who ran the VA and covered up the issues genius? You want to go on a CEEE'Gar cut and paste like he even read anything but a headline? LOL, make yourself look dimmer if you want.

Based on teh comment let's see how the republicans handle the problems? Another LOL fail! I am glad you admit that your party didn't handle them, see the VA for proof.

The problems with the VA were administrative, not with the system itself. VA healthcare delivery itself is the best health care available out there.

Get rid of the bureaucratic cronies, hire real medical professionals and administrators, and increase funding to match increased veteran participation and the problem is solved.

Howey
01-05-2015, 11:25 AM
True that, but even more so under the current prez.

The deficit under the current president is now what it was pre-recession. Thanks Obama!

zelmo1234
01-05-2015, 12:28 PM
I'm with you for the most part.. fine, but you realize that a high percentage of the "able-bodied welfare recipients" are single Moms with 0-4 year olds. Are you going to pay for their daycare?

Just a though why can't some of the mothers run a daycare for the other moms.

That could be the job for those that might not be able to do the other work

zelmo1234
01-05-2015, 12:29 PM
You do realize what happened when $#@! Scott initiated mandatory drug testing (to enrich him and his wife) at a cost of tens of millions to taxpayers ... Right?

They found that under 2% tested positive.. around HALF the percentage of the public at large who'd have failed.

Assuming that a good percentage of welfare recipients have drug habits is patently false.

I think that I would do random testing! That way it is cheaper, and you still catch the 2%

Captain Obvious
01-05-2015, 12:30 PM
More new "jobs on paper", yay...

zelmo1234
01-05-2015, 12:34 PM
Talk to the last president about his unfunded wars, unfunded script bennies, and unfunded ginormous gub-ment creating trillions in debt and a 1.4 trillion dollar annual fiscal deficit.. then get back to me.

using your analogy, Bush one would be responsible for the surplus! Not Clinton.

GWB's 2008 deficit was 486 billion a terrible deficit for sure.

It is Obama that will double the national debt in 8 years. not GWB. If he did not like the policies, he could have changed them, there was NO way to stop him!

You can't have it both ways. So either Clinton is responsible for GWB's Deficits and Bush one gets the credit for the surpluses?

Bo-4
01-05-2015, 12:42 PM
Or maybe they would find jobs and feed themselves.

There are twice as many people looking for jobs as there are job openings. Would you turn the losing half into Soylent Green?

zelmo1234
01-05-2015, 12:44 PM
Let them die in the streets and turn them into Soylent Green -- BRILLIANT! :rolleyes:

http://www.jokeblogger.com/sites/default/files/category_pictures/Soylent-Green1376061038.jpg

They could take the jobs that the illegals are doing because Americans won't?

That takes care of 18 million of them.

And I have No problem taking care of the needy but they should have to do something for it.

The disabled, really disabled, not the shit that is happening today.

There should be no cash a basic and very healthy whole foods diet and public housing that is inspected and policed. NO TV, NO air conditioning, every need provided but no extras.

they don't need cash.

However I would let them make money and stay on the system! this could provide the cash that they need.

it would work like this. If the person made 100 dollars they would lose 50 in benefits! so until they were making double their benefits they would still get support, and then after that they would get 3 months in the public housing so they had little nest egg

zelmo1234
01-05-2015, 12:48 PM
Greece has the economy the size of Washington State. Big difference.

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2012/0112millersciacchitano.html

They were not 18 trillion in debt either?

If interest rates return to normal there is only enough money to service the debt right now?

there will come a day when rates have to rise.

zelmo1234
01-05-2015, 12:50 PM
Like that really worked well for states like Florida.

ere is what you don't understand We let 3 people go last year. all tested positive for drug use, were offered treatment and refused. All were showing up late and missing work

But they get there unemployment after 6 weeks and my unemployment insurance rates go up!

You want to do drugs, I am, all for that, do it with your own money, not mine

zelmo1234
01-05-2015, 12:52 PM
The deficit under the current president is now what it was pre-recession. Thanks Obama!

give or take 200 billion!

Obama doubled the national debt, you can't deny that, if he did not like the spending, it was totally within his power to change it!

He doubled down on it! And it did not create jobs. That is how we got here today.

iustitia
01-05-2015, 02:25 PM
Righties do. But @iustitia (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=926) and I and others who disagree with mac are not righties.

BTW, mac has the same problem bo does, it's called partisanship blindness, toe the party line, repeat till you believe, mock those who don't follow your pied piers.
I'm a conservative but I reject the left-right paradigm. So I'm not right-wing because I don't accept the existence of left and right as legitimate distinctions as the likes of Howey and Bo would.


Talk to the last president about his unfunded wars, unfunded script bennies, and unfunded ginormous gub-ment creating trillions in debt and a 1.4 trillion dollar annual fiscal deficit.. then get back to me.

Oh yeah, Bush Bush Bush. So does government spending create jobs or not? Nobody denies Bush and Obama spent tons of money. But why are the jobs created by war under Bush not real jobs, but jobs created by digging and then filling holes under Obama actual jobs? They're temporary assignments created by the state to divert attention and resources from the reality of the market. So Bush and Obama spend trillions on fake jobs but you'll only bitch about Bush because Obama's on your team.

Seriously, Bush has been out of office for over five years. I don't even like Bush and neither do most on the "right" here but that's your go to for Obama's failures? Not that it matters since Obama is more or less identical to Bush. But pull the Democratic dick out already and show some objectivism.


No, they were not all toll roads, mac. But even if they were, so what? They're private roads, their owners can charge a toll if they so desire. Why are you against free-market capitalism?

Mac-7 doesn't support capitalism. He's a mercantilist.


The problems with the VA were administrative, not with the system itself.

That's like saying the problems with cancer are genetic, not with the biology itself. This is a distinction without a difference.

The Sage of Main Street
01-05-2015, 02:26 PM
Yes, you might want to check your history, more like the 1890 through the 1930's but if that works for you?

And yes things did change, the government started to medal where they had no constitutional business medaling


Suggest a time machine Zelmo, for you and like-minded brethren.

Your time is done.. come to grips with it. ;-) This is how the mind controllers confuse you. He actually is right about government service to the 99% being unConstitutional, which should prove that the Constitution has been an obstruction on American progress from the very beginning of the rethuglic. zelmo1234 should get a Meddle of On Her from the Koch Brothers for pointing out the unConstitutionality of the American Way.

The Sage of Main Street
01-05-2015, 02:29 PM
Your "humor" sucks .. just sayin' ;)

Chrispot humor only tickles the trickledowners.

Mac-7
01-05-2015, 02:49 PM
There are twice as many people looking for jobs as there are job openings. Would you turn the losing half into Soylent Green?

And there a at least 20 million illegal aliens taking jobs and services from Americans.

That is work that deadbeats on welfare should be doing.

The Sage of Main Street
01-05-2015, 02:50 PM
Read the bill. And the US isn't broke. As long as the Bundy Bund taxcheaters hoard all their pirate's treasure, there actually is no money to re-build America. But that can change.

Tahuyaman
01-05-2015, 02:51 PM
Bernie Sanders Flexes His Muscles By Introducing Bill To Create 13 Million New Jobs

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/03/bernie-sanders-flexes-muscles-introducing-bill-create-13-million-jobs.html



===========================================

Yes, now that Republicans are in control of the Senate they will also be under the microscope you can bet on that. Let's see how amenable they are to issues with regard to infrastructure and jobs that are so important to this country. We need to keep a notebook to log their actions and how they vote from now on starting the moment they are sworn into office.

how about coming up with a jobs program which is about removing the obstacles to creating new small businesses and promoting the growth of established businesses? This mentality that all jobs are created by government is disturbing.

zelmo1234
01-05-2015, 02:54 PM
As long as the Bundy Bund taxcheaters hoard all their pirate's treasure, there actually is no money to re-build America. But that can change.

How is that fruit cup?

Are you going to confiscate it? Here is a flash bulletin for you, the wealthy have already made plans to move even more of their money if necessary.

The problem for people like you is? You are required to work to get ahead in this country and you just want others to take care of you

Captain Obvious
01-05-2015, 02:55 PM
How is that fruit cup?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KsCmjUsnak

The Sage of Main Street
01-05-2015, 03:07 PM
I'm with you for the most part.. fine, but you realize that a high percentage of the "able-bodied welfare recipients" are single Moms with 0-4 year olds. Are you going to pay for their daycare? We should bring back orphanages. Those putas are unfit Moms and only breed criminals. Having children they can't afford unless they mooch off responsible people is actually a form of child abuse. They don't deserve to ever see their children, whom they would condemn to an upbringing of permissiveness and neglect leading directly to thuggery. I'd even let the Black Muslims take those condemned babies.

Chris
01-05-2015, 03:41 PM
The deficit under the current president is now what it was pre-recession. Thanks Obama!

Hmm, that doesn't seem to be what I was responding about.

Why do we keep having to raise the debt ceiling?

zelmo1234
01-05-2015, 03:45 PM
Hmm, that doesn't seem to be what I was responding about.

Why do we keep having to raise the debt ceiling?

NOW you know that answer! GWB of course!

Howey
01-05-2015, 05:06 PM
And there a at least 20 million illegal aliens taking jobs and services from Americans.

That is work that deadbeats on welfare should be doing.

Another unsubstantiated claim!

http://www.seiu.org/a/immigration/they-take-our-jobs-debunking-immigration-myths.php


"They take our jobs" -- Debunking Immigration Myths

MYTH #1 "Immigrants take our jobs"
THE FACTS:
The largest wave of immigration to the U.S. since the early 1900s coincided with our lowest national unemployment rate and fastest economic growth. Immigrants create new jobs by forming new businesses, buying homes, spending their incomes on American goods and services, paying taxes and raising the productivity of U.S. businesses.¹ In fact, between 1990 and 2004, roughly 9 out of 10 native-born workers with at least a high school diploma experienced wage gains because of increased immigration.²

A legal flow of immigrants based on workforce demand strengthens the U.S. economy by keeping productivity high and countering negative impacts as the U.S. aging population swells. Of the twenty occupations that will see the largest growth in the next seven years, twelve of them only require on-the-job-training--including jobs in SEIU's core industries like home care, cleaning/janitorial services, child care, and hospitality services.³ But as native-born workers seek higher education and move up the occupational ladder, the number of native-born workers seeking employment in these industries has shrunk.

The problem with today's economy is not immigrants; the problem is our broken immigration laws that allow big business to exploit workers who lack legal status, driving down wages for all workers. If every immigrant were required to get into the system, pay their dues, and become U.S. citizens, we could block big business' upper hand, eliminate the two-tiered workforce, and build a united labor movement that raises wages and living standards for all workers.

Howey
01-05-2015, 05:07 PM
We should bring back orphanages. Those putas are unfit Moms and only breed criminals. Having children they can't afford unless they mooch off responsible people is actually a form of child abuse. They don't deserve to ever see their children, whom they would condemn to an upbringing of permissiveness and neglect leading directly to thuggery. I'd even let the Black Muslims take those condemned babies.

Please tell me that's sarcasm.

Mac-7
01-05-2015, 05:24 PM
Another unsubstantiated claim!

http://www.seiu.org/a/immigration/they-take-our-jobs-debunking-immigration-myths.php

Obama Brown Shirt thugs are entitled to tell their own Grubers and hope libs like Howey fall for it.

But the fact is that our government is paying unemployment to democrat voters while illegal aliens do the work.

Professor Peabody
01-05-2015, 09:45 PM
Bernie Sanders Flexes His Muscles By Introducing Bill To Create 13 Million New Jobs

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/03/bernie-sanders-flexes-muscles-introducing-bill-create-13-million-jobs.html



===========================================

Yes, now that Republicans are in control of the Senate they will also be under the microscope you can bet on that. Let's see how amenable they are to issues with regard to infrastructure and jobs that are so important to this country. We need to keep a notebook to log their actions and how they vote from now on starting the moment they are sworn into office.

Just more "trickle down" Government that never works. The last one was near a trillion dollars in stimulus and a whole 3% went to the infrastructure Obama and the Democrats cheer-leaded loud, often and told us would create jobs and boost the economy. :biglaugh: