[ol]
[li]As Republicans in the U.S. believe that people should work to lift themselves out of poverty, what argument could they have against this idea? I don’t buy the “it’s too expensive” narrative after passing a $1.5 trillion tax cut. [/li]
However, if there’s no argument, then
[li]Why haven’t we done this yet? I feel like this would be a rare initiative that is truly bi-partisan. Democrats get a socially responsible program, and Republicans get to see people working instead of accepting social welfare. What gives? [/li][/ol]
Our infrastructure is already crumbling, and the plan is to put unemployed (and at this point presumably largely unemployable, given the unemployment rate) people to work rebuilding it? Sounds like a recipe for more ‘crumbling infrastructure’. This is an example of what happens when you ask lazy / stupid people to attempt to build stuff.
If you read anything beyond the first headline, you would note that the issue was due to flaws in the design. The people who actually built it had nothing to do with the collapse.
The issue is money. One reason the government “does not have the money” is the tax cut. Republicans do talk about infrastructure and certainly want things repaired in their district, but are unwilling to make the appropriation unless the money is “found.”
Lots of Republicans oppose government spending on any thing other than defense and security. That would include infrastructure.
Also they aren’t going to cooperate with democrats to get anything done. Maybe if the gop proposed it they’d support it but not a Bernie Sanders proposal. The gop congress voted for Medicare part D, then a few years later said the ACA was an abomination.
When the gop has proposed infrastructure spending under trump it seemed to mostly just be privatization initiatives.
Republicans consistent view seems to be that the government can’t do anything effectively, so, other than hosting a military, it shouldn’t do anything at all. If we need infrastructure, Republicans believe that the private sector should pay for it. If you want roads, they should be privately-built toll roads (try to ignore that these will be public-private partnerships wherein the public secures the land and the private sector invests some of the money to get all the profits). If you want airports, the airlines should pay for it. If you want new water lines, rate payers should pay for it. If you want flood prevention, suck it up because climate change isn’t real.
Republicans hate this country and they only support legislation that weakens the Constitution so they can achieve their eventual goal of turning the country into a theistic monarchy.
Even though things like road work, dam repair, or laying new fiberoptic cable might not require advanced degrees, they do require people who have experience. New workers in those areas would require training which would take more money and time. My guess is that for one reason or another, a fair number of the unemployed would probably not be well suited for working infrastructure repair. Another problem is that some of these contracts go to companies that have some kind of kickback arrangement with local or state officials that hand out the contracts which lead to more wasted money. Yes, these issues can be overcome, but if you are asking what kind of objections can be raised, these are a good starting point.
And here we cut right to the point. Thanks, Hurricane Ditka. You can clearly see that in his world, the unemployed and poor in our country are in that position for a simple reason: they’re lazy and stupid. Why should those with money (who are clearly not lazy or stupid, or they wouldn’t have money!) Do anything to help the poor, if you believe what HD does? They deserve whatever happens to them because of their laziness and stupidity. When you hear that someone went bankrupt after heart surgery, or died because the treatment for his disease was too expensive, that’s not a societal problem in HD’s world, because that person isn’t a victim of a system stacked against them – they’re stupid and lazy, and we aren’t GLAD they’re suffering but we won’t lose any sleep over it either.
What **HurricaneDitka **and **FliktheBlue **said - just because someone needs a job, and a job needs to be done, doesn’t mean that they are suited for the job.
Since it’s too late for edit: I would like to clarify that I don’t concur that jobless people are necessarily lazy or stupid at all - but it’s not as simple as “Here are people who need a job, and here is a job that needs doing, so, problem solved.”
There is a shortage of airline pilots, for instance, but that doesn’t make the jobless necessarily suitable for flying jets.
If it really were a priority for the Republican party they would allocate the resources ($) to generally make more training available for mid-tier skills employment, but in fact that is not its policy. To say “those people” don’t inherently have the skills is begging the question, and frankly bullshit. No one is magically born with skills.
If their private party cronies can get the no-bid contracts without being held to standards (i.e., allowed to build whatever porquerria as cheaply as possible–paying workers below skill grade–but still getting the big bucks), then the Republican party will go for it. They want a free lunch.
Until now, for whatever reason (probably regulatory constraints), they haven’t been able to finagle that. Once they can, though, they’ll do it.
The obvious answer to the OP is that money spent on infrastructure cannot be given to the wealthiest in the form of tax reduction. I don’t remember the details, but one congressman was told that the Republicans would not get campaign money unless they cut taxes for the wealthiest. Some might call it bribery.
BTW, southern states built many of their roads using convict labor. So it might need such skilled labor at all.
The November Scientific American has an interesting article on wealth distribution. Imagine a society in which everyone interacts randomly with everyone else by flipping a fair coin. If the poorer of the two in any interaction wins the flip, he gets 20% of his wealth from the wealthier and if he loses, he gives up 17%. So his expectation is .2 - .17 = .03 which is positive. So it always looks like a good bet, right? The trouble is that after many many random throws of the coin, you wind up with a wealth distribution that is horribly skewed, very similar to ours. Just by the operation of random probability some very lucky people wind up with a hugely disproportionate share of the material wealth of society. Now I am not going to suggest that talent plays no role in who gets ahead and who doesn’t (but just let me observe that who is talented is also a matter of luck) but good fortune may play a larger role than most people realize. And bad fortune explains the very bottom too.
Had Gary Killdall not been out flying his airplane at a crucial time when IBM came to call, he might have become extraordinarily rich and Bill Gates just somewhat successful software developer.
But, but, that would give them skills and stuff and then they’d go off and get jobs and become productive, contributing members of society and we wouldn’t be able to call them stupid and lazy anymore! We can’t have that!
Even if they’re neither lazy nor stupid, they are most certainly NOT trained engineers and skilled construction workers. So at best, you have a humongous gang of unskilled laborers to boss around and pay.
They’re not terribly useful- it’s already cheaper to hire an excavator to dig holes, and to use a front end loader to move stuff around, etc… than to hire unskilled laborers to do that work. And presumably, you’d not want to pay them as low as unskilled laborers are currently paid, so you’d just drive up costs there. And what if the infrastructure jobs are in rural Wyoming, and the poor people are in Mississippi? Are you also planning on spending tax money to ship them and house them in Wyoming?
Basically it’s a make-work plan that’s wasteful of taxpayer money.
Which leads me to an observation- the left tends toward thinking that the out-group needs to be protected and nurtured, even at the expense of the larger society, while the right believes the opposite. In this case, it seems to be whether accomplishing a large construction project at greater cost and higher inefficiency for the sake of employing people is a good thing (it employs people), or a bad thing (it spends taxpayer money that otherwise wouldn’t be spent).