so, not only do you believe poor people deserve to be poor and unemployed because they’re “stupid and lazy,” you think that if we deign to give them a job it can’t be anything more than menial labor and picking up shit.
what about all of those people in the automotive industry who suffered long term unemployment a little over 10 years ago? did all of those engineers, technicians, and skilled tradespeople suddenly become stupid and useless just because their employers were barely hanging on to survive?
you have an extremely simplistic view of poverty. there’s many many ways to fall into it, and it can be staggeringly hard to get out of once your there. not least because of people with attitudes like yours.
I think you’ve got an extremely simplistic view of what I’ve posted. I didn’t say that I “believe poor people deserve to be poor and unemployed”. And I don’t think we should “deign to give them a job” at all, either menial or non-menial, at least not merely because they’re unemployed. I don’t support Bernie’s idea of a federal job guarantee. If the government has some specific jobs it needs done, it should hire people, and it should find the best people it can for the job. I think it’s foolish to make the federal government some backstop for people who can’t find gainful employment elsewhere, at least moreso than it already is.
One of the current “features” of US infrastructure is that it’s crumbling pretty much everywhere. (The ACSE gives the US a D+) So there are things that desperately need to be fixed in both Wyoming and Mississippi. This is pretty much the opposite of “make-work.” However, should one state, area, or region get to the point where its infrastructure is no longer structurally deficient, that’s definitely a question that should be answered. We’re just nowhere near that now.
*I am, for the purposes of this argument, ignoring some of the problems that building the dam caused and keeping it still causes. But it has been and is far from useless.
It seems to me that it would be reasonable to conditionally shut the program down at the regional level as the infrastructure in the area is improved beyond the need of repair, keeping in mind that as time marches on the infrastructure might degrade to the point of needing further work. Particularly since this is a thread about how such a program might seem to conservatives, and even rational conservatives who are willing to admit that inexpensive unskilled labor has its uses would object to it if the actual work runs out and the government starts resorting to literal makework.
Getting back to the OP: my understanding is that the Republicans have floated various WPA-style projects as a sort of “workfare” and usually gotten shut down. The big issue is that most highway/infrastructure-type jobs are union and not really accepting of temporary and/or non-union workers. I don’t know if this is true today or more from the 70s but every time I have heard it floated in various local political conferences/debates that seems to be the party line; from both major Parties actually.
No, it’s not. You stated Republicans resist increasing spending more. It’s been shown elsewhere, and you’ve responded to it, that spending increases MORE under Republicans. Do I need to hold your hand and point you to whitehouse.gov, where the relevant information can be found?
Do you have a more recent cite? The 70s is a whole generation of workers and politicians ago.
It’s great if they have - that’s a place where we could find compromise across the aisle.
Not really; just from what I follow on PCN throufgh the interviews in the weekly call-in programs. When it comes to state candidates I watch almost everyone from the other side just to try to get some feel for what they are floating. On the Democrat side I’m at some of the fundraisers so I can hear them in person. The usual gist is “we’ve tried to pass things like that but because those are Union jobs the cost would simply be beyond our ability to pay”. The closest our state has come to anything resembling “workfare” is some job training and education initiatives. And cooking or say IT are more the targets than infrastructure.
And here – crossing the aisle doesn’t happen much. The old joke is that PA is Pittsburgh and Philly with Arkansas inbetween. The lines are so hard-drawn that the average Democrat is going to automatically be against anything a Republican proposes and the opposite holds true as well. It is do-able ------ just not here IMHO.
(But in our defense, we do have PCN. PCN is a state cable channel funded by the cable companies that really does offer unfiltered information on state politics and politicians. Its a fantastic resource for us that I wish more people took advantage of.)
Is that not the state department of transportation’s responsibility? As I understand it, the interstate highways are owned and maintained by the states with Federal funding.
If people are worried/pissed, they need to be getting on their state legislatures and governors, not the Federal government.
And I’ll preemptively respond that while federal republicans are certainly terrible at fiscal policy and have been since at least Reagan, my impression that while they spend more, they don’t put that extra money into (nonmilitary) infrastructure. They have different priorities than that, and that’s where the money gets funneled to. (And to be fair it’s not exactly the democrats’ number one priority either.)
If you believe that republicans spend more than democrats on infrastructure, then feel free to argue that and I will happily shrug disinterestedly because I have other hills to die on.
That may be true up North (I have no idea), but it’s certainly not true in the South where almost nobody but state employees, athletes and FedEx drivers are unionized.
Here is a map showing what percentage of road funding is paid by states. The highest is New York at 68%. As usual, the government hating red states like Alabama take more from the government and less from their taxpayers.
So it is unlikely the states could pay for all of it themselves without tax increases unpopular in red states. California just passed a gas tax increase to fund more road improvements. If Alabama doesn’t want to, then I hope all their tires get blown out by potholes and their axles got bent. Buy body shop futures.
That’s state and local road funding, not interstates, which is what that bridge in the link was.
And I’m not seeing a particular red state/blue state breakdown on that map- what I see is a rich state/poor state divide for the most part, with several very red states doing a pretty solid job, and a lot of poorer states, red and blue, not doing so well. I do have to ask- WTF is up with Vermont? They’re neither red, nor poor, yet they have an abysmal percentage of their road funding coming from their own state.
Your DOT workers aren’t Union? Or are all actual repairs and projects bid out? I have no idea how especially the deep South operates today and now I’m curious.
Everything is bid out, but even the inspectors and other direct DOT employees are non-union. I’m in Florida rather than the Deep South but I gather things are pretty much the same elsewhere in the South.
Up here everything is either AFSCME (Association of Federal, State, County and Municipal Employees I believe) or I think SEIU but I’m not as sure just what all they are in to; everything from nurses to a lot of other stuff. Its not 100% but its damn close and I want to say most of our neighbors are pretty much the same.
But infrastructure is all roads. And interstates, being a road system started by the federal government, is more the responsibility of the federal government in general. I don’t know the breakdown of funding in particular, but I doubt the feds pay less for it than they do for state or local roads.
Oh, red states like taxes now? Just one more instance of a lot of states who complain about the federal government having no problem taking more than they give.
I don’t know the deal with Vermont, but there aren’t a lot of people to support some nasty roads.
This is the Chinese robber fallacy.
According to the Federal Highway Administration there are 616,096 bridge in the US. There are 47,000 or 7% that are rated as poor. Ten years ago there were 13,000 fewer bridges overall and 13,000 more rated as poor. The percentage of bridges rated as poor has fallen 30% in just ten years.
Our infrastructure is fine and getting better, not crumbling.
As an actual Republican I’ll take a shot at answering this.
I’m not opposed to spending more money on infrastructure (provided it’s for things like airports and more freeway lanes as opposed to things like high speed rail), but this sounds like some sort of government New Deal program, where the government massively expands in scope (bad! bad! bad!) and pays 100 people to grab shovels to dig a ditch instead of having one guy with an excavator do it. Paying people for busywork is no better than just cutting them welfare checks for doing nothing. People are not idiots; they can see when the work they are doing is just busywork so we’re not even helping their dignity.
If we’re going to expand our infrastructure I’d rather we just do it like we’ve always done, let contracts for private construction companies. That will in turn promote more hiring, but not wasteful hiring. Yes, I know then we’d be cutting welfare checks to people, but there wouldn’t be additional overhead lost in administering wasteful government programs (In fact I’d go farther and just cut people checks if they make below X instead of having dozens of welfare programs to administer).
