Skip to main content

View Diary: There's only one deficit reduction plan that would actually create jobs (101 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What part of (5+ / 0-)
    Cut defense spending by nearly $300 billion, which would then be spent on creating jobs by investing in our infrastructure.
    did you not understand?

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:01:37 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  It takes an average of 7 years for a major (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SpamNunn, v2aggie2

      project to get underway in the US (2-3 in the EU).  So that spending will be severely delayed.  The economic pain will be immediate.

      •  Plenty of projects ready to get underway now (8+ / 0-)

        E.g. delayed repairs, maintenance and expansion. Easily $300G worth.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:06:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think you mean B (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kovie

          Well, I think $300B is too much to cut from defense all at one time.  We can discuss all day long, but that will not happen anyway.

          I'm all for more infrastructure spending.  The stimulus in my view was way too light on that.

          •  It's a good thing (5+ / 0-)

            The 300 billion number is actually a fake, 10 year number.  

            We should cut defense spending in half, within 6 months, but only so long as all military members affected by the cuts are given first priority at the new federal jobs created by a massive jobs program.  

            •  $300B over 10 years? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bdop4

              That is reasonable.

              Don't agree with cutting in half though.

              •  I bet there's much spending currently done (0+ / 0-)

                through DoD that could and probably should be spread out over other depts (and vice-versa) since much of what DoD spends isn't on military programs per se. E.g. if a highway is built or expanded to connect two regional bases, the costs should be shared between Dod and DoT. Or, if DoD is developing weather forecasting software, it should be developed jointly with the NWS.

                "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                by kovie on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:32:30 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  In reality . . . (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bdop4

              The jobs being created would mostly be private sector jobs. Government employees do not build roads, bridges or schools. Those go to private paving companies, private engineering and architecture firms, private roofers and builders, etc.

              Few or no government jobs are created, for example, in a school district that wants to update/modernize/renovate all its existing buildings, has the plans already drawn up, and is only waiting for federal matching money or guarantees on its borrowing to make it happen.

              The only way I see government jobs growing under the proposal would be marginal increases at the administrative level, or, in the example of roads, bridges and the like, expansion of maintenance and service departments. But that's small-bore job growth, since maintenance employees don't do the big jobs like major renovations and new construction. That goes to private contractors.

              To be sure, the OP's proposal offers real opportunities for private-sector job growth. A good thing, since all that new activity is taxable, and would raise new tax revenues without having to raise anyone's rates -- a "force multiplier" of sorts.

          •  Heh (0+ / 0-)

            I've been working on some computer matters so I've been thinking in terms of giga rather than billion. But as for these cuts, as others explain below, that's over 10 years, which isn't too much at all. And many defense contractors have the means to switch from defense to civilian work as much defense work isn't directly military systems-related, but roads, structures, logistics, IT, etc.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:26:56 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  shovel ready? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GoGoGoEverton

      •  Another good point. (0+ / 0-)

        Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.

        by SpamNunn on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:08:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  What part about what I said don't you understand? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bon Temps

      I suppose I could have been more specific.

      I oppose the defense cuts if they cut service people's health care, and across the board cuts in general.  I support targeted cuts if the money is dedicated specifically to much needed bridge and highway repairs, not "pork" projects. Otherwise, you are just cutting long terms jobs in the military (civilian and service jobs) and service health care and trading that for short term infrastructure jobs that are the subject matter of most "pork" projects.  

      Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.

      by SpamNunn on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:07:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What you propose could be how this is done (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bdop4

        If it's done right, which it should be. But don't tell me that there aren't $30B worth of cuts to defense spending per year we could make that wouldn't make us the slightest bit less safe short or long-term AND be done in a way so as to not hurt the economy, service members, workers and small businesses.

        We actually did this after WWII, the biggest scaling down of our military ever, and it resulted in the biggest boom in US history.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:37:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Amen - There are many Capital Intensive Projects (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kovie, tofumagoo

          for weapons we don't need. Eliminating them would result in job losses, but to high skill workers who can redirect themselves to other high tech infrastructure projects that actually benefit this country.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site