And conservatives say the government doesn’t create jobs…
U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl said the Navy plans to order 10 warships from each of two shipbuilding companies in Wisconsin and Alabama.
The Wisconsin Democrat said Thursday the deal would require Congressional approval because it represents a departure from previous plans to award just a single 10-ship contract. He said early signs are positive that Congress will support the change.
Kohl said one contract would go to Marinette Marine Corp. in Marinette, Wis., and its partner, Lockheed Martin Corp. of Bethesda, Md.
He said the other would go to Austal USA in Mobile, Ala., which partners with General Dynamics Corp. in Falls Church, Va.
Kohl said each contract will create thousands of jobs.“The economic impact of this Navy contract for Wisconsin’s economy cannot be understated. In terms of job creation the LCS project is like bringing a big new auto plant to northeast Wisconsin,” Gov. Jim Doyle said in a news release.
According to New North Inc., the new Navy contract will potentially create 1,000 new jobs for the New North’s shipbuilding industry and thousands more for suppliers of Marinette Marine.
But just remember, government doesn’t create any jobs.
What are the odds that walker takes credit for this in four years?
Pretty good, if you ask me.
id say somewhere between 99 – 100 %
I am not going to gloat, but I kind of like how the tables have turned. WI went from a BLUE state to RED in one fell swoop. Now it’s your turn to go crazy for awhile. Even though we will now have fiscal responsibility and a ever growing business friendly environment leading to private sector jobs. And lots of them! Government DOES NOT create private sector jobs but puts in place policies that encourage private sector, profitable jobs!!!
“Government DOES NOT create private sector jobs but puts in place policies that encourage private sector, profitable jobs!!!”
In other words, government creates jobs.
Huh….if this correct:
Even though we will now have fiscal responsibility and a ever growing business friendly environment leading to private sector jobs. And lots of them!
i will be first one on board. Unfortunately History has never proven this to be true so I am a little hesitant to believe you but we will see.
Whether or not government creates jobs is a political choice, not an economic “law.” Public schools “create” jobs for teachers, fire departments create jobs for firefighters, the New Deal Conservation Corps and Works Progress Administration created service jobs, even for artists. (“Artist have to eat, too,” explain FDR aide Harold Ickes.)
Sorry about the double entry. Very slow system here. (And that should be “Artists” – not “Artist” – in that Ickes quote.)
The system’s not slow….first time comments are moderated.
Oh my God, there is no getting through to you. Government DOES NOT directly create profit generating jobs! That is the only point I was trying to make.
Government can only create jobs at taxpayer expense.
You know very well what we are talking about. A few government contracts aren’t going to get the economy moving or erase 10% unemployment. I guess you’ve lost all common sense after the election results.
Forgot did you not study FDR’s presidency and the new deal?? Do you not get that a job is a job and the laws of supply and demand? How demand equals wages and government employees can buy things and stimulate the economy as well as private enterprise employees?
But if the government is paying people to do work via tax dollars how do we get ahead? Someone from the private economy needs to be paying those tax dollars for government to put people to work! That’s not real economic success. And yes, I have studied the New Deal and for the most part it was a collosal failure — unemployment was still high and some of the people did government jobs that didn’t necessarily need to be done. WWII is what created the demand that put people back to work, not some made up program by FDR and bureaucrats.
If you studied the New Deal you should realize it was a grand success until after the 1936 election when President Roosevelt decided to change course and start to reduce the deficit. Well the economy apparently wasn’t ready for the loss of federal support at that point and took another nose dive…a double dip depression?
If you really believe that a job is a job, then why shouldn’t government provide everyone a job? Oh wait, where would they get the money…? Details, details.
Look at Cuba. They’re cutting millions of government jobs and increasing the number of “licenses” for people to do private business/become merchants. Cuba gets it – Raul Castro gets it. Some people don’t. Government money is free money – it’s magical. They don’t see that every dime the government spends was taking from some one who earned it in the first place. And just a pre-emptive strike since if I don’t, I know what will follow. That does not mean no government – anarchy. It means government jobs, while great for those who get them, come at a cost to those who pay for them.
Which brings us all back to the parable of the broken window and the fallacy that anything that creates work for some one is good.
Saying the government should supply every job is as silly as saying the government should not supply any jobs. The system works best when there is a partnership and balance between the two. In some cases the government does a much better job and in some cases private industry does. In some cases it is a mixture of the two. Its that simple and one of the pet peeves i have with republicans consistently ripping the government.
Secondly except for right wing rewriting of history, FDR’s new deal was wildly successful. It should be mandatory taht everyone in America go back and study the new deal. its funny how democratic presidents are expected to fix things in a day and republican presidents always need more time. He inherited an unemployment rate of about 26% and by the time ww2 came around it was under 10. That is a pretty dramatic improvement if you ask me.
The parables to be made are we just finished 30 years of republican rule which led us into the Great depression just like what happened in 2008.
Also FDR was rocking the recovery then in the midterm, there was a big “conservative” movement where he lost seats and was pressured to balance the budget. Which of course led us back onto the brink of depression again. so hold on to your seats….
PP,
I agree that we should all study this nation’s financial history. I am curious to your thoughts on why the great depression lasted longer in the United States that any of the European countries. I am also curious to your thoughts on the 1937-38, recession. Most of the European countries did not suffer this second recession. and the countries that did have an economic downturn experienced a less severe recession than the US. As you know, FDR raised taxes during this period, whereas the European governments did not. Some have argued that FDR’s initial New Deal policies (1935-37) were hostile to business expansion and lead to massive labor strikes, which manifested loss of GDP (industrial production dropped by over 30%) and increased unemployment (back to 1934 levels).
Is it your contention that republican policies caused the 1937-38 and if so how?
FDR had pulled back spending, listening to the people who felt it was important to slash the deficit. Which dipped us back into a recession and proved an electoral disaster for the dems. We pulled out of the stimulus too soon and it was costly for the economy and the democrats.