Will a Romney/Ryan win save us?

[waitforufo]

They claimed extension of the tax cuts would help them create jobs. We assumed they meant jobs for Americans, since it was our tax revenue they were keeping to do it. I don't see where it's heavy-handed to say the job-creators aren't interested in hiring Americans, when they were given the chance AND the funds to do it yet hired offshore workers in three out of four cases. They used money that should have been public revenue slated for US job creation to grow 60% of their own revenue without hiring US workers.

 

I would say the general shittiness of the economy is also partly to do with high unemployment. It's too bad there isn't a way to stimulate US companies to hire US workers. Maybe Ryan's plan to give the wealthy even more tax breaks will make them hire US workers THIS time, since that's not in any way insane or ludicrous.

 

I’m not sure that US tax payer funded stimulus money could be limited to US job creation without running afoul of NAFTA and WTO treaties. By running afoul of these treaties The US would then have to pay fines to foreign countries and companies for unfair trade practices. By the way, non US car companies have and are filing WTO complaints regarding the GM and Chrysler bailouts.

 

Perhaps the US government could stimulate companies by reducing government regulations and other employment tax burdens. They did temporarily reduce the employer social security matching contribution. That was a welcome start.

 

Perhaps the government could do something with regard to energy costs. Perhaps if we revved up the Tennessee Valley Authority, Bonneville Power Administration, and other such entities to build more coal, nuclear, and dam power plants we would not only have the employment during the construction but also an abundance of power to drive our economy when the plants were completed.

 

The government could also stop requiring the use of ethanol in gasoline which depletes our soil, increases engine wear, drives up fuel costs, increases water pollution, and increases food costs. Perhaps all savings from eliminating that single act of stupidity would free up some cash to create a few jobs.

 

Can you really expect business people from making sound business decisions with regard to the cost of labor and doing business? Can you really expect them to make decisions contrary to the regulations government places on them?

[iNow]

Perhaps the US government could stimulate companies by reducing government regulations and other employment tax burdens.

While companies will always be impacted by various regulations and taxes, the data doesn't support this particular narrative as being the prime cause of current issues we're facing. Corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash right now and choosing not to invest it. Lowering their taxes even further merely gives them more cash not to invest.

 

According to any economist worth their salt, and to the data itself, we are facing a problem with demand, not so much with regulations or taxes. If you look to Wall Street, lack of regulation is a major part of what got us into the current trouble we're collectively facing. Instead, it's the lack of demand for products that serves as the most reasonable, logical, and well supported argument for what is causing the lack of investment and lack of hiring by companies.

 

Also, uncertainty is an issue, but the data there too strongly shows that it's due to the fiscal brinkmanship taking place in Washington with the debt ceiling, not the idea of regulations or taxes causing that uncertainty.

[Phi for All]

I'm not sure that US tax payer funded stimulus money could be limited to US job creation without running afoul of NAFTA and WTO treaties. By running afoul of these treaties The US would then have to pay fines to foreign countries and companies for unfair trade practices. By the way, non US car companies have and are filing WTO complaints regarding the GM and Chrysler bailouts.

Well, extending the Bush tax cuts was sold to us as a way for the "job-creators" to help with our unemployment problem. AFAIC, that money taken from our tax revenues should have gone to hiring US workers. It wasn't a spending bill, it was a tax cut. Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me... we can't get fooled again.

 

Perhaps the US government could stimulate companies by reducing government regulations and other employment tax burdens. They did temporarily reduce the employer social security matching contribution. That was a welcome start.

I consider relaxed regs to be a big part of why we're where we are at present.

 

The government could also stop requiring the use of ethanol in gasoline which depletes our soil, increases engine wear, drives up fuel costs, increases water pollution, and increases food costs. Perhaps all savings from eliminating that single act of stupidity would free up some cash to create a few jobs.

Agree here. What a stupid use of edible corn.

 

Can you really expect business people from making sound business decisions with regard to the cost of labor and doing business? Can you really expect them to make decisions contrary to the regulations government places on them?

Historically, they've done so quite well, and with tighter regulations and higher taxes.

[swansont]

I’m not sure that US tax payer funded stimulus money could be limited to US job creation without running afoul of NAFTA and WTO treaties.

That wasn't the issue that Phi raised, it was the tax cuts. But the Bush tax cuts didn't result in high levels of domestic job creation (nor did his relaxing of regulations), so why should we believe that more of the same will?

 

It's true that you can run afoul of the WTO by subsidizing businesses. However, you can deem that the government spend money with US businesses; AFAIK spending is not a subsidy. Stimulus can/could be spent on infrastructure, for example, which really can't be outsourced.

[waitforufo]

Phi for All wrote…

 

They claimed extension of the tax cuts would help them create jobs. We assumed they meant jobs for Americans, since it was our tax revenue they were keeping to do it. I don't see where it's heavy-handed to say the job-creators aren't interested in hiring Americans, when they were given the chance AND the funds to do it yet hired offshore workers in three out of four cases. They used money that should have been public revenue slated for US job creation to grow 60% of their own revenue without hiring US workers.

 

I would say the general shittiness of the economy is also partly to do with high unemployment. It's too bad there isn't a way to stimulate US companies to hire US workers. Maybe Ryan's plan to give the wealthy even more tax breaks will make them hire US workers THIS time, since that's not in any way insane or ludicrous.

 

You replied to my post with…

That wasn't the issue that Phi raised, it was the tax cuts. But the Bush tax cuts didn't result in high levels of domestic job creation (nor did his relaxing of regulations), so why should we believe that more of the same will?

 

It's true that you can run afoul of the WTO by subsidizing businesses. However, you can deem that the government spend money with US businesses; AFAIK spending is not a subsidy. Stimulus can/could be spent on infrastructure, for example, which really can't be outsourced.

 

I seem to recall be shouted down for suggesting that tax cuts were not government subsidies. So are tax cuts subsidies or not?

 

Yes he was referring to tax cuts but he was also referring to ways to stimulate the US economy. My response applies to both.

 

No, not all government spending is a subsidy. But if the US government contracted a company to build a windmill power generation farm, it could not restrict the contracted company to buy only US made windmills. That would be in violation of the WTO. So yes we would have the windmill power generation, the jobs to erect the windmills, and the jobs to maintain the windmills, but it is likely that the vast majority of the money spend would go the foreign windmill manufacturers. Those jobs would likely go to China.

 

You say that ”Stimulus can/could be spent on infrastructure, for example, which really can't be outsourced.”

 

I said…

 

Perhaps the government could do something with regard to energy costs. Perhaps if we revved up the Tennessee Valley Authority, Bonneville Power Administration, and other such entities to build more coal, nuclear, and dam power plants we would not only have the employment during the construction but also an abundance of power to drive our economy when the plants were completed.

 

That sounds like infrastructure to me. I’m glad to see we are in agreement. I did however forget pipelines like the Keystone XL pipeline. Another great example of infrastructure.

 

Our economy will never expand in a significant way without more energy. I find it ironic that people use the price of oil as an indicator for economic improvement. Increasing oil prices are a governor on economic growth. We need to remove that governor by expanding our energy resources and capacity.

[Phi for All]

I seem to recall be shouted down for suggesting that tax cuts were not government subsidies. So are tax cuts subsidies or not?

 

Yes he was referring to tax cuts but he was also referring to ways to stimulate the US economy. My response applies to both.

In this case, since the extension of the tax cuts was sold to us as allowing "job-creators" to create jobs, it was an example of tax cuts subsidizing businesses to create jobs. In addition, this was obviously a flat out lie, or at the least a scam that allowed the biggest companies to spend money the tax payers gave them to expand their businesses overseas. Do you really think the vast majority of tax payers would have approved the extension if they knew that only one out of four of the jobs created would go to a US tax payer? Do you think the justification that it would make iPhones a little cheaper would have been enough?

[ecoli]

In this case, since the extension of the tax cuts was sold to us as allowing "job-creators" to create jobs, it was an example of tax cuts subsidizing businesses to create jobs. In addition, this was obviously a flat out lie, or at the least a scam that allowed the biggest companies to spend money the tax payers gave them to expand their businesses overseas. Do you really think the vast majority of tax payers would have approved the extension if they knew that only one out of four of the jobs created would go to a US tax payer? Do you think the justification that it would make iPhones a little cheaper would have been enough?

 

The fact that I focused on iphones was a bit facetious.. iphone manufacturing jobs are never coming back to the US. Our factory labor can't work cheaply enough and low level-production engineers aren't educated enough.

 

If anyone thought the goal of tax cuts was to increase hiring in manufacturing, I've got a bridge to sell you. From that perspective, I agree with you, that if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire and the money used to education, investment in science, tech & engineering skills, then we would have been far better off and able to cope with the inevitable fact that manufacturing jobs aren't coming back. Hell, I even support social programs that tide people over to deal with the transition that is Pareto optimality.

[swansont]

I seem to recall be shouted down for suggesting that tax cuts were not government subsidies. So are tax cuts subsidies or not?

Not to individuals, and in the context of the WTO and whether it's fair trade, AFAIK, which is the scenario under discussion.

 

No, not all government spending is a subsidy. But if the US government contracted a company to build a windmill power generation farm, it could not restrict the contracted company to buy only US made windmills. That would be in violation of the WTO. So yes we would have the windmill power generation, the jobs to erect the windmills, and the jobs to maintain the windmills, but it is likely that the vast majority of the money spend would go the foreign windmill manufacturers. Those jobs would likely go to China.

The government usually does not run power utilities, but if the government wanted to procure a portable wind turbine (or, more plausibly, a solar generator) for e.g. the army to use while deployed, they can very likely restrict the purchase to a US manufacturer. That's not necessarily unfair trade. The unfair trade is giving money to the manufacturer so that they can then export their products at a cheaper price. If there is no export, AFAIK there is no problem. (if you have actual evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to be set straight on the matter)

 

From this article, "In the U.S., only some euro178 billion in government contracts can be bid on by foreign companies". So obviously, there's a lot of US government money being spent domestically that cannot go abroad.

 

Buy American Act (you can also look up the Berry Amendment). The WTO GPA does not cover all government purchases.

 

 

One reason one would have to go to a foreign source for such products is because the government has been far busier supporting ethanol, coal and oil than wind and solar, so those industries are not as advanced, domestically.

[waitforufo]

In this case, since the extension of the tax cuts was sold to us as allowing "job-creators" to create jobs, it was an example of tax cuts subsidizing businesses to create jobs. In addition, this was obviously a flat out lie, or at the least a scam that allowed the biggest companies to spend money the tax payers gave them to expand their businesses overseas. Do you really think the vast majority of tax payers would have approved the extension if they knew that only one out of four of the jobs created would go to a US tax payer? Do you think the justification that it would make iPhones a little cheaper would have been enough?

 

Yes, actually I think they would. I have worked as an electrical engineer for three decades. In that time I have seen almost all manufacturing of electronic products move off shore. Why? Well Americans like cheap electronics. Perhaps electronics is our version of bread and circuses. Also cheap manufacturing of electronics enables a lot of very good jobs here in the US. Take wireless and internet services for example. Virtually all the equipment used in these two industries are manufactured in Asia. From cell site and tower equipment to the network operating centers, every piece of equipment is made in Asia. But the engineering is mostly done here and in other western nations. The installation, maintenance and operation is done here. Those are all good jobs. Middle class jobs. I'm glad I have mine.

 

So yes I do think making iPhones a little cheaper would have been adequate justification.

[Phi for All]

Yes, actually I think they would. I have worked as an electrical engineer for three decades. In that time I have seen almost all manufacturing of electronic products move off shore. Why? Well Americans like cheap electronics. Perhaps electronics is our version of bread and circuses. Also cheap manufacturing of electronics enables a lot of very good jobs here in the US. Take wireless and internet services for example. Virtually all the equipment used in these two industries are manufactured in Asia. From cell site and tower equipment to the network operating centers, every piece of equipment is made in Asia. But the engineering is mostly done here and in other western nations. The installation, maintenance and operation is done here. Those are all good jobs. Middle class jobs. I'm glad I have mine.

 

So yes I do think making iPhones a little cheaper would have been adequate justification.

Maybe I'll start another thread with a poll. "Would you approve more tax cuts for corporations, which everyone making under $200,000 per year would have to make up for, so these corporations can create new jobs, one for an American and three for workers overseas?"

 

I'm a bit appalled that you think this isn't corporate welfare of the worst sort.

[ecoli]

Phi - I just don't think its accurate to frame a tax cut as welfare. But, we've had this discussion before.

[waitforufo]

The government usually does not run power utilities...

Have you heard of the Tennessee Valley Authority and Bonneville Power Administration? Perhaps you should search Google. Take a look at Hoover Dam and Grand Coulee Dam. That would be a good start.

 

 

... but if the government wanted to procure a portable wind turbine (or, more plausibly, a solar generator) for e.g. the army to use while deployed, they can very likely restrict the purchase to a US manufacturer. That's not necessarily unfair trade. The unfair trade is giving money to the manufacturer so that they can then export their products at a cheaper price. If there is no export, AFAIK there is no problem.

I'm sorry but your example is chump change. If you are thinking production for domestic consumption you are simply planning for US decline.

 

 

 

(if you have actual evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to be set straight on the matter)

From this article, "In the U.S., only some euro178 billion in government contracts can be bid on by foreign companies". So obviously, there's a lot of US government money being spent domestically that cannot go abroad.

 

Buy American Act (you can also look up the Berry Amendment). The WTO GPA does not cover all government purchases.

 

First, the last time I checked euro178 billion is some serious cash. Also, my guess is that excluding foreign companies from bidding on contracts does not exclude domestic companies from winning those contracts and then subcontracting them out to foreign entities. When I have time I will read your links.

 

 

One reason one would have to go to a foreign source for such products is because the government has been far busier supporting ethanol, coal and oil than wind and solar, so those industries are not as advanced, domestically.

 

We need cheap power to grow our economy. Wind and solar are not cheap. At least they produce power. So go ahead and spend some cash on wind and solar. But to rely on it at the moment is foolhardy.

 

Maybe I'll start another thread with a poll. "Would you approve more tax cuts for corporations, which everyone making under $200,000 per year would have to make up for, so these corporations can create new jobs, one for an American and three for workers overseas?"

 

I'm a bit appalled that you think this isn't corporate welfare of the worst sort.

 

If you run this poll you should perhaps word it like this...

 

"Would you approve more tax cuts for corporations, which everyone making under $200,000 per year would have to make up for, so these corporations can create new jobs, one for an American and three for workers overseas and where the American worker will make twice as much as all three of the overseas workers combined."

[John Cuthber]

Six pages in and I'm still not sure

Who are the "us" in the question?

What do we need to be saved from ?

(and, perhaps most importantly,

who will then save us from Romney and Ryan?)

[Phi for All]

Phi - I just don't think its accurate to frame a tax cut as welfare. But, we've had this discussion before.

In most cases I agree. This particular tax cut was sold as a means to grow jobs, but was then used to fuel mostly corporate growth, 60% of which came from hiring overseas workers. This seems more like a subsidy.

 

I don't think taxpayers would have approved of the extensions if they'd known it would be used to help corporations instead of unemployment, that's all.

[iNow]

They claimed extension of the tax cuts would help them create jobs. We assumed they meant jobs for Americans, since it was our tax revenue they were keeping to do it.

This particular tax cut was sold as a means to grow jobs...

Just to help you out a little on this point:

 

 

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=45653

Tax relief will create new jobs, tax relief will generate new wealth, and tax relief will open new opportunities.

~George W. Bush on April 16, 2001.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/08/us/politics-economy-overview-bush-unveils-plan-cut-tax-rates-spur-economy.html

These tax reductions will bring real and immediate benefits to middle-income Americans…By speeding up the income tax cuts, we will speed up economic recovery and the pace of job creation.

~George W. Bush on January 8, 2003.

 

 

Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me... we can't get fooled again.

Indeed.

[swansont]

Have you heard of the Tennessee Valley Authority and Bonneville Power Administration? Perhaps you should search Google. Take a look at Hoover Dam and Grand Coulee Dam. That would be a good start.

Yes, the government has built dams. We've pretty much dammed all that we can reasonably dam. How many non-dam utilities does the government run?

 

I'm sorry but your example is chump change. If you are thinking production for domestic consumption you are simply planning for US decline.

Moving the goalposts; it was not meant to be comprehensive. I was merely giving an example in rebuttal.

 

First, the last time I checked euro178 billion is some serious cash.

So what? That wasn't the point. You stated that something could not be done, and I gave information showing it to be incorrect.

 

We need cheap power to grow our economy. Wind and solar are not cheap. At least they produce power. So go ahead and spend some cash on wind and solar. But to rely on it at the moment is foolhardy.

Good thing we don't have to rely on it, too, because it's only a few percent of total electrical power.

[waitforufo]

Yes, the government has built dams. We've pretty much dammed all that we can reasonably dam. How many non-dam utilities does the government run?

 

I suggested you look up the Tennesse Vally Authority. Here is a wiki link.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority

 

This page lists all the dams, coal fired, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, waste derived methane generation facilities built and run by this federal government entity.

 

The BPA also runs a nuclear plant at Hanford Washington.

 

I'm sure I could find more, but what's the point, you are not listening.

 

You said "The government usually does not run power utilities."

 

The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation is the second largest producer of electricity in the country.

[swansont]

I suggested you look up the Tennesse Vally Authority. Here is a wiki link.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority

 

This page lists all the dams, coal fired, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, waste derived methane generation facilities built and run by this federal government entity.

How much power do they produce? The page doesn't say.

 

The BPA also runs a nuclear plant at Hanford Washington.

The only power generation plant there is owned by a utility. The government reactors were for weapons and research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Generating_Station

 

I'm sure I could find more, but what's the point, you are not listening.

 

You said "The government usually does not run power utilities."

 

The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation is the second largest producer of electricity in the country.

OK, what does that claim mean? That it produces a large fraction of the energy in the country? That's what you're implying, because I didn't say that the US doesn't do any power generation. It's obvious they do, because dams built for other reasons will also generate power. The Bureau of Reclamation built dams for, um, land reclamation. You build dams for flood control as well.

 

Second largest would mean something of there were only a handful of utilities. Is it possible, though, that it's simply that they produce more power than almost anyone because they're one organization, and that there are hundreds of smaller utilities out there? What their website says is that they are #2 — to the Corp of Engineers. I can find numbers for them — they produce around 100 billion kWh of electricity a year … out of the 4000 billion kWh produced in the US. So the biggest government utility produces 2.5% of the electricity. Together, the two is thus less than 5%. Does that a make them a major player in the game? Or is it true that most power utilities, by a wide margin, are not run by the federal government, and most power is not generated by them? (hint: the answer to that last one is "yes")

[waitforufo]

Why don’t we roll this back a bit.

 

Phi for All stated…

It's too bad there isn't a way to stimulate US companies to hire US workers.

 

Part of my reply to his post included.

Perhaps the government could do something with regard to energy costs. Perhaps if we revved up the Tennessee Valley Authority, Bonneville Power Administration, and other such entities to build more coal, nuclear, and dam power plants we would not only have the employment during the construction but also an abundance of power to drive our economy when the plants were completed.

 

Part of your reply to this was.

The government usually does not run power utilities…

 

This is simply not true. The US government runs all kinds of power plants and maintains major power grids through the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, TVA, and BPA. In fact the US government is a major player in electric power generation in the US.

 

There are many reasons why our economy is suffering. Unemployment, huge and rapidly growing federal deficits, trade deficits due to energy importation, and so on. If as I suggested the federal government put forth an aggressive program to increase electric power generation through federal entities like the BOR, BPA, and TVA they would create large amounts of domestic employment, create large amounts of affordable electric power, and that electric power would help us grow the economy reducing our federal debt as a percentage of GDP.

 

Why do you think this is a bad idea?

 

Are you against growing the economy?

[ecoli]

There are many reasons why our economy is suffering. Unemployment, huge and rapidly growing federal deficits, trade deficits due to energy importation, and so on. If as I suggested the federal government put forth an aggressive program to increase electric power generation through federal entities like the BOR, BPA, and TVA they would create large amounts of domestic employment, create large amounts of affordable electric power, and that electric power would help us grow the economy reducing our federal debt as a percentage of GDP.

 

Why do you think this is a bad idea?

 

Are you against growing the economy?

 

Unforuntately the broken window parable is a fallacy. According to the parable, the gov't could just just pay people to break windows - window fixing industry would boom & float the rest of the economy. However, this ignores opportunity costs to the non-window fixing economy and the fact you're not really creating any net value.

 

Not to say that there's no value in electricity generation, but the fact that there isn't any electricity shortage in this country results in the same idea as just breaking windows or digging ditches and filling them up. The fact that GDP calculation includes gov't expenditures doesn't necessarily mean that the economy will improve as G increases. [math] GDP = C + I + G + (X - M) [/math]

[padren]

Not to say that there's no value in electricity generation, but the fact that there isn't any electricity shortage in this country results in the same idea as just breaking windows or digging ditches and filling them up. The fact that GDP calculation includes gov't expenditures doesn't necessarily mean that the economy will improve as G increases. [math] GDP = C + I + G + (X - M) [/math]

I thought the volatility in energy costs and their general progression upward had something to do with the supply side of the economic equation. If anything cheaper energy would be a boon to businesses, who have to build their entire models around the cost of energy towards production.

 

There's another factor in the equation - all the people who are unemployed are devaluing just as readily as unmaintained foreclosed homes. There is a definite cost to ignoring the already broken window when it's leaking heat like a sieve.

[ecoli]

I thought the volatility in energy costs and their general progression upward had something to do with the supply side of the economic equation. If anything cheaper energy would be a boon to businesses, who have to build their entire models around the cost of energy towards production.

Agreed, but look at what the gov't has been doing to promote alternative energy: basically subsidizing inefficient corn-based ethanol production. That and subsidizing traditional oil companies - well I don't really think the gov't is good at this game. Gov't subsidized energy doesn't necessarily mean cheaper energy or economic growth.

 

There's another factor in the equation - all the people who are unemployed are devaluing just as readily as unmaintained foreclosed homes. There is a definite cost to ignoring the already broken window when it's leaking heat like a sieve.

Yes, but the point of the fallacy is not to break them in the first place. Further subsidies or gov't-fueled growth of the energy sector is not necessarily the best place to keep employees busy is my point.

[padren]

Agreed, but look at what the gov't has been doing to promote alternative energy: basically subsidizing inefficient corn-based ethanol production. That and subsidizing traditional oil companies - well I don't really think the gov't is good at this game. Gov't subsidized energy doesn't necessarily mean cheaper energy or economic growth.

 

 

Yes, but the point of the fallacy is not to break them in the first place. Further subsidies or gov't-fueled growth of the energy sector is not necessarily the best place to keep employees busy is my point.

Absolutely on both counts, and I entirely dislike how government has gone about subsidizing industry - it's a flawed methodology that depends on convincing enough politicians that despite the broad cost, they'll get pork barrel benefits for their district. The glaring omission of course, is basing a decision on whether the broad costs lead to more broad benefits.

Those who initiate the plan have their reasons for believing the program will be "buoyant" which hopefully will be based on empirical evidence, but then they calculate how much pork they will have to get it pushed through, and cross their fingers the whole thing will still float.

 

If that's where we set the bar on government programs, then we may as well scrap 90% of them because they'll never get straightened out or make it into the black - but the problem isn't government involvement, it's pork barrel policy. We can't "not" invest in our military, but pork in military alone is detrimental enough that scrapping 90% of other programs won't come close to providing a solution. So, we do need to clean up those issues with pork politics anyway to be solvent at all, and if we do, we actually can have healthy government programs that do provide broad benefits that far exceed what private industry can do alone.

 

I also agree about it being better to not break windows in the first place, but I'm looking at a lot of broken windows right now and weather damage is adding up. The broken glass is evident in our volatile energy prices and the concessions we make (politically, economically and militarily) to cope with our energy dependance on other nations.

 

I don't see how a government program would be breaking more glass in this scenario unless it was just some sad pork laden innovative, in which case it would be doomed from the start.

[swansont]

The thing is that we have enough broken windows already, so there's no need to break more to justify more work. But it's more than that. Bridges and roads are in a state of disrepair and fixing them will not only boost employment, it will boost overall productivity — less time wasted in traffic, less wear and tear on vehicles. Investments in education will similarly pay off both in employment now in and in the future. And right now we can borrow money at an interest rate that, because of inflation, is effectively negative. We get to spend the money now and when we pay it off, we have to pay less in value than we borrowed. And that's even before acknowledging that fixing a bridge or road now costs less than after it fails in some way.

[iNow]

^You liberals with your socialist propaganda. Get a job, hippie.