OMG!!! THE President wants to give government money to PRIVATE FIRMS!!!!

[DFab420]

He's calling it the PWA!! How dare he try give tax payer money to private companies that will hire people and work on infrastructure!!! It's clearly a step to ULTIMATE COPRO-FASICT PRIVATIZATION!!!! AHHHHH!!!

Damn that FDR, I knew, just felt it in my gut, that he was a sellout bend over backwards for the private sector puppet......


Here's a bit of history for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Works_Administration



The Public Works Administration (PWA), part of the New Deal of 1933, was a large-scale public works construction agency in the United States headed by Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes. It was created by the National Industrial Recovery Act in June 1933 in response to the Great Depression. It built large-scale public works such as dams and bridges, warships, hospitals and schools. Its goals were to spend 3.3 billion in the first year, and $6 billion in all, to provide employment, stabilize purchasing power, and help revive the economy. Most of the spending came in two waves in 1933-35, and again in 1938. Originally called the Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works, it was renamed the Public Works Administration in 1939 and shut down in 1943.<1>
The PWA spent over $6 billion in contracts to private construction forms that did the actual work. It created an infrastructure that generated national and local pride in the 1930s and remains vital seven decades later. The PWA was much less controversial than its rival agency with a confusingly similar name, the Works Progress Administration (WPA), headed by Harry Hopkins, which focused on smaller projects and hired unemployed unskilled workers.<2>

he PWA headquarters in Washington planned projects, which were built by private construction companies hiring workers on the open market. Unlike the WPA, it did not hire the unemployed directly.
More than any other New Deal program, the PWA epitomized the progressive notion of "priming the pump" to encourage economic recovery. Between July 1933 and March 1939 the PWA funded and administered the construction of more than 34,000 projects including airports, large electricity-generating dams, major warships for the Navy, and bridges, as well as 70% of the new schools and one-third of the hospitals built between 1933–1939.
Streets and highways were the most common PWA projects, as 11,428 road projects, or 33% of all PWA projects, accounted for over 15% of its total budget. School buildings, 7,488 in all, came in second at 14% of spending. PWA functioned chiefly by making allotments to the various Federal agencies; making loans and grants to state and other public bodies; and making loans without grants (for a brief time) to the railroads. For example it provided funds for the Indian Division of the CCC to build roads, bridges and other public works on and near Indian reservations.


Fort Peck Dam in Montana; spillway construction. One of the largest dams in the world, it continues to generate electricity; in July 1936 its construction employed 10,500 workers.
The PWA became, with its "multiplier-effect" and first two-year budget of $3.3 billion (compared to the entire GDP of $60 billion), the driving force of America’s biggest construction effort up to that date. By June 1934 the agency had distributed its entire fund to 13,266 federal projects and 2,407 non-federal projects. For every worker on a PWA project, almost two additional workers were employed indirectly. The PWA accomplished the electrification of rural America, the building of canals, tunnels, bridges, highways, streets, sewage systems, and housing areas, as well as hospitals, schools, and universities; every year it consumed roughly half of the concrete and a third of the steel of the entire nation.<4>
Some of the most famous PWA projects are the Triborough Bridge and the Lincoln Tunnel in New York City, the Grand Coulee Dam in Washington state, the longest continuous sidewalk in the world along 6½ miles of Bayshore Blvd. in Tampa, Florida, and the Overseas Highway connecting Key West, Florida, to the mainland. The PWA also electrified the Pennsylvania Railroad between New York and Washington, DC. At the local level it built courthouses, schools, hospitals and other public facilities that remain in use in the 21st century.<5>

********************

:sarcasm:
:banghead: :banghead:

[phleshdef]

1. Blue collar, middle class America = private construction workers.

Aside from the ignorance of history, the most disturbing thing is how quick some are to ignore who benefits the most from anything that stimulates the construction industry.

[readmoreoften]

4. Oh so blue collar workers wouldn't fare well as public workers. We need those "job creators", huh?

Workers don't generally care whether their labor is bought by capitalists or state bureaucrats. They just want the best deal. Your argument is disingenuous at best and right- leaning at worst.

[Maru Kitteh]

6. And your argument is dangerously short-sighted. nt

[phleshdef]

22. You've lost your mind.

These workers already work for private construction companies. 20% of these companies are unionized. Many have pensions and benefits already setup. Many may like where and who they work with or use to work with before getting benched because of money problems. Stimulating activity within these types of companies is a direct boost to middle class interests. Many of these private construction firms are also smaller and mid sized companies, not mega corporations. Construction is one of those industries where you have a lot of competition, a lot of people starting their own businesses.

I understand demonizing the banks, and the big telecomms and big energy and big pharma and big insurance. But construction should not be treated in that same fashion. Certain private industries still serve as cornerstones of the middle class and should not be regarded with disdain by progressives or anyone else. These are the industries that employ the most people and aren't tainted by near monopolies. Construction, trucking/shipping, manufacturing, retail and food service, etc. Of course there are bad companies in all of those industries, but the industries themselves are the true backbone of our labor force. Its certainly not "right leaning" to support a big government program that seeks to directly stimulate these industries.

[readmoreoften]

2. Yes and private corporations in the 1930s and 40s were not the neoliberal

conglomerates of today. It's not "xcorporo fascism"!!1! It's just plain capitalism under it's specific neoliberal conditions. We don't need to privatize anymore. What's more, we need to be taking back what has been privatized already.

[DFab420]

8. You argument above undoes this argument here you realize that right?

You say that laborers won't care if they get a check from a company or from the state.

Then in this post you claim that companies shouldn't be the ones to pay...

So if the workers don't care, then why does it matter if the company isn't American? ALSO how the hell do you know that the companies won't be American?

Do you imagine hiring a foreign contractor means they will fly in their own workers? Or do you think, seeing as it's government money, that American Union workers would be hired??

[CarmanK]

3. GOVT CONTRACTS MEAN UNION WAGES and work!

[abelenkpe]

9. No they dont

My sister, cousin, and two uncles work for government contractors. They are not union workers. They have no pension plan and no 401k match.

[phleshdef]

23. Something like 20% of the private construction industry is unionized.

Thats what that poster was getting at I believe.

[Maru Kitteh]

24. They have a job.

[abelenkpe]

45. That is true

But my sister also lives with my parents cause her job doesn't pay well enough to live on her own and support her kids. Is that the kind of job we should be happy to have?

[DFab420]

47. It's a job alot of people would be happy to have I'm sure.

[Dawgs]

5. Bullshit. I'd rather have government money going to government jobs.

Private companies destroy lives and are inefficient.

'We've always done it that way' is not an excuse to be for something that Democrats should be against.

[DFab420]

10. HAHAHAHA Private companies destroy lives??????

You think everyone should work for the STATE???

No thank you comrade. We've seen what happens when the STATE runs the store and the work house, WE don't need that in this country. Fascism, Totalitarianism, Communism...which one of these systems has worked?

What we do need is a robust PRIVATE sector of American workers who earn their wages and aren't beholden to the government for anything other the social services and taxes.

[abelenkpe]

13. Actually many economists have pointed out that the best return on investment

would be to hire workers directly. If you subcontract out you have no control over whether workers are US workers, what kind of salary or benefits they receive and how much money goes to lining the pockets of the executives vs employees.

But hey if you want to throw around tired republican talking points go ahead.

[TwilightGardener]

15. Look at federal, state, county, city employees--they are being shed everywhere.

Their benefits and pensions are now considered an unsustainable burden. There is no way federal, state and local governments are going to start massively hiring now, AND offer solid wages. There seems to be a sentiment here that the private sector is now somehow "bad" unless they make or sell widgets.

[Dappleganger]

28. That's because the politicians declared open season on robbing pensions long ago...

leaving their little paper IOU's instead.

[DFab420]

32. Exactly! Yet if you were to work for a PRIVATE sector job, the government couldn't touch your

pensions....Which only goes to show why it's important to have both Public and Private sector jobs.

[Dawgs]

35. Not to be snarky, but what private sector company still provies a pension? n/t

[DFab420]

37. No snark taken. I honestly couldn't tell you, but I assume Unionized companies do

p.s. I love how you and I always seem to go toe to toe, it's nice to have a good sparring partner haha

[abelenkpe]

65. Disney :) nt

[Dappleganger]

49. And no private company would dare mess with their employee's pensions or benefits, eh?

Enron, anyone?

[DFab420]

50. It's not a black and white issue, both the government and the private sector can do distasteful

things.

That shouldn't preclude a program for getting American's to work.

[Dappleganger]

I am all for getting Americans back to work

with a big ass jobs bill which should have happened 2 years ago instead of the pittance we got. And no monopoly should be allowed to bid, only small companies who hire Americans and use American resources and machinery. What has actually happened is that anytime these programs open up, the republican lobbyists line up to sell their big corporate interests and secure no-bid contracts in the areas of defense, construction, student testing, airport screening machines, etc.

[DFab420]

54. Oh yea a BIG ASS Jobs bill that the divided congress would totally pass without any issue right?

I mean it's not like Obama proposed a jobs bill that got blocked by the Republicans right?

http://garamendi.house.gov/2010/06/congressman-garamendi-senate-republicans-block-jobs-bill-putting-at-risk-the-nations-economy-with-a.shtml

http://blog.aflcio.org/2010/06/18/senate-republicans-kill-jobs-bill-block-jobless-aid/


oh wait..........

[Dappleganger]

57. oh wait what?

So we just bend over and pretend to be republicans and be grateful for the hand job??

Your attitude of compromise is why we have the now defunct democratic party of today.

[DFab420]

58. Excuse me? WTF are you talking about hand jobs and republicans for????

The Democratic President, proposed multiple jobs bills that all stalled due to Republican opposition, you realize that right?

My attitude of compromise? You are really grasping at straws my friend. Thank you though for the personal insult in this political discussion, I see you have run out of salient points to make and so have now gone after my credibility as a democrat.

It's very astute of you to call me a republican and make some sort of sexual reference, therefore making it my job to discuss my allegiance and not the policy.

[TwilightGardener]

36. Absolutely. And now the R's have everyone in America seething at

their public sector neighbors for the luck of having benefits and job security that EVERYONE should be demanding. But they can't demand it, because they're lucky to have a job at all if they've got one. So we're all being encouraged to tear down for others what we can't have for ourselves. Race to the bottom, fighting each other for crumbs.

[Dappleganger]

48. We are all beggars who can no longer hope to choose...

because they say we have no right to. :(

[abelenkpe]

64. Yeah I know

My SIL has had furlough days for quite some time working for the state and is happy to still have a job. We've needed a jobs program for quite some time and the states and cities are already strapped. Look it's a good idea, I just don't see it happening at all. Republicans will balk so any discussion of whether the federal government hires directly or sprinkles cash on contractors in the hopes that they hire locals are probably just a waste. Republicans are jerks, but they aren't stupid. They know austerity and balanced budget nonsense will lead to greater unemployment and civil unrest. Look at Europe. Austerity hasn't been kind or even successful. They want the president to fail. They want to point to continued job losses and say "See! He's bad for the economy, his policies don't work and hey, he's also a socialist/fascist/non-white/non-citizen/affirmative action multi-cultural blah blah blah....." and whatever other loony stuff they can squeeze in there.

Now teabaggers... they ARE stupid. ;)

[DFab420]

18. Can you point to these many economists? Or are they just out in the ether as something you've heard?

Also can you point to the pertinent discussion of using Private sector companies to hire workers using government money as it relates to the return investment of spending into the economy by said workers?

Again, I also ask you this. EVEN IF a private sector company is a foreign led construction company do you really believe they are going to ship in workers rather then hire local workers?

ALSO do you think that local construction UNIONS would put up with anything other then standard pay rates and benefits??

ALSO do you think that blue collar workers who have been hit the hardest in this recession are really gonna care where their paycheck comes from as long as it comes??

[Dawgs]

30. Who's saying that a private job isn't better than no job?

We're talking about what's right.

Democrats should be fighting for better jobs for as many as possible.

Private companies will fire people and replace with cheap labor if they can get away with it - especially in construction. They only way to make sure it's fair is to hire them directly - not ask a private company that cares more about profit for the bosses than what's most efficient.

[DFab420]

34. As opposed to the Government? Which has never done mass layoffs. Or not paid pensions.....

I'm pretty sure by advocating for money to spur the private sector into hiring is working for better jobs...

[Dawgs]

38. Huh? The government has done mass layoffs not because of Democratic policies, but..

because of administrations like the last one.

We're talking about what's right. And no one is saying that private jobs can't be good jobs. It's just that, in some cases, the government can be a lot more efficient than a private company. I believe that this is one of those cases.

[DFab420]

39. Haha and now we have reached the true point of our discussion

Now don't get me wrong I am fairly Federalist. I believe the government is a powerful tool to help and protect the people.

I believe that in some cases private companies can be, sometimes, more efficient the then government, especially at this point in time with at the Tea Party douchebaggery. I also happen to believe this is one of those cases.

[Dawgs]

41. So, you have no argument, other than I believe private industry is more efficient in this case.

okay.

[DFab420]

42. basically yea. I really don't disagree with the points you were making

I just happen to think a program like this will be beneficial.

Your concerns of the private sector and their treatment of employees are valid. But I do believe that unions will protect their members, and hopefully some form of oversight, just as in the WPA will allow for accountability

[abelenkpe]

44. I'll look around at lunch

There was a great article covering this back around the time when the government was negotiating whether or not to continue the Bush tax cuts on Naked Capitalism, and I seen others since reiterating this point. The emphasis is on hiring directly to counteract the economic crisis as being the best use of funds as it is then possible to make sure the majority of the money goes to workers salaries and not to pad executive salaries and administration costs.

The private firms that were contracted to clean up New Orleans after Katrina hired foreign workers.

I'm all for spurring the economy. It is way past time we do so. But if we are going to give money to private companies to work on infrastructure there need to be requirements to hire US workers with decent pay and not discriminate against the unemployed. I seem to remember republicans being against any such requirements when the stimulus bill was being negotiated. Also government contractors are not all union workers. I have several relatives that work for government contractors and they are not in any union.

That may have been a requirement back in the depression era, but not today. My grandfather worked on the Grand Coulee Dam. He was a big union supporter. Just don't see republicans agreeing to spend money on anything that benefits unions or even requires US workers be hired.

Anyway, I'm from DC originally (before escaping and going far far away....) and half the family works for the government, half for contractors...well and some military. The ones who work directly have a much better deal. Direct hire or private contractor...their pay still comes from taxpayers.

[DFab420]

46. Excellent, I would really like some wonky stuff to chew through.

Thank you.

It's important to read up, even if it doesn't support ones point of view. :hi:

[PVnRT]

61. Not necessarily

Any projects that impact national security must be done by U.S. citizens, plus, I believe the Buy America Act applies to pretty much any large government contract. Despite what is happening over in the Middle East with all the corrupt sweetheart deals, these contracts are always competitively bid (FAR) at the very least.

The system isn't perfect, but it can work.

[Dawgs]

19. Where the fuck did I say everyone should work for the state?

I'm a proud socialist progressive that doesn't worship someone just because they have a D next to there name.

I know from history and life experience that private companies care least about the worker. They will cut any job if it means more profit. They will skim off the top to pay the bosses while sending jobs overseas to make sure of it.

I make no apologies for wanting what every Democrat has always fought for; labor and the worker.

[DFab420]

29. Hey just to be clear you and I are fighting for the same people.

It's just when you discuss DE-Privatizing things the only implication is that the STATE takes up that task.

I would also point out the the government at the moment is shutting down post-offices, national parks, revnue collection centers,

Not to mention individual states that are closing down different offices due to budget issues

I'm a proud progressive too sir. I just also happen to recognize the importance of a private sector. I make no apologies for believing that.

[sabrina 1]

63. That's not what the commenter said. Government money

should not go to private corps' and s/he is correct. That is why our Healthcare system is such a failure and so expensive. All those HC Corps do is take a huge % out of the public funds for their own profit. They do not provide HC in fact they prevent it for the bottom line many times.

If the Govt has money set aside for a Public Works program that money will go much further if there are no middlemen dipping their

The 'private contractors' who have been profiting from the slaughter in our various wars, serve no function other than to profit from war and as long as money is a motivator for war, we will keep having them. If this country only went to war when it was actually in danger to protect itself and the military, NOT mercenaries, fought those wars, we have far fewer of them.

[phleshdef]

33. Thats just as much bullshit as the claims by the right against public workers.

There is nothing inherently wrong with people being able to own and run their own damn companies. Thats what private means.

There is nothing inherently wrong with government being able to create its own agencies and programs and directly hire people to work for them.

The fact is, there are good people and there are bad people and some of them run private businesses and sometimes some of them are running the government. Whenever the bad people are allowed to do either of things without proper restrictions in place in both realms, to keep them from doing anything too bad, then bad things happen. Unbridled capitalism with no regulation is the enemy. Unbalanced, dysfunctional, ineffective government is the enemy.

Private businesses should have a right to exist. Government programs that help people and performs services should have a right to exist. There is nothing un-American or unprogressive about that notion, at all, whatsoever.

We all agree that we've allowed private industry to get out of hand in the last decade or longer, but we also allowed government to get out of hand too (mainly Bush). We shouldn't allow anger towards what the banks and other mega-corporations have done turn us into extremist bigots hellbent on demonizing anything and everything that is privately owned.

[Dawgs]

40. No it's not.

I have nothing against people owning or running their own companies. I never said otherwise.

But, if the government is going to start giving money to companies to do something that the government can do more efficiently then I'm going to bitch. Especially when it's a Democrat that is doing it.

You can defend private companies all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that 95% of them are in it for the profit of the owners. They aren't it for the employee or to do what's best for society. They are in it for themselves; which is fine. If they want to make money then they should do it on their own.

Especially in construction, private companies will hire the cheapest labor they can find, and make them work long hours until the job gets done. Democrats should not believe in those types of working conditions.

The government shouldn't give them money to help with those profits. They should create those jobs directly and pay a decent wage with good working conditions. And, just look at private health insurance companies if you don't think they couldn't do it more efficiently.

[phleshdef]

43. Yes, it absolutely 100% is.

Anyone can find bad examples of something bad in anything. In government employment (I'd start with the military and work out from there) and in private industry employment. None of these examples are accurate blanket characterizations.

And they aren't giving money to private companies in this instance. They are setting up a loan structure. That much pretty much renders your entire argument worthless.

[KittyWampus]

62. You LITERALLY don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The MAJORITY of employers are small bus

business owners.

Your entire argument is= Obama said something so I must reflexively knock it down. Despite the fact that the WPA DID THE SAME DAMNED THING.

[Larkspur]

7. So where will Obama find the funds for such an endeavor?

He just signed a bill that was 100% spending cuts and the Rethugs say they will never support tax increases.

[TwilightGardener]

12. He probably won't. But it doesn't stop us from screaming about

why he doesn't just personally pass some sort of massive publicly funded jobs program. Congress will not spend. At least half do not care about the economy or jobs. Best Obama can do is to say what ought to be done, and maybe Dems can write the legislation that will go nowhere.

[DFab420]

14. You mean the President can't just pass laws without the Legislative branch!???

MY GOD!!!!!!!

SHOCKER!

Lol. It's true though, Congress is the dead limb that's poisoning the American body.

[Little Star]

17. No he can't but he could at least try leading and using his bully pulpit!

Congress isn't the only dead limb that's poisoning the American body!

[DFab420]

20. You mean like calling for loans to private firms to hire American workers

while standing the Rose Garden speaking to the press? That sounds like a bully pulpit to me...

[TwilightGardener]

25. Maybe he didn't do it with enough BULLYING FORCEFULNESS!11!!!

[Little Star]

27. Not the kind of bully pulpit use & leadership I meant.

Sorry if I was not more precise.

[DFab420]

31. Lol, so you wish he used the bully pulpit.. when he does it's not the way you want it..

Got it... I think I understand perfectly.

[Little Star]

52. Too bad he doesn't use it for democratic principles! Yep,

You got it!

[DFab420]

53. Getting jobs for middle class Americans isn't a democratic principle????

shit. I always thought it was.....

[Little Star]

55. Yes, he's fixed our lack of jobs! Ha,ha,ha!

I'm done with your nonsense. Have a nice day.

[DFab420]

56. Did I say he fixed the jobs problem? No I didn't

Sorry you've run out of useless banter and are therefore putting words in my mouth so you can walk away...It's very well done.

[Larkspur]

66. I bet that was greeted with a big yawn on Wall Street

So Obama is privatizing job creation to those who don't give a damn about American workers. Not a great plan.

[DevonRex]

11. Hmm. He does something like FDR and he is STILL hated.

Never saw that coming. :sarcasm:

[Larkspur]

67. He's not acting like FDR. More like Herbert Hoover

Obama is seeking to privatize job creation to those sitting on a trillion dollars and who don't give a damn about the American worker.

[dennis4868]

16. no matter what Obama does...

he will get attacked by many DUers....that's why you cant take them seriously anymore.

[DFab420]

59. This true

[jpak]

21. It's the end of the world!!!1111 What is wrong with this man????///

:rofl:

[Maru Kitteh]

26. K & R.

[scheming daemons]

51. The same people complaining about this will also scream "What is Obama doing about JOBS!?!?!"

:eyes:

[mmonk]

60. Too late. He has to propose these things when Democrats are in power.

Politics.