Gov't spending does create jobs....

inmytree

I found this article interesting...I keep hearing "the gubberment don't create jobs"...I guess these private companies think differently...

http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/2 ... l&tc=pgall

Companies look to land military, federal contracts


Published: Thursday, October 20, 2011 at 4:40 p.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, October 20, 2011 at 4:40 p.m.

The Durham-based company has done no military work before, but Green Horizon was in Wilmington Thursday hoping to change that.

Owner Bobby Ferrel used the gathering of military and federal contracting firms and military brass to network with possible business partners, some of whom are giant national general-contracting firms.

About 700 people like him, plus about 90 vendors, attended the statewide N.C. Federal Construction and Infrastructure Summit (FEDCON) at the Wilmington Convention Center.

Ferrel had just come away from talking with a representative of the Army Corps of Engineers' Wilmington district. The corps is the agency that acquires and executes all new construction for the military bases, according to Scott Dorney, executive director of the Fayetteville-based N.C. Military Business Center, which organized the summit.

Green Horizon's specialty is retrofitting existing buildings with HVAC and insulation, but it also would do new construction, he said.

"We're looking for opportunities for on-base housing, barracks retrofits," Ferrel said.

Vendors represented a wide variety of fields, from underground construction to office furniture, from asphalt to roofing to swimming pool design – all products or services needed by the military and other federal agencies.

The terms green and sustainable were common.

Backed by President Obama, the themes are something the military "must think of upfront," said Major Gen. Jeffrey J. Dorko in a presentation that opened the summit. Dorko is deputy commanding general, military and international operations, for the corps.

Businesses represented green construction, solar power and rainwater harvesting, for example.

Center stage, however, were large general contracting firms.

FCL Construction Services is one such company that is looking for subcontractors of all kinds – from concrete to demolition, electrical and HVAC, said Matt Redd, business development manager of the Denver-based company's Charlotte office.

"It is a big part of all project pursuits – trying to identify smaller qualified contractors," he said.

FCL just finished work at Cherry Point Marine Air Station, he said, and it is pursuing other jobs right now.

The networking opportunities also extended to larger subcontractors, such as Raleigh-based Precision Walls Inc., a commercial drywall company with 1,200 employees and operations throughout the Carolinas.

Precision Walls has work in North Carolina at Camp Lejeune, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base and Fort Bragg, said company account executive Matt Chance.

"It's events like this that make it easy to introduce yourself to contractors and to get to know them," he said. "It's similar to speed dating."

Monster Rain

Obviously, government spending creates some jobs when there is work the government needs done. But the government spent $787 billion and promised 4 million jobs would come from that. It's been about 2 years since that bill and we're still nowhere near seeing that many jobs created yet. They threw another $150 billion at the problem later that year and still we aren't seeing the results. Over $900 billion spent has barely made a dent in the unemployment rate. At what point does a change in strategy start to look good?

inmytree

Monster Rain wrote:

Obviously, government spending creates some jobs when there is work the government needs done. But the government spent $787 billion and promised 4 million jobs would come from that. It's been about 2 years since that bill and we're still nowhere near seeing that many jobs created yet. They threw another $150 billion at the problem later that year and still we aren't seeing the results. Over $900 billion spent has barely made a dent in the unemployment rate. At what point does a change in strategy start to look good?

your post is confusing...you agree gov't spending creates jobs but then go on to complain about gov't spending...

life's easy when you play both sides...anyhoo...this "change in strategy" you speak of...them me more...what strategy would you employ...?

Monster Rain

I'm saying that government spending does create some jobs, but excessive spending has clearly not created as many jobs as we were promised. $900 billion in spending was approved and supposed to create more than 4 million jobs and it hasn't come close to that. Clearly, that excessive spending hasn't worked the way it was supposed to. Even Obama acknowledged that many of those projects he told us were "shovel-ready" haven't happened yet. That's a problem.

When I say a change in strategy, I mean doing something other than throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at the problem and hoping it goes away because that's not working and the government doesn't exactly have the money to throw around at the moment. How about policy changes? Create policies that reward companies that return outsourced jobs back to America and create a bill that reduces or cancels tax deductions and credits for companies that outsource more jobs in the future so that there is not as much of a financial incentive to send jobs to other countries. Work on trade agreements that will foster an increase in our nation's exports so we can see manufacturing jobs created (I believe we just reached agreements with South Korea and Columbia that are supposed to do just that, so that's a good start if they work out the way I hope). Push for a Balanced Budget Amendment and make the government live within its means so that we don't continue to overspend on nonsense.

inmytree wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Obviously, government spending creates some jobs when there is work the government needs done. But the government spent $787 billion and promised 4 million jobs would come from that. It's been about 2 years since that bill and we're still nowhere near seeing that many jobs created yet. They threw another $150 billion at the problem later that year and still we aren't seeing the results. Over $900 billion spent has barely made a dent in the unemployment rate. At what point does a change in strategy start to look good?

your post is confusing...you agree gov't spending creates jobs but then go on to complain about gov't spending...

life's easy when you play both sides...anyhoo...this "change in strategy" you speak of...them me more...what strategy would you employ...?

inmytree

Monster Rain wrote:

I'm saying that government spending does create some jobs, but excessive spending has clearly not created as many jobs as we were promised. $900 billion in spending was approved and supposed to create more than 4 million jobs and it hasn't come close to that. Clearly, that excessive spending hasn't worked the way it was supposed to. Even Obama acknowledged that many of those projects he told us were "shovel-ready" haven't happened yet. That's a problem.

When I say a change in strategy, I mean doing something other than throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at the problem and hoping it goes away because that's not working and the government doesn't exactly have the money to throw around at the moment. How about policy changes? Create policies that reward companies that return outsourced jobs back to America and create a bill that reduces or cancels tax deductions and credits for companies that outsource more jobs in the future so that there is not as much of a financial incentive to send jobs to other countries. Work on trade agreements that will foster an increase in our nation's exports so we can see manufacturing jobs created (I believe we just reached agreements with South Korea and Columbia that are supposed to do just that, so that's a good start if they work out the way I hope). Push for a Balanced Budget Amendment and make the government live within its means so that we don't continue to overspend on nonsense.

inmytree wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Obviously, government spending creates some jobs when there is work the government needs done. But the government spent $787 billion and promised 4 million jobs would come from that. It's been about 2 years since that bill and we're still nowhere near seeing that many jobs created yet. They threw another $150 billion at the problem later that year and still we aren't seeing the results. Over $900 billion spent has barely made a dent in the unemployment rate. At what point does a change in strategy start to look good?

your post is confusing...you agree gov't spending creates jobs but then go on to complain about gov't spending...

life's easy when you play both sides...anyhoo...this "change in strategy" you speak of...them me more...what strategy would you employ...?

your post as little to do with gov't spending...sure, you tossed in some talking points, but not much else...the fact is gov't spending does create jobs...perhaps not at the rate you'd like, but jobs are created...

mookieb10

The government create tons of job when we built neclear weapons which we have now agreed to destroy... Hurray for money down the toilet.

Monster Rain

My post has everything to do with government spending--specifically, it has to do with how the money is being spent and if it is successful. Yes, jobs were created by government spending. It's not that it's just "not at the rate I'd like," it's that it was less than 25% of the number Obama told us would be created. If that's the result we get from government spending, then I don't think the money is being spent very wisely. I don't know anyone who would define success as acheiving less than 25% of your goal. So, if the current way of thinking is not successful, why would Obama continue to try doing things that way?

inmytree wrote:

your post as little to do with gov't spending...sure, you tossed in some talking points, but not much else...the fact is gov't spending does create jobs...perhaps not at the rate you'd like, but jobs are created...

inmytree

Monster Rain wrote:

My post has everything to do with government spending--specifically, it has to do with how the money is being spent and if it is successful. Yes, jobs were created by government spending. It's not that it's just "not at the rate I'd like," it's that it was less than 25% of the number Obama told us would be created. If that's the result we get from government spending, then I don't think the money is being spent very wisely. I don't know anyone who would define success as acheiving less than 25% of your goal. So, if the current way of thinking is not successful, why would Obama continue to try doing things that way?

inmytree wrote:

your post as little to do with gov't spending...sure, you tossed in some talking points, but not much else...the fact is gov't spending does create jobs...perhaps not at the rate you'd like, but jobs are created...

you talked of trade agreements and closing tax loopholes and "creating incentives"....anyhoo, you're one of the neverenoughers...so it doesn't matter what is said or typed....and yes, maybe 25% were created (not sure where your getting you data, but I'll just say your right for heck of it)....how many jobs were saved...? I'm doubt your concerned about that...

I do find it amusing that folks think Obama has a magic wand...lots of variables are in play here...ignoring that makes things simple...

take care...

Monster Rain

I'm far from being "one of the never-enoughers." Hell, I gave Obama credit in this very thread for doing something positive when I brought up the trade agreements with South Korea and Columbia. I complimented him in another thread for announcing the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. And that's just what I've said today.

Keep in mind, I mentioned the trade agreements and closing tax loopholes for companies that outsource because you asked me for alternatives to more spending. If it makes it easier to ignore the point I made about innefective spending and the fact that Obama himself admitted, "Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as I thought," by dismissing me as "one of the never-evnoughers," then so be it. As you said, ignoring things make things simple.

inmytree wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

My post has everything to do with government spending--specifically, it has to do with how the money is being spent and if it is successful. Yes, jobs were created by government spending. It's not that it's just "not at the rate I'd like," it's that it was less than 25% of the number Obama told us would be created. If that's the result we get from government spending, then I don't think the money is being spent very wisely. I don't know anyone who would define success as acheiving less than 25% of your goal. So, if the current way of thinking is not successful, why would Obama continue to try doing things that way?

inmytree wrote:

your post as little to do with gov't spending...sure, you tossed in some talking points, but not much else...the fact is gov't spending does create jobs...perhaps not at the rate you'd like, but jobs are created...

you talked of trade agreements and closing tax loopholes and "creating incentives"....anyhoo, you're one of the neverenoughers...so it doesn't matter what is said or typed....and yes, maybe 25% were created (not sure where your getting you data, but I'll just say your right for heck of it)....how many jobs were saved...? I'm doubt your concerned about that...

I do find it amusing that folks think Obama has a magic wand...lots of variables are in play here...ignoring that makes things simple...

take care...

Chip McFlennigan

Obama's recent 529 million dollar spending spree created a bunch of jobs.

IN FUCKING FINLAND!

Government spending oft. times creates temporary jobs. Lessening the government and only regulating certain aspects of business would create far more jobs. The private sector has to employ significantly more people than the public sector for this economy to stay afloat.