[rst]

How about putting back together giant structures that are falling apart? Our infrastructure is rotting away --- that Minneapolis bridge collapse in 2007 was a bit of a wake-up call. There's no shortage of stuff in the United States that needs to get fixed.

[pmb]

You mean some sort of administration that would give people money to work on projects? Like a Work Projects Administration?

Sorry, Roosevelt did that, but nowadays I am pretty sure it would be called socialism.

[rst]

Not nearly as socialistic as Nixon's mandatory wage and price controls. (Cue Glenn Beck rant: there's a reason Nixon went to China!)

You're quite right about the rhetoric, but it's completely unmoored from reality.

[anamax]

> You mean some sort of administration that would give people money to work on projects? Like a Work Projects Administration?

Those sorts of projects/spending got killed in 08 because womens' groups objected to money going to "burly men" projects.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/00...

Of course, govt spending is always political. At one time, one could both pay off supporters and build up the country. When we have to choose, the former always wins.

[anamax]

Note that this has been a "mancession". See http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/06/happy-fathers-day-its-st... and the update http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2011/... .

[Unseelie]

So...when the government pays people to do things, that's socialism?

I seriously doubt that's how a governmental program training and employing the youth to repair the infrastructure would be viewed, and especially not as proposed to the more socialistic policy of welfare.

[mmt]

So...when the government pays people to do things, that's socialism?

Of course, but the statement itself is a bit meaningless and appeared to me to be flippant, at that.

When the government pays people not to do things, that's a more extreme form of socialism.

To me, the question is one of subsidy. UI[1] is a 100% subsidy. A WPA type of deal could potentially be no subsidy at all, at least to the individuals. It would merely be directing tax money at a particular kind of boondoggle.

[1] Notwithstanding that the I stands for "insurance," since it's structured as a tax, at least here in the US.

[earl]

Seriously? Have you lived in the US for the last 10 years or seen a Republican recently? rst, if anything, understated how Republicans would attack such a program.

[prostoalex]

Wouldn't you need some specialized skills for that? Trusting unemployed psychology majors with bridge reenforcement doesn't inspire much confidence.

[wonderzombie]

After the housing bust, I'm thinking you could find plenty of construction workers with necessary and/or relevant skills.

[VladRussian]

"unemployed psychology majors" could do some work in special education or nursing homes for disabled and old or half-way homes for addicts, etc.. . Their skills would definitely be of much help there.

[adrianN]

You only need one brain to tell the hands what to do.

[yummyfajitas]

Wait, didn't we already drop hundreds of billions fixing that? Or was that money just wasted?

http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/P...

[mkr-hn]

Not all of it, and what did wasn't enough to fix much of what's broken.