Wed 30 Jan 2008
An Alternate Economic Stimulus Package
Posted by Jason Morgan under Babeled, Current Events, Politics
What you are about to read is the proposal of an economic stimulus package for the United States that makes sense, is easy to understand and benefits all levels of American society. Please do not have a heart attack.
This proposal is called the Infrastructure Refreshment Project and involves two primary components:
- Federal subsidized commuter transport infrastructure
- Put out to bid to potential contractors
- Each candidate evaluated on dependence (or lack of) on petroleum products, flexibility, feasibility, cost to consumer, cost to government, environmental impacts, and ability to interface with the commercial freight infrastructure
- Federal subsidized commercial freight infrastructure
- Put out to bid to potential contractors
- Each candidate evaluated on dependence (or lack of) on petroleum products, flexibility, feasibility, cost to consumer, cost to government, environmental impacts, and ability to easily interface with the commuter transport infrastructure
How will this provide the much-needed economic stimulus?
The idea is to invest tax dollars on a revolutionary revitalization of the country’s infrastructure by migrating commuters and businesses from the aging roadways that are enormously expensive to maintain and implement needed upgrades to curb congestion and prevent disaster. The challenge of creating an entirely new method of transportation that is easily accessible to citizens’ homes and jobs while mitigating the impact of fuel by-products on the environment will provide incentives for businesses to be a part of a newly created market. This new market will generate new jobs and increase the payrolls of businesses reacting to newly created demand. Corporations stand to benefit from the government business, thus leading to higher profits. This ultimately benefits wealthier Americans by way of their investments. Corporations will also benefit from the lower cost commercial freight infrastructure that will replace the most commonly used method at present: trucks. The middle class stands to benefit from lower transportation costs and a cleaner environment. The metamorphosed infrastructure of the country will lead to eliminating the U.S. dependence on foreign oil, which is the key to reducing the trade deficit. Importation of foreign petroleum produces a significantly negative impact to the net import/export component of the U.S.’ Gross Domestic Product.
The Federal Government (not including States’ expenditures) spent an estimated $69.5 billion on transportation in 2005. This is clearly not all for the road system, but to put it in perspective the largest contributor to funding for road maintenance and construction is the Highway Trust Fund, which contributed $33.6 billion on roads alone in 2006. This illustrates the point that there is approximately $40 billion per year in Federal roadway funding on top of what the States, local governments, and toll roads contribute. The Federal funding for transportation should be increased dramatically, but also shifted from roads to alternative transportation, i.e. the Infrastructure Refreshment Project. The current estimates for the stimulus package currently being flushed out is anywhere from $140 to $150 billion. Acknowledgement: the proposal offered by George W. Bush is aimed at short-term assistance and the Infrastructure Refreshment Project is longer term strengthening. However, while GDP is only being projected at growing 0.6% in the last three months of 2007, it is still positive and will not likely experience any devastatingly negative near-term threats. A longer term solution is what the country is in dire need of because its citizens lack a common vision, but will once again unite under the banner of realizing the birth of an entirely new infrastructure in America.
Government spending will increase; corporate profits, payrolls and investments will expand; the lower unemployment rate coupled with more cash in citizens’ pockets results in consumer spending growing; and the trade deficit will be drastically reduced at a minimum, while possibly turned into a surplus if the infrastructure technology is innovative enough to be successfully exported. This equates to a positive impact on all four components of Gross Domestic Product and a progression towards a cleaner, healthier future for America. And you were happy with your $600 rebate check coming in four to five months…
Bullet Train Picture: BusinessWeek
Minnesota Bridge Picture: fp00n
Popularity: 36% [?]


January 30th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
The inability of the Roman Empire to maintain its vast vast infrastructure was pivotal towards its waning decline.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Morgan ‘08 anyone?
Strictly on environmental grounds this proposal is excellent. I drive on highways a lot and its pretty disgusting to see cars that usually fit about five people only filled with one, the driver. I’m just as guilty as everyone else, and I can always come up with excuses to justify my extravagant behavior. But at some point the excuses need to stop. Everything has a breaking point, including the infrastructures of societies and the delicate balance of the environment.
The issue, as always, is convincing people that there’s a better way to do something than the way they are used to. We’re all convenience addicts and the success of this kind of proposal depends on American’s willingness to sacrifice the freedom that an individual car provides.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:22 am
Cars are fine, we just need alternatives that efficient mass transit can provide. Europe gets along quite nicely with this.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:56 pm
It would be really nice to see the American family back down to one vehicle per household. Talk about emissions reductions.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:48 pm
How about a groundbreaking economic stimulus package that actually returns taxpayers money back to those who paid taxes in the first place, and they (rather than government) decide what do with their money? We don’t need another ‘Federally subsidized’ this or that: each time the government steps in to subsidize something the results are monstrous.
Just remember, government NEVER produces anything, it just spends. So I do not understand how “Government spending will increase” would result in greater or more prosperous America.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Oleksiy: Not all government spending is necessarily bad; ever hear of the New Deal? That was government spending. By creating numerous new government agencies, new job were generated, and money began to flow toward those who would be most likely to spend it, thus revitalizing the economy. The government had to go into debt to do this, but it was needed to kick-start the economy.
As far as government never producing anything - that is true enough. Similarly, CEOs, and managers in general, in general never produce anything. The function of both governments and managers is not to produce, but rather to organize production in an efficient way, in order to maximize it’s benefits.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Oleskiy, are you suggesting NO taxes? Cause that’d make everyone happy for a couple of months (and thats being optimistic). But eventually the infrastructure that you take for granted would begin to deteriorate, and then everyone would be forced, out of necessity, to organize themselves and decide how to allocate funds into revitalization projects.
AKA we’d naturally return to a government representing the people and using a percentage of their money to help maintain their communities.
Also, you owe the majority of your freedoms to governmental decisions that occured before you were born.
And if you don’t think the government’s decisions represent the majority of people’s desires, well that’s only because the majority of people have not voiced their dissent on those particular issues. We do still live in a democracy.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:17 pm
In some respect I agree with Oleskiy, the government as currently constructed does nothing to demonstrate it is capable of responsibly spending our hard earned tax dollars.
Idealistically I would be more than happy to have taxes raised if our money was properly handled and managed. Sadly, that is some big-time wishful thinking.
Again though, you cannot emphasize enough the importance of properly maintained infrastructure.
January 31st, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Here’s the thing: this program does not require taxes to be directly raised. Before this recent proposal by Bush, you never even considered that you would be getting a rebate from the government. Therefore, it did not factor into your income or your tax picture at all.
Your taxes would have stayed the same except you wouldn’t be getting this rebate; instead you would be getting an investment in the future of this country.
As far as the government being responsible stewards of our taxes, I agree they have been less than convincing of late. However, a strong leader with the will and vision to pull something like this off wouldn’t tolerate shoddy work.
February 1st, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Nick: when discussing the New Deal, and how it miraculously kick-started the economy, you should understand what the government did to halt the economy in the first place. It all started with giving out loans with artificially low interest rates (very similar to current 3%), since they thought that economy can grow to infinity. This resulted in massive mal-investment. Soon, the poor investment choices could not return even tiny profits, which resulted in loss of trust, and deep recession. At this point, the government blamed the free market economy, and decided that more control is necessary to stabilize the economy with the New Deal. The leftovers of New Deal are here today, Social Security for example (15% of your income). I don’t know how many of you received a cute note from Social Security saying that in 40 years, they will be able to pay only 0.75$ on each dollar that you paid now (consider the cumulative inflation in 40 years). It is bankrupt, and yet you are forced to pay it. I guess each of us has to come to realization on what is the proper role of the government. I don’t think it is to provide for transportation sector or to poor underprivileged sector or any other group. If the idea is good, there will be individuals who will take on the financial risk and implement it - no government needed.
February 1st, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Lets be realistic here WWII was what helped our economy rebound in the 30s and 40s with more jobs and a more focused country.
Yeah, not getting social security to the fullest amount upsets me. Basically we are paying for our elders to be able to live NOW and when we are old there will be nothing. This doesn’t make me happy. What the government should do is put that money in an interest bearing account so that there might be a chance that we can get some of that money (however that is wishful thinking our government isn’t that smart). But in the 30’s when social security was implemented, who thought the average life expectancy would increase by 25 years. Thats why SS will fail us; people are living to an average age of 78 when they used to live to an average age of 60. Blame technology for that, not the government.
I agree that individuals will take on the financial risk if the idea is good, but what ensures that the “good idea” will be beneficial for the whole and not just for the individual? At least improving the infrastructure of our country will inevitably boost our economy; it won’t happen overnight, but hey its a better plan then just slashing credit rates and giving handouts. The financial wellbeing of our children and children’s children will improve over time and it does not reek of the quick fix that Bush’s Stimulus Package attempts to provide.
February 1st, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Andrew: I’m talking about taxation without representation. Every time the government subsidizes something, it forces you to pay for it, whether you like it or not. It essentially robs you from the right to make a decision. I find it presumptuous that some bureaucrat has a better understanding what is good for me in a long term.
And we do not have democracy. We have a republic. You own it to yourself to read and understand the difference between the two.
Quote: “Also, you owe the majority of your freedoms to governmental decisions that occurred before you were born.”
I believe that certain rights are unalienable. Thus I do not owe my right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness to the government regardless of the date of my birth.
February 1st, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Gregory: I love your logic. The government makes a claim that it can decide for you better than you can on 15% of your income in order to provide for your retirement. It is just damn better in terms of economies of scale. And one day you get a letter saying that by the time your retirement will be around the corner, it would not be able to fulfill the promise on the money you already paid, and on the money that you will STILL have to pay in future, regardless the fact that it is bankrupt. Because apparently they did not anticipate that you will actually make it to the point of needing it!
The proper response would be to allow anyone to opt out and invest 15% into the vehicle that can actually produce the income for your retirement. To cut government spending from nation building overseas and redirect spending towards promises that has been already made. But no, you blame the technology for letting people live longer. If we listen to you, there should be a government agency that will ban all life improving technological companies so that they can fulfill the SS promise
Quote: “At least improving the infrastructure of our country will inevitably boost our economy; ”
It reminds me of this story
February 1st, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Thanks for the article.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Oleksiy,
In regards to your criticism of my statement: “Also, you owe the majority of your freedoms to governmental decisions that occurred before you were born.”…
… I appreciate your idealism, but let’s live in reality, 2008 CE. You’re lucky as hell that you were born into a society that allows you to speak your mind without getting shot in the head by government officials. You talk like a typical American who has grown up with the right to criticize the present structures of society. I talk like that to. Everyone on this site talks that way.
I believe it is the right to criticize and amend the laws and policies of our government that is what truly makes us American. I cannot emphasize that your idealism is inspirational and I appreciate where you are coming from, but your idealism is also blinding you to the fact that our inalienable right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness HAS to be modified by the massive structure of government that is in place. Our government SEEMS to have become impenetrable by the average non-politician (maybe even non-cabinet member), but I really believe you can attribute this to voting rates.
Our voting system (and social security system, and transportation system, and energy system….it goes on and on…) is antequated. As Gregory stated before, what was created in the past was made in the context of the past, without regard for any possible changes in the future.
But, regardless, you still need to thank governments that existed before you were born for allowing you the freedom to express your disgust at the current structures they left behind.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Oleskiy:
Thanks for the article as well, very topical.
I have a question about this topic of SS though. What would happen to all the elderly people now if we opted our 15% out to invest as we saw fit? Better yet who wouldn’t opt out of that? I know I would opt given the opportunity!
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:59 am
OK people - you’re way off topic. Social Security is a whole other nightmare than what is supposed to be discussed in this thread. Privatization of social security is the way to go - let me invest in my own future, I’m all about that.
In regards to “if it’s a good idea then someone will be willing to take the risk” - that is simply a blanket statement that does not hold true for all things. It works for consumer goods, but what road do you know of that wasn’t built with government funds? There aren’t any public roads (except for the recent phenomena of privatizing roads for lack of funding in State budgets) that were constructed with corporate funds. So how can you expect a brand new infrastructure to replace roadways to be completely funded through corporate monies? That premise is erroneous.
We aren’t talking about fiber optic cables that telecom companies fund, we are talking about people and product moving systems that require enormous investments on a scale that no corporation could ever provide. Not to mention the need to standardization, which would be undermined by individual corporate funding because that would lead to 100 different systems that do not interface with one another being implemented across the country. That just doesn’t make any sense.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Anyone hear about the 17,000 jobs that were cut in January? Bush’s plan only helps these people pay their bills short term, maybe one month. What is needed is a plan that will create new jobs so these people can continually pay their bills and buy new goods and services.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:27 pm
“The White House, for now, envisions providing one-time rebate checks to people who pay federal income taxes. That would leave out millions of the working poor, who do not make enough to pay income taxes but do pay Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. 22 million households file income tax returns but do not pay that tax because their earnings are so low. An additional 22 million households do not file a return. Families of four earning less than $24,900 a year would not get a rebate under the White House approach.”
Read More
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Nor should they, which is why Bush’s plan is the wrong plan. I agree that under Bush’s proposal, people who do not pay federal income tax should not receive a rebate because they did not put money into the rebate pool in the first place. Essentially, they have already been given the government’s help by not being required to pay federal income tax.
That is what brings me to the point that the Bush plan is fundamentally ineffectual for the U.S. This excerpt is another flaw that contributes to the overall futility of the Bush proposal.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Andrew:
Am I thankful for the First Amendment? You bet. But my thanks go to the Founding Fathers who had the wisdom and to those Americans who stood behind and defended those freedoms year after year, no matter how hard the government struggled to take those freedoms away.
Remember that the proper government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. You are right, it is probably no longer true, and the size of the government and spending is through the roof, but we have to look at the cause, and not try to patch it up by throwing money this way and that way until it works: we have look at the fundamentals.
You think that I’m idealistic? I think quite the opposite, once you allow “our inalienable right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness to be modified by the massive structure of government that is in place” there will be very little left of any rights at all. The purpose of the Constitution is to protect the individual, once you remove the protection the government will go for the whole on your behalf.
And I tend to disagree with you on what makes America a great place (it is a matter of personal choice, I guess). For me it is not the “right to criticize and amend the laws and policies of our government that is what truly makes us American,” but how little room the government has in amending the individual rights of the minorities.
February 4th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Jason:
“Privatization of social security is the way to go.” You seem to agree with that no problem, but when it comes down to highways, you believe it is a completely different complex issue, for which only government has resources and capability through the diligent use of taxes.
I disagree. I do not think that the it is a proper role of the government to provide and maintain transportation. The fact is that on every gallon of fuel that you buy you pay 0.47$ in fuel taxes towards highway construction. This is an enormous tax burden, but I think it is still much more fair because it is a “use tax” - only those who use it pay roughly 60% towards actual highways. The use of any other taxes towards subsidies in transportation is “risking on behalf of the people with their money, without consent”
If you’d like to read about a good private highway, there is one in Toronto, HWY407.
It is by far much better that any public highways in the area. There reason why we has so few of them is because there is so much red tape and special interests, that it is impossible to be in this business.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
If it is impossible to be in this business, then how do we overcome that problem? Since letting our infrastructure fall into total disrepair is not an option.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Oleksiy,
The only reason I called you idealistic is because all you’ve done in your comments is criticize without offering up an alternate solution. Criticism has its place, but it leads nowhere if you can’t offer up a realistic plan that takes us from A to Z and details all the steps in between.
Now’s your chance to redeem yourself:
Please explain how we can transition from federally subsidized highways to privately subsidized highways. And be specific about how we can cut through the red tape and the special interests.
I’m down with the ideal you’re proposing, but I won’t follow until I see the plan to get there.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Andrew: here is one way - Highway Aggravation: The Case For Privatizing The Highways
February 5th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Andrew, if you think that throwing Federal funds into subsidizing transportation (or anything else for that matter) is a realistic plan that takes us from A to Z, you’d better wake up. I’m in no position, nor do I have the knowledge to come up with such plan, but one thing is clear: there should be less government control in transportation, not more of it.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
@Oleksiy
Great points on why there should be less government control in transportation. But to put it simply, do you think that the lack of providing an efficient effective plan is due to what government is intended to do or just what our government has done over the past 50 years or so? To put it bluntly after reading the article about the Gravina Bridge in Alaska I can understand where you are coming from as far as government having a more hands off approach, but Gravina sounds like ‘a good ol’ classic example of a Bush act’ that got put into the wrong hands; and that is because of corrupt politics. On the issue of corrupt politics, I think we would all agree, but corruption can infect many things, not just government. It could just as easily infect a private organization or any egotistical maniacal billionaires that claim “They Want To Make America A Better Place”. As much as I distrust our government, I remain unhappily willfully ignorant in thinking that our country wants whats best for the people, as misguided as that might be. So I think that with the right direction, leader, and plan this country could effectively implement an entire infrastructure overhaul that would boost our economy and morale.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Oleksiy - your anarchist extremism is too apparent, it doesn’t do your intellect justice. You have brought excellent information and a great discussion to the table, however you misdirected the issue.
I don’t want ROADS. AT ALL. Recently, Google has pledged to invest hundreds of millions into alternative energy and fuel because of the notorious “Valley of Death”, which is the difference between the investment required to invent an idea and then to make that idea work in terms of scale. This means large scale implementation. These large scale implementations can run into the billions of dollars, and not many corporations have billions to invest in this manner.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Jason:
If you choose to attack my particular statement, please do so. I would prefer not attacking each other’s intellect - it does not accomplish much.
My reference to roads was a reply to the early argument about the highways in particular. But I don’t mean just roads. Your proposal is for transport infrastructure. I’m arguing that it is not the role of the government to provide the transport infrastructure, implying that this proposal just does not make sense.
All this proposal says is this: lets spend federal taxes on transportation. Lets create a board that will evaluate each bid, and decide for millions of people, where their money will go to, because the select few in the board are so much superior than the rest of the nation, for sure they will know better how to spend the billions of much needed dollars on behalf of the people. Because only a government has the luxury of wasting enormous sums of money on a large scale. I’m sorry but this is not a solution - this is just another way to waste somebody else’s money.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Creating further beauracracies is generally a poor solution since the government is undeniably talented when it comes to wasting money. Not to mention the fact they are more often than not motivated by their own agenda.
My question to you is simply this; what value do you place on the importance of safe, maintained, and efficient infrastructure?
February 11th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Oleksiy - My apologies for making you think I was attacking your intellect. That was not my intention. I believe what I said was that your extremist views do not do your intellect justice, meaning that your intellect is clearly impressive but your personal views appear to be such that near all government spending is a bad thing, and that view lends itself to anarchism - an extremist viewpoint.
That said, I reiterate my earlier comment, “As far as the government being responsible stewards of our taxes, I agree they have been less than convincing of late. However, a strong leader with the will and vision to pull something like this off wouldn’t tolerate shoddy work.”
Also, for clarity, this proposal was to spend the same amount as proposed in the Bush stimulus plan on transportation infrastructure development. The money is going to be spent by the government anyway - this way it at least goes toward something worthwhile for the future rather than a new pair of jeans or a vacation where the money will be spent overseas and not help the U.S. economy at all.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Jason:
“However, a strong leader with the will and vision to pull something like this off wouldn’t tolerate shoddy work.”
I don’t believe in fairies or other magic creatures.
February 14th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Oleksiy, there’s nothing wrong with being disillusioned with the state of things, as long as you recognize that the disillusioned majority is always reaping the reward of the minority of folks who take the chance to think outside the box for alternate solutions.
The majority of India was disillusioned by their subjection to British rule. One strong leader with the will and vision to see an alternate future for his land and his people took a chance and ended up proving all the cynics wrong. Everyone had said revolution could only be successful if violent. Ghandhi proved them all wrong.
You claim government can NEVER produce anything of worth with all the money it spends. These kinds of generalizations are counterproductive. The last thing this country needs is another armchair philosopher who knows everything that is wrong with the system, but has no clue as to what it takes to evolve it. People will inevitably fail some of the time by throwing out their inspired ideas - but it’s the underlying belief in progress that is always the foundation for successful change.
I’m curious, where do you see America in 2050?
February 15th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Andrew:
I can’t predict that far ahead, but if you look at the trend right now, I see America in debt beyond recognition in a very short period of time, each citizen giving away most of his salary towards different social projects he does not care about, with dollar devaluated beyond means (since the government still would not be able to finance
a 53 trillion unfunded liabilities without printing more money. So go ahead subsidize whatever you want you are on the right track. You can definitely afford it.
You call it thinking outside the box? I call it not thinking. You call it alternative solution? I call it blind waste of taxpayers money.
Than you mention Gandhi, as an example of a strong leader. Do you know what Gandhi fought for? India was overtaxed beyond means by British tariffs on salt. He fought for the freedom from the government, he fought against government monopoly. The 1882 Salt Act gave the British a monopoly on the collection and manufacture of salt, limiting its handling to government salt depots and levying a salt tax. Gandhi fought that. So yes, he is a strong leader. In fighting against the government controlling the lives of the people.
I firmly believe that it is not a role of the government to subsidize one thing or another with people’s money. They have no moral rights to do it, just like you don’t have the right to spend my money on whatever you like, the government derives its powers from the people, and in the process it does not acquire any special rights.
You say that this country does not need philosophers, just strong leaders. How do you suppose your strong leader will make a decision? Will he roll a dice each morning? All leaders have to rely on philosophy in order to make any more or less serious decision.
You imply that philosophers like me have no clue to what it takes to evolve the system. On the contrary, I suggest that the movement into another direction will be beneficial - which is less government control in transportation. Less government spending. More freedom to support this or that mode of transportation.
You refer to the underlying belief in progress. But in order to progress, one has to have room for growth. Regulations and subsidies cut that grows at the start. They limit any kind of innovation. You have alternative fuel? But we already have subsidized ethanol plants that can make more money than your alternative fuel because they are subsidized. You have new methods for building cheap tunnels under city? Good luck getting permission from the local politicians. Besides they already subsidized elevated train system to the companies they own. It goes on and on.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Oleksiy - here’s the thing: you and I will never agree on this and that is fine.
You don’t believe in fairies or other magic creatures, but you clearly believe in fairy tales. I say this because if you didn’t believe in fairy tales, then you would not believe in government spending being as drastically reduced as you claim is needed. First of all, economically speaking, that sort of drop in government spending would destroy the U.S.’ GDP (see The Economy for Dummies: What does it all really mean? for more details as to how government spending relates to GDP, but you’re a smart person and I think you already know). Perhaps the answer is to STOP GIVING TAX REBATES WITHOUT CUTTING GOVERNMENT SPENDING to decrease the rate of government liability growth. If you want to give tax rebates, a subsequent reduction in spending is necessary, which DOES NOT HAPPEN each time we have been given tax cuts under Bush.
The alternate package I proposed only requires that taxes remain constant but re-direct the funds to a different program. If you want to address the issue of the ballooning deficit, which is a dire issue, then under-performing government programs should be cut and perhaps someone needs to take a look at the current budget allocations to certain departments (i.e. the Legislative and Executive branches appear to have hundreds of millions if not billions in “fluff” budget monies that are unappropriated in public documents and should be cut).
Now, for a history reference. Ever hear of Augustus Caesar? Well, he is considered to be one of, if not the single most, impressive Roman emperor of all time. What was his platform for the people? He implemented a massive public works program to address Rome’s aging infrastructures and it subsequently boosted the economy and improved overall quality of life for Roman citizens. Oh, and he did this with government funds…because that is the only source of funds large enough to implement large-scale overhauls of infrastructure.
So, it is fine by me if you want to agree to disagree. Continuing to beat a dead horse and comparing a program that follows in the footsteps of August Caesar’s vision for Rome, which worked beautifully I might add, is not getting us anywhere.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I referenced Ghandi because he was elected to lead the Indian National Congress. He knew better than most that the quickest change comes not from reinventing the wheel, but instead using the current structures in place to your advantage. He used the structure of his government to not only resist British rule (Salt Tax, etc), but also to implement successful social programs to help the poor and the needy. He knew the philosophy of castes was dictating government policies, and so he assumed leadership of that government with the goal of realizing his ideal of greater equality - he did this by using the bureaucratic resources at hand.
February 15th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
And I never said this country doesn’t need philosophers. The founding fathers were deeply moved and inspired by the philosophy of Jean Jacques Rousseau. I would dare to say that America wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for idealists and philosophers.
I did however say that America, and Humanity as a whole, doesn’t need philosophers whose idealism isn’t grounded in reality and practicality. If you are an anarchist then so be it. But at least be an anarchist with your own thought process and recognize that compromise is necessary at all levels of relationship.
February 18th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
It seems only about 20% of the $168 billion is going back into the economy as consumer spending. Piss poor.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Here’s an interesting comic about tax subsidized programs.