Something more terrifying than Jews, Muslims, or the Gays

[PanzerJaeger]

Stats? I would like to know how much money that goes through the hands of the ultra wealthy goes to "constructive" things. I'm sure all of those bonuses that wall street gave themselves went back into the proper channels right?

Where do you think it goes? The worst thing a wealthy person can do with her money would be to hold it in a checking account or hidden in her mattress.

Money follows returns. That's Finance 101. Sure you could argue that certain commodies and currency trading do not create value, but the speculative risk involved in those activities relegates them to very small percentages of most portfolios.

The best returns are found in the market, where money can turn a low value asset into a high value asset. That's why the wealthy tend to put their money into start-ups, private equity, and hedge funds, which all serve as value creating activities for the larger economy.

I think you vastly underestimate the scope of what I am talking about. This isn't adding another lane to the 101 or building a dam in Tennessee. When I say a new electrical and internet infrastructure, I mean an almost brand new one. From coast to coast, across all states, penetrating everywhere. Do you feel like a task like this will take 6, 8 or 12 months?

I understand there is training involved, which is why this will take time. I think maybe about 1% would be able to graduate with a degree. I feel that many more would be able to take the offer regarding trade skills such as electricians, plumbers etc...

...

Again, I feel you don't understand the scope. You think 100,000 people are going to rebuild a nation of 300 million in a couple months?

The point isn't the long term jobs. The point is the value gained from the construction which is needed in the first place and the demand created during this time to get more private sector jobs opening up.

Ok, let's be super generous and say such projects will generate 1,000,000 new jobs. That's still a drop in the bucket.

I don't feel as if it is the end all be all in saving the entire economy. In the end the private sector has to step up with more permanent jobs. Great Depression project works like that have been part of the back bone of the American economy over the long run due to the benefits they gave and continue to give. As I have pointed out before, does anyone want to claim that without the government funded interstate highway system, that our level of efficiency and economic productivity would be anywhere near what it is today? Stimulus was a joke, most of it went into bankers pockets, that's no evidence.

I agree. As I said before, government has a definite role in creating an environment for economic growth, and infrastructure spending is a huge part of that.

However, the question wasn't: should the government spend money on infrastructure? It was: how will raising margins on the rich help the poor and close the wealth gap? If the answer is through massive infrastrucure projects, I just don't see much evidence that such projects - while valuable in their own right - would effect the macro employment situation to any notable degree or create the type of high paying technical jobs that fuel the middle class in any significant amount.

You also must consider the value of the lost capital that will fill government coffers instead of funding business start-ups and expansions. Remember, Roosevelt financed the New Deal through debt, as did Obama with his stimulus. You... err... Aimlesswanderer wants to finance these new projects through higher taxation, which takes money directly out of the economy and moves it somewhere else.

Where is the capital flowing in now? The bubble burst back in 2008 and we are still at 9%-10% unemployment. Where are the heroes of industry coming in to direct capital to successful ventures?

Sitting on the sidelines. It will return with demand, which will return with consumer confidence - none of which has anything to do with tax rates. Further, government efforts in stimulating demand - whether it be through mass employment projects, directed tax cuts, or direct payments - have never amounted to much. And doing it through soaking the rich comes with its own set of negative effects on demand.

All I am saying is that we got this work that needs to be done, that isn't being done. We are all just sitting here waiting for the private market to do it's thing and meanwhile we got 1 in 10 people not doing anything. Just give them the jobs in the meantime. It is much better to have the unemployed man working for his unemployment check than just sitting at home.

Unfortunately it costs far more these days to employ an unemployed man in a government job than to just send him a check.

No one knows because the money isn't going to the students. Much of it is going to admin and support.

That's hardly a ringing endorsement for taxing the rich to pour more into education, unless you're trying to make some kind of abstract demand side argument based on bloated education administrators leading America out of the recession.