Hoover started Hoover Dam. Nonetheless, your FDR point is interesting as I take it you would be okay with an 8 year long recession.

__________________
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. ---P. J. O'Rourke

DITTO--the only thing that brought this economy back from the 1930's depression was WW2.

What's ridiculous is Obama is trying to do an FDR. We have roads, we have bridges--we have dams. Back in the 30's building a bridge or dam required thousands of men with pics & shovels. Today our heavy equipment can do the work of 400 men.

To add--our economy is so completely diverse from the 1930's era. How many people in this country are really road & bridge builders? How much of the populace do they represent. (It certainly isn't inclusive of many women--who represent 50% of the work force today.)

Simple solution, bring back the Draft. Not that the military wants today's average youth, but it would bring down unemployment. Problem solved.

LOL

__________________
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. ---P. J. O'Rourke

Yep--more government employees--that's all we need now--LOL

It was completed on FDR's watch. But it was initiated by Hoover.

Why would I be ok with an eight year long recession if I am advocating poverty elimination via existing mechanisms as a form of economic stimulus on a longitudinal basis? Are you deliberately resorting to red herrings?

Just one question for everyone. What do you suppose happened to all those Hoover Dam workers once the project was finished? Answer: They were out of a job.

Long term economic growth always comes from the private sector--not "temporary" government jobs paid for by the taxpayers of this country.

Socialism is socialism to me; only the socialism of a warfare-state economic paradigm is less conducive to the general welfare than a welfare-state economic paradigm.

By the way, the socialism of WWII in the US is proof that socialism works.

The point was that they had incomes and were spending money to create consumer demand for more products and the labor required to make those products.

The great depression continued after the Hoover dam was completed. We had little burps in upward employment only to see them come back down a few months later.

Currently with the amount of massive government spending--we will see a blurp in employment gains only be brought right back down on our knees as inflation moves up.

Massive government spending does not create long term private sector job growth.

We cannot borrow & spend our way to prosperity.

It is interesting you have that perspective since that is the way Capitalism usually works. Why have banks if borrowing money is not conducive public or private sector business development?

It is only borrow and spend republicans who complain about tax and spend democrats.

However, not all fiscal policy promotes and provides for the general welfare. Simply eliminating poverty through the mechanism of unemployment compensation that conforms to at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws would have worked.

But, we may not have gotten Hoover Dam without better use of the socialism of The Peoples money for those things which are "singularly expressed by the terms "'to raise money for the general welfare"'.

"When government is so big it can give you everything you want, it's also big enough to take everything you have"-- Thomas Jefferson

Then one should ask themselves exactly how effective government is at manageing our money? I don't know--but are you O.K. with the federal government spending 213 million of our tax money--during the worst economic time since the great depression on the study of female freshman college students sex lives? Along with the massive amount of pork & earmarks in our 787 BILLION dollar donation to the so-called economic stimulus that really isn't.

The week after we had the non-stimulus bill of 787 billion shoved down our throats--Obama had no problem at all signing the 450 billion dollar Ominus bill that was loaded with over 8000 in goodies & earmarks, referring to it as last years business.

"The problem with socialism is that government eventually runs out of other peoples money to spend" Margaret Thatcher.

As far as the banking business. I go to the bank & borrow money to expand my business--I am in charge of what happens to that loan & my business. I do trust the federal government to operate or manage my business.

You make a good case against our national and socialized wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

Unemployment compensation could be more equitable if both the employer and employee pay that insurance (tax). It would provide market based metrics from and for both.

However, If no individual is in official poverty, why would we need anything more than is usual and customary for market participation in the private sector?

I am an employer & pay unemployment taxes. I guess I don't understand why you would think that the responsibility of the employee--other than it would increase the funds (if raised by government) for the cost of unemployment insurance & reduce the actual liability & expense of state & federal government?

I also don't understand your statement that no one is in official poverty? There are plenty of Americans that live in poverty--but I believe the federal government with their social networks keep people in poverty--versus lifting them out of poverty.

I only claim that participation by both market participants in the market for labor could reduce some of that cost to the employer. With basic minimums established by the public sector, why wouldn't any labor market participant be able to choose the type of coverage they can afford? That form of private sector insurance product is not readily available to the individual labor market participant.

If no individual is in official poverty, why would we need anything more than is usual and customary for market participation in the private sector?

You're right there is no private insurance market that provides for unemployment insurance. It's run through the State, or at least my state & federal FUTA taxation. This is currently a driving force in the current economic problems. Unemployment is currently, continually being extended to Americans who cannot find work--helping to drive the deficit.

If no individual met the official poverty level--then we would not need any form of government oversight or social network to fight poverty.