o5iiawah: The government cannot create jobs.

bullshiat. that's a lie. the govt is the biggest employer in the US and that's not counting all the private contractors who work for the govt.

o5iiawah: If we need a teacher, hire them but understand that their salaries come at a burden to the private sector, who have to earn money and pay the taxes to support them.

and that is paid back by producing productive, educated citizens who can earn money and pay taxes to fund the next generation.

Malicious Bastard: Paul Ryan said:

"The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand", and "I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are. It's inspired me so much that it's required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff."

Shortly thereafter

"I reject her philosophy. It's an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person's view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas. Don't give me Ayn Rand"

Isn't a beautiful thing to watch when someone repudiates a lifelong philosphy so they can pander to social conservatives?

I don't remember off-hand, but I am sure Thomas Aquinus, a rich man who gave up all of his wealth, would like a word about Ryan's treatment of the poor.

Animatronik: Ryan will also pull in some of the 15 to 20% in the middle

The middle of what? The John Birch Society??

LoneWolf343: Malicious Bastard: Paul Ryan said:

"The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand", and "I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are. It's inspired me so much that it's required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff."

Shortly thereafter

"I reject her philosophy. It's an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person's view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas. Don't give me Ayn Rand"

Isn't a beautiful thing to watch when someone repudiates a lifelong philosphy so they can pander to social conservatives?

I don't remember off-hand, but I am sure Thomas Aquinus, a rich man who gave up all of his wealth, would like a word about Ryan's treatment of the poor.

he wants the best of both. the spirituality of Aquinas and the "fark you, I've got mine" of Rand.

What's the over/under on Paul Ryan wishing he never been born?

Halli: o5iiawah: Just as not allowing early voting for military in ohio is going to disenfranchise largely conservative voters.

Yeah Romney has already been called out numerous times on that lie. What is your excuse?

He's functionaly illiterate

HeartBurnKid: [i49.tinypic.com image 321x637]

Respectfully, Ted Dibiasi doesn't belong there. Romney should be either robotic, or not deserving. May I suggest this:

o5iiawah: GAT_00: Republicans refuse to acknowledge that government creates jobs.

The government cannot create jobs.

In order to pay a government worker, they have to first extract that money out of the private economy. These "infrastructure investments" are crap. if we need a road, build it. If we need a bridge, build it. If we need a teacher, hire them but understand that their salaries come at a burden to the private sector, who have to earn money and pay the taxes to support them.

So I guess tax cuts for businesses dont do anything. Good. We can save a boat load by removing them and subsidies.

Also I guess all of those government people are like welfare recipients. Its like they earn their welfare checks by providing products and services. Nope, no jobs there.

The private sector doesnt extract its money from the private sector. It pulls money out of a magic hat like real workers.

You didnt bother to think things through before you jumped on that idea, did you?

From the kind person who posted the image sans text, I offer:

Make like a tree and get outta here.

Wow, even the fox contributor on right now admits that Ryan makes Romney's path much more difficult. The paid shill is trying to turn it around on Obama.

Echo chamber isn't going to work on the swing voter - do they just not grasp this concept?

Znuh: From the kind person who posted the image sans text, I offer:

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 480x480]

This is Mrs Spldng... and I did this before coffee

FlashHarry: Animatronik: Obama sucks balls at governing.

lol. yeah, passing the stimulus and healthcare reform against unified and entrenched republican opposition really shows that he has no ability to govern! :rolleyes:

incidentally, if R&R wins and medicare and medicaid are abolished, where do you think they'll decide to store all the corpses? or do you think perhaps incinerators in each county will do the trick? i'm sure the oil lobby won't let them turn them into fuel.

Nah, they'll just start marketing Soylent Green!

FlashHarry: naptapper: After reading several of these threads subverted by the Obamabots, I realize they are right after all. Things are farking fantastic. Unemployment is 0, the housing market is skyrocketing, and the budget is balanced. Why would anyone want to change anything?

/ Oh, wait

[i51.tinypic.com image 440x330]

weak sauce.

That's not even a reducto ad absurdum. That's an outright "making shiat up."

Hugo Hangover: [i1065.photobucket.com image 474x637]

Made like a tree and got outta here.

Just got through all 824 comments. Funniest thing since the Snakeman meltdown.

MmmmBacon: The only thing that worries me about the run-up to the election is if some nut will take a shot at assassinating Obama. Biden/Pet Rock would still win against Romney/Ryan, but I wouldn't want to see our President get taken out. I like the guy.

I hope that doesn't happen, I know the right would not want it to happen either because gun control will be topic #1 and really they have nothing to defend at that point because a right wing gun nut killed the leader of the free world. Also the ticket would be biden / clinton, which will also scare the right.

DamnYankees: MSNBC is saying the Romney campaign WANTS the medicare fight.

Are they insane?

They did nominate and elect dubya.

CmndrFish: Sabyen91: CmndrFish: Zerban's crew has been saying pretty much all week on Twitter that if Ryan is the VP pick he can still run for WI-1. I trust that they would have dug through the rulebooks to find the correct answer to that question.

/hi again!

Dammit, and you have to give me the confirmation on that. Ah, well, at least I am not in his district. I am not even sure what district I am in now with the court rulings.

Unfortunately, I still am. I'm going to change my permanent address to Milwaukee after I finish college this next year and get out of silly student housing. Didn't you say you live in Scott Fitzgerald land before? If so, you're in one of three districts: WI-2 (solid blue), WI-5 (solid red and unfortunate home of Waukesha), or WI-6 (could be a case study on incumbent advantage and how it's bad for the House)

Yup, though I am redistricted out of Fitzgerald land and into Neal Kedzie's district. I was in WI-2. The new lines have me in WI-5. Noooooo! Not fricking Sensenbrenner!

Hobodeluxe: bullshiat. that's a lie. the govt is the biggest employer in the US and that's not counting all the private contractors who work for the govt.

And how are those jobs sustained?

A: By taking the equivalent salary out of the private economy. If you need $55k to pay a teacher, you have to take $55k worth of capital away from private taxpayers who then cannot patronize businesses. Sure, the government can "create jobs" at the expense of other jobs.

Re-distributing money from a private taxpayer to a government worker didn't create a job. Oh sure, the government worker now has money to spend, but only at the expense of the aggregate tax base which cannot spend it.

SquiggelyGrounders: So I guess tax cuts for businesses dont do anything. Good. We can save a boat load by removing them and subsidies.

Sure they do. Look at how many states are offering sales tax holidays this month and the amount of shopping that takes place for people trying to save that extra percent. Supply side isn't the only economic metric out there. you can give all the tax cuts in the world to a business but it wont hire people if there's no demand for its products. At the same time, lightening a tax burden on a business who passes their taxes onto the customer will increase the amount of private capital.

Also I guess all of those government people are like welfare recipients. Its like they earn their welfare checks by providing products and services. Nope, no jobs there.

Again, if you need a government worker for whatever purpose, hire them. I"m not arguing for total anarchy or saying that we should fire all teachers because they are leeches or welfare recipients but people like you keep humping this argument that if only we hired more government workers, we'd create more jobs since they then go out and spend money. you forget where the money came from to pay for the workers.

The private sector doesnt extract its money from the private sector. It pulls money out of a magic hat like real workers.

This doesn't make sense. Try again.

You didnt bother to think things through before you jumped on that idea, did you?

No, you apparently have no idea how government workers get paid and the fact that money has to be taken out of the private economy to support the public worker. If they provide a useful service, then by all means we need them but if they are non-essential, then all you're doing is taking their salary away from the aggregate tax base who then cannot spend that money elsewhere.

If it required a crew of 20 guys, mechanized machinery, a million dollars in labor and materials and a year to build a section of road then it wouldn't make sense to do it with 60 workers using basic hand tools, $3million in materials and labor and 2 years time in the interest of "creating jobs" The town would be burdened with the taxes required to support the make-work project and local businesses would suffer.

o5iiawah: The private sector doesnt extract its money from the private sector. It pulls money out of a magic hat like real workers.

This doesn't make sense. Try again.

You didnt bother to think things through before you jumped on that idea, did you?

No, you apparently have no idea how government workers get paid and the fact that money has to be taken out of the private economy to support the public worker. If they provide a useful service, then by all means we need them but if they are non-essential, then all you're doing is taking their salary away from the aggregate tax base who then cannot spend that money elsewhere.


No you missed the point. The private sector extracts its money from the private sector like the government just by different means. They dont just magic it up somehow. The products and services the the government produces have an economic value like private sector goods/services. Someone in our society needs to do some of the things that government does. What is essential and who should do it is up for debate. But saying that "The government cannot create jobs" is demonstrably wrong.

o5iiawah: A: By taking the equivalent salary out of the private economy. If you need $55k to pay a teacher, you have to take $55k worth of capital away from private taxpayers who then cannot patronize businesses. Sure, the government can "create jobs" at the expense of other jobs.

Yes, we should just hire teachers for minimum wage instead.

People like you are what is screwing up this country. I honestly can't believe someone has a worldview as idiotic as this where paying teachers is a BURDEN on society. I just can't because otherwise it'll just make me upset that America is populated with idiots like this.

And I live in St. Louis which is a big manufacturing hub for the defense line of Boeing. Without the government, there would be no need for Boeing to manufacture all the planes and missiles that it does here.

So yeah, government actually does create jobs and there's living proof of this RIGHT HERE IN ST. LOUIS!!!

o5iiawah: And how are those jobs sustained?

A: By taking the equivalent salary out of the private economy. If you need $55k to pay a teacher, you have to take $55k worth of capital away from private taxpayers who then cannot patronize businesses. Sure, the government can "create jobs" at the expense of other jobs.

Re-distributing money from a private taxpayer to a government worker didn't create a job. Oh sure, the government worker now has money to spend, but only at the expense of the aggregate tax base which cannot spend it.


So the government paid teacher took away the job and salary of a private teacher?..............


I call troll.

Mrtraveler01: o5iiawah: A: By taking the equivalent salary out of the private economy. If you need $55k to pay a teacher, you have to take $55k worth of capital away from private taxpayers who then cannot patronize businesses. Sure, the government can "create jobs" at the expense of other jobs.

Yes, we should just hire teachers for minimum wage instead.

People like you are what is screwing up this country. I honestly can't believe someone has a worldview as idiotic as this where paying teachers is a BURDEN on society. I just can't because otherwise it'll just make me upset that America is populated with idiots like this.

And I live in St. Louis which is a big manufacturing hub for the defense line of Boeing. Without the government, there would be no need for Boeing to manufacture all the planes and missiles that it does here.

So yeah, government actually does create jobs and there's living proof of this RIGHT HERE IN ST. LOUIS!!!

I get the feeling that o5iiawah would be happier that if the government deal with schooling, that we create government creches, that inculcate future American workers to a. know their place and b. never expect more than what they have. Forget any of that useless science, history or math, don't need that if all you do is press a button every few seconds.

Romeny's derp level just broke 9000 and Obama crushed his scouter in joy.

naptapper: After reading several of these threads subverted by the Obamabots, I realize they are right after all. Things are farking fantastic. Unemployment is 0, the housing market is skyrocketing, and the budget is balanced. Why would anyone want to change anything?

/ Oh, wait

Well, to be honest, I have some serious criticism of the "mechanic"s work - but my response to that is not likely to be handing the keys back to the same clowns who wrecked the car to begin with.
If the GOP wants my vote, they'll have to come up with something better than "more of the same".
Reaganism has been tried - it doesn't work. The GOP needs some new ideas.

FlashHarry: [i48.tinypic.com image 474x637]

SquiggelyGrounders: The products and services the the government produces have an economic value

And therein lies my point. Nowhere have I stated that public workers have no value. We need teachers. We need administrators. We need people shuffling paper at the county records office to handle things like mortgages and property records, etc.

but when conditions change e.g. example 40 families move out of the county, the county might find itself in need of one less property tax administrator, teacher or what have you. To keep them on board even though the county doesn't need them is simply shifting resources to the public sector. Sure, they'll go out and spend their money but the community isn't wealthier by the product of their labor since they arent needed and dont produce anything.

Mrtraveler01: So yeah, government actually does create jobs and there's living proof of this RIGHT HERE IN ST. LOUIS!!!

Right, jobs are created in St. louis and of course local businesses love Boeing. The local bars might hang boeing T-shirts on the walls and im sure bowling alleys have Boeing employee leagues. You're forgetting though that in order for the government go give out those nice cushy contracts to Boeing, it has to tax people in other communities who then cant spend that money which creates jobs in their own town.

If it costs $80k to hire a missile engineer who builds a bomb that explodes and kills a few brown people, society has absolutely nothing for it at the end of the day but a hole in the ground. The missile engineer has a job but only at the expense of the people who cant compete for the tax money that was taken away from them.

If that bomb were never built and that $80k were spent in the community, people might decide to buy a couple American cars instead, or use the money to make improvements to their house which would then increase the tax revenue to their county. At the end of the day, 2 cars were produced and those auto workers have jobs, versus the missile engineer who gets paid to put holes in the ground.

SquiggelyGrounders: So the government paid teacher took away the job and salary of a private teacher?..............

I call troll.

You can call it a troll all you want but it doesn't mean you've at all touched the argument. The public teacher didn't "take a job away" from the private teacher. Again, if the public teacher is needed because there are students who need educating then by all means hire them. But understand that in doing so you havent "created a job" just as you arent "saving jobs" by keeping non-essential public workers on the payroll.

This same argument came up after WWII when people were wondering what would happen to all the soldiers who came home and whether or not they would have jobs. Since the government no longer had to enact confiscatory tax rates and sell war bonds, people had extra money to spend in their communities and the returning servicemen now had jobs meeting that extra demand

Mrtraveler01: People like you are what is screwing up this country. I honestly can't believe someone has a worldview as idiotic as this where paying teachers is a BURDEN on society. I just can't because otherwise it'll just make me upset that America is populated with idiots like this.

No, we should hire teachers at a competitive rate so we can educate our kids properly but do so for that purpose and not as a means of "creating jobs" Every time this argument comes up, simple minded idiots like yourself just keep circling back to "YOU HATE TEACHERS!"

SquiggelyGrounders: No you missed the point. The private sector extracts its money from the private sector like the government just by different means.

The argument you've just made is that there's a fixed economic pie when that simply isn't the case. When a private citizen exchanges his labor for money, he's provided a good or service to his employer who values the labor of his employee, else he wouldn't hire them. Citizen then spends his money on another person who is selling the product of his labor because Citizen finds value in it. In the aggregate, things of value are being produced which is ultimately how an economy grows. Production, not spending is what creates wealth. Its no secret that as we've transitioned to a service economy, the country has gotten worse and worse off. "Dollar velocity" as an argument is worthless unless it comes with the production of things of value. Again, a teacher who teaches students, hired by a community who needs the teacher is valuable. A teacher who is not needed provides no service to the community and there's no net gain in jobs.

When you have a non-essential public worker on the payroll, nothing of value is being produced for society. You're simply exchanging money from one person to another. At least with a road crew, if the road solves a transportation problem, society benefits because at the end of the day it has a road which is useful but if the tax base shrinks and cant support a teacher, the teacher is a drain on the economy since there's no students for he/she to teach.

If any of your arguments made sense, we would have long ago hired the 29M unemployed people in this country as road crew workers, schoolteachers and office clerks, unemployment would be down to 1% and we'd be out of the recession.

The world doesn't work that way and the fact that none of you can see it is astonishing.

But go on, keep saying I hate teachers.

o5iiawah: Mrtraveler01: So yeah, government actually does create jobs and there's living proof of this RIGHT HERE IN ST. LOUIS!!!

Right, jobs are created in St. louis and of course local businesses love Boeing. The local bars might hang boeing T-shirts on the walls and im sure bowling alleys have Boeing employee leagues. You're forgetting though that in order for the government go give out those nice cushy contracts to Boeing, it has to tax people in other communities who then cant spend that money which creates jobs in their own town.

If it costs $80k to hire a missile engineer who builds a bomb that explodes and kills a few brown people, society has absolutely nothing for it at the end of the day but a hole in the ground. The missile engineer has a job but only at the expense of the people who cant compete for the tax money that was taken away from them.

If that bomb were never built and that $80k were spent in the community, people might decide to buy a couple American cars instead, or use the money to make improvements to their house which would then increase the tax revenue to their county. At the end of the day, 2 cars were produced and those auto workers have jobs, versus the missile engineer who gets paid to put holes in the ground.

All of that is lovely and all but it doesn't disprove the fact that defense contracts to Boeing in St. Louis is living proof that government does create jobs.

o5iiawah: No, we should hire teachers at a competitive rate

Based on what? What average are you basing this "competitive rate on"? Do you really want it to be compared to private school salaries and benefits?

Mrtraveler01: but it doesn't disprove the fact that defense contracts to Boeing in St. Louis is living proof that government does create jobs.

yes, it creates jobs in St. Louis for Boeing at the expense of jobs elsewhere.

Jobs created over here, jobs lost over there to help pay for it.

o5iiawah: Mrtraveler01: but it doesn't disprove the fact that defense contracts to Boeing in St. Louis is living proof that government does create jobs.

yes, it creates jobs in St. Louis for Boeing at the expense of jobs elsewhere.

Jobs created over here, jobs lost over there to help pay for it.

wtf are you even talking about?

o5iiawah: If it required a crew of 20 guys, mechanized machinery, a million dollars in labor and materials and a year to build a section of road then it wouldn't make sense to do it with 60 workers using basic hand tools, $3million in materials and labor and 2 years time in the interest of "creating jobs" The town would be burdened with the taxes required to support the make-work project and local businesses would suffer.

The way I look at it, for government extra employment proposals we should deduct the unemployment/welfare benefits they'd otherwise be receiving.

IE if we'd provide $20k of benefits anyways, that $40k employee actually only has a marginal cost of $20k. It doesn't justify spending $3M to build a road using hand tools, but it might justify not automating quite as much, or perhaps building more road.

Or more realistically, I'd be subsidizing them to put solar panels on roofs, run fiber to homes, build solar farms, put up wind turbines, even build a nuclear plant or two(hundred). Infrastructure. Some areas might need new schools, but there I'd typically fire half the administrators and hire teachers at a 2 to 1(given typical administrator vs teacher wages, we can hire 2 teachers for every administrator let go). A competent teacher doesn't need the principal much. Give them an intact classroom with some basic environmental protection, intact chairs, desks, and books, and the kids will learn.

There's other philosophical thoughts - things like keep workers used to working. Sure, provide education opportunities, medical, etc...

Call it the 'Federal Jobs Program'. Pay about 70% of prevailing wages(so people still want to work private sector), have the benefits be such that you get up to about 85% of 'total compensation' with the private sector. They're required to hire, though you might end up earning 'minimum wage' picking up trash on the side of the highways. Though building 'infrastructure' should be the priority - roads, rails, communication lines, power generation, factories, houses, etc... All infrastructure. Though in the case of infrastructure that's commonly privately held - rails, communication lines, generators, and factories you need to be careful to not displace the private sector, construction wise. As such, concentrate on areas they don't want to service. Secondarily, once the infrastructure is built, generally you're going to want to sell it to continue funding the program. Preferably by some sort of auction - but prefer selling it to charities, non-profits, not for profit or cooperative companies. By how much, I can't really say.

Run fiber to/through a town in North Dakota? Sell it to SRT(cooperative, customer owned) before you sell it to AT&T, even if you sell it for a lower price. Maybe 80%, now that I think about it. IE if SRT bids $850k and AT&T bids $1M, SRT wins.

Halli: wtf are you even talking about?

You dont have any idea how government workers are paid. Again my beef is not with the workers or the job they do, but that hiring government workers is some sort of "jobs program"

Firethorn: Run fiber to/through a town in North Dakota? Sell it to SRT(cooperative, customer owned) before you sell it to AT&T, even if you sell it for a lower price. Maybe 80%

You've pretty much described crony capitalism. You're going to Tax people in FL and Massachussets for a communications network in North Dakota who just hired a lobbyist to get it. Arent we sick of that by now?

Firethorn: but there I'd typically fire half the administrators and hire teachers at a 2 to 1(given typical administrator vs teacher wages, we can hire 2 teachers for every administrator let go). A competent teacher doesn't need the principal much.

You're not getting much disagreement from me here.

Firethorn: All infrastructure. Though in the case of infrastructure that's commonly privately held - rails, communication lines, generators, and factories you need to be careful to not displace the private sector, construction wise.

None of those with the exception of roads and possibly rails are powers or responsibilities of our Federal government, Jobs program included. We've had make-work schemes before and they were colossal failures. From the New deal, which kept unemployment at double-digits for a decade to the shovel-ready stimulus, the green job push in Spain which cost 2.5 Jobs lost for every job it created we should know by now that government is good at running an army/navy, courts and establishing property and contract law and things like fiber networks and job programs are better left to states/townships and the communities therein.

What you're inevitably going to run into is a community which has the right size power grid, or ample bandwith to support their internet needs but then gets the gift of the "federal infrastructure" program in the form of a power plant that might require them to hire more engineers or more techs to work the comm lines around the city. The only way they can do that is to raise rates and as rates are raised, people have less money to spend on other stuff.

Infrastructure is necessary since most of us cant build our own bridge or highway. usually, we elect people locally to levy taxes to solve these issues. In the interest of protecting the taxpayers who are paying for the road, government should make sure to build it as cheaply and reliably as possible. When you devise a make-work program which just keeps people digging holes and filling them back up or performing work which the market cannot sustain then it becomes a drain on the tax base who has less money to spend

o5iiawah: You dont have any idea how government workers are paid. Again my beef is not with the workers or the job they do, but that hiring government workers is some sort of "jobs program"

Still doesn't explain your incoherent ramblings.

o5iiawah: You've pretty much described crony capitalism. You're going to Tax people in FL and Massachussets for a communications network in North Dakota who just hired a lobbyist to get it. Arent we sick of that by now?

And you read too far into my example. I used ND as an example because I'm familiar with it. In reality there would be near zero 'fedjob' programs running in ND right now because the economy is heated there and there's not many free workers.

Florida, on the other hand, would be getting LOTS of construction. Ideally speaking, the jobs would take place where there's spare workers - don't want to move them around too much.

None of those with the exception of roads and possibly rails are powers or responsibilities of our Federal government, Jobs program included.

"provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" - I'd count it as 'general welfare'. I figure the new deal worked, it just took a while for the infrastructure production to catch up. Now we have all sorts of New Deal infrastructure creaking to the point of breaking. Time to rehab it.

fiber networks and job programs are better left to states/townships and the communities therein.

I actually agree, though funding the program is likely going to need to be at a federal level, for the shear breadth of what's needed combined with that different communities are depressed at different times. Then again, keeping the program from getting corrupted(as you mention) is also a trick.

What you're inevitably going to run into is a community which has the right size power grid, or ample bandwith to support their internet needs but then gets the gift of the "federal infrastructure" program in the form of a power plant that might require them to hire more engineers or more techs to work the comm lines around the city. The only way they can do that is to raise rates and as rates are raised, people have less money to spend on other stuff.

If it has the right size power grid, then you don't do that project; have auditors checking to make sure any 'project' is suitable and will help long term - China gets some flack for it's 'empty cities', but generally speaking come back in 5-10 years and they're more heavily populated than what US standards would tolerate. Anyways, the USA is notorious for lagging on broadband availability, if we're building power it should either to support expansion or be 'green' power to reduce pollution. If you're hiring more techs to work the comm lines, then obviously the project was worthwhile, properly run fiber doesn't need much support unless people are actually using it, and generally only for hookups/disconnects. Anyways, the examples I listed are only examples.

When you devise a make-work program which just keeps people digging holes and filling them back up or performing work which the market cannot sustain then it becomes a drain on the tax base who has less money to spend

Remember, the core thing would be that you select projects that are useful long-term, but perhaps not quite economical without a 20-40% discount on the labor. The only 'make work' would be transitory things like cleaning up the garbage off the roads; but even that is more useful than 'digging holes and filling them back up'. Indeed, such projects should be saved only for the most 'worthless' of workers, or when no other projects present themselves. I'll admit to possibly pursuing 'less valuable' goals, but they should be useful projects anyways. My point would be that there are plenty of possibilities.

Then, because I believe there is a lot of benefit to following a proper Keynesian economic policy, when the economy heats up you let the program shrink(projects proceed by available workforce, not regular deadlines), releasing those workers into the private economy to do whatever, reducing federal spending. Set the tax rates such that the budget is, on average, balanced. During downturns a deficit is run, during hot times(like the runup to the housing crisis) you run surpluses and pay down the debt so you have a sort of warchest(whether outright assets or just being 'low debt') for the bad times.