Why aren't we spending more billons on infrastructure? (2 Viewers)

[NCCommish]

Love all the math majors. Unlike some folks I read what I post. I understand the numbers were different. I also understand there is a lot more distance between a hundred versus 57 than there is between 57 versus 50. It was on it's last legand was on it's way to needing to be replaced.

So it was only MOSTLY dead?

It was on life support and fading.

 

[Foosball God]

Okay, to answer your question sans hysterics - It's because we don't have the money.

Actually, it's because we don't have the will to spend the money we're already spending in the best ways.

But we're Americans so we should be able to have whatever we want whenever we want it because we're Americans.

I don't know that I agree with this statement. I think we're spending on a lot of crap we don't need to.

 

[NCCommish]

Okay, to answer your question sans hysterics - It's because we don't have the money.

Actually, it's because we don't have the will to spend the money we're already spending in the best ways.

But we're Americans so we should be able to have whatever we want whenever we want it because we're Americans.

We have enough money to bomb the #### out of anyone we want though. we have enough money to give billions to farm subsidies. We have enough money to give billions in corporate welfare. We have plenty of money and it will only cost more to fix it later.

Hey crabby pants. I already said we need to spend more on it.

Where would you like to take it from first?

The 7 trillion we are set to spend on defense the next decade seems like a good place to start.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Okay, to answer your question sans hysterics - It's because we don't have the money.

Actually, it's because we don't have the will to spend the money we're already spending in the best ways.

But we're Americans so we should be able to have whatever we want whenever we want it because we're Americans.

I don't know that I agree with this statement. I think we're spending on a lot of crap we don't need to.

As a general consensus goes though, we're not going to take from our sacred cows to give to a less sacred animal.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Okay, to answer your question sans hysterics - It's because we don't have the money.

Actually, it's because we don't have the will to spend the money we're already spending in the best ways.

But we're Americans so we should be able to have whatever we want whenever we want it because we're Americans.

We have enough money to bomb the #### out of anyone we want though. we have enough money to give billions to farm subsidies. We have enough money to give billions in corporate welfare. We have plenty of money and it will only cost more to fix it later.

Hey crabby pants. I already said we need to spend more on it.

Where would you like to take it from first?

The 7 trillion we are set to spend on defense the next decade seems like a good place to start.

How about the 21 trillion we're set to spend over the next three decades? Let's pump those numbers up to make sure our arguments sound solid.

Spoiler

I'm actually game for reducing the defense budget. I have no idea where you'd cut from and still keep us safe though.

 

[timschochet]

Okay, to answer your question sans hysterics - It's because we don't have the money.

Actually, it's because we don't have the will to spend the money we're already spending in the best ways.

But we're Americans so we should be able to have whatever we want whenever we want it because we're Americans.

We have enough money to bomb the #### out of anyone we want though. we have enough money to give billions to farm subsidies. We have enough money to give billions in corporate welfare. We have plenty of money and it will only cost more to fix it later.

Hey crabby pants. I already said we need to spend more on it.

Where would you like to take it from first?

Well how about this first?

The debt and deficit aren't going anywhere. So we leave them alone, for now. Republicans were in favor of these sequester cuts, which we did. Democrats were in favor of raising taxes, which we did. So for starters, we take all of that extra revenue, and instead of using it to pay down the debt, we use it for infrastructure?

 

[Foosball God]

Okay, to answer your question sans hysterics - It's because we don't have the money.

Actually, it's because we don't have the will to spend the money we're already spending in the best ways.

But we're Americans so we should be able to have whatever we want whenever we want it because we're Americans.

I don't know that I agree with this statement. I think we're spending on a lot of crap we don't need to.

As a general consensus goes though, we're not going to take from our sacred cows to give to a less sacred animal.

Well yeah. Did I ever mention that I hate politics?

 

[NCCommish]

Okay, to answer your question sans hysterics - It's because we don't have the money.

Actually, it's because we don't have the will to spend the money we're already spending in the best ways.

But we're Americans so we should be able to have whatever we want whenever we want it because we're Americans.

We have enough money to bomb the #### out of anyone we want though. we have enough money to give billions to farm subsidies. We have enough money to give billions in corporate welfare. We have plenty of money and it will only cost more to fix it later.

Hey crabby pants. I already said we need to spend more on it.

Where would you like to take it from first?

The 7 trillion we are set to spend on defense the next decade seems like a good place to start.

How about the 21 trillion we're set to spend over the next three decades? Let's pump those numbers up to make sure our arguments sound solid.

Spoiler

I'm actually game for reducing the defense budget. I have no idea where you'd cut from and still keep us safe though.

I only went a decade because that's how we do most stuff when we talk national budgets. And actually we can cut billions and not be unsafe. Seriously if we cut it to Clinton era spending we'd still be outspending China nearly 4 to 1. And the Pentagon doesn't want a lot of stuff being pushed on it by Congressman who decry pork anywhere but in their districts. You can't tell me we have to spend 700 billion a year to stay safe.

 

[Joe T]

Okay, to answer your question sans hysterics - It's because we don't have the money.

Actually, it's because we don't have the will to spend the money we're already spending in the best ways.

But we're Americans so we should be able to have whatever we want whenever we want it because we're Americans.

We have enough money to bomb the #### out of anyone we want though. we have enough money to give billions to farm subsidies. We have enough money to give billions in corporate welfare. We have plenty of money and it will only cost more to fix it later.

Hey crabby pants. I already said we need to spend more on it.

Where would you like to take it from first?

Well how about this first?

The debt and deficit aren't going anywhere. So we leave them alone, for now. Republicans were in favor of these sequester cuts, which we did. Democrats were in favor of raising taxes, which we did. So for starters, we take all of that extra revenue, and instead of using it to pay down the debt, we use it for infrastructure?

link plz?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Interest rates must be too high for the gov't to borrow at.

The cost of borrowing should have negative rates, IMO. Then we can start getting serious.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Well how about this first?

The debt and deficit aren't going anywhere. So we leave them alone, for now. Republicans were in favor of these sequester cuts, which we did. Democrats were in favor of raising taxes, which we did. So for starters, we take all of that extra revenue, and instead of using it to pay down the debt, we use it for infrastructure?

And then people will scream "See, whenever government gets more it just spends more" and then you'll be starting a post six months from now entitled "Why is our politics so gridlocked"?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I only went a decade because that's how we do most stuff when we talk national budgets. And actually we can cut billions and not be unsafe. Seriously if we cut it to Clinton era spending we'd still be outspending China nearly 4 to 1. And the Pentagon doesn't want a lot of stuff being pushed on it by Congressman who decry pork anywhere but in their districts. You can't tell me we have to spend 700 billion a year to stay safe.

All aside. I'm game.

But it's not just China we're worried about. And as much as we spend on our military, there are huge swaths of THAT that have "crumbling infrastructure" as well.

 

[Joe T]

I can't stop laughing that someone posted we are "paying down our debt."

">

 

[timschochet]

Well how about this first?

The debt and deficit aren't going anywhere. So we leave them alone, for now. Republicans were in favor of these sequester cuts, which we did. Democrats were in favor of raising taxes, which we did. So for starters, we take all of that extra revenue, and instead of using it to pay down the debt, we use it for infrastructure?

And then people will scream "See, whenever government gets more it just spends more" and then you'll be starting a post six months from now entitled "Why is our politics so gridlocked"?

People will scream no matter what. And the gridlock has become a major part of the problem.

I used to be in favor of gridlock in general, but it's becoming absurd now. Those Senators that Tommy posted that filibustered Obama's plan- they're not doing it out of ideology. They're doing it because right now in the GOP it's good politics to be against anything Obama is for. And that's disgusting IMO.

 

[timschochet]

I can't stop laughing that someone posted we are "paying down our debt."

">

That was me, and my point is that we're not, and that this whole sequester business (which you're in favor of) is a huge joke.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I only went a decade because that's how we do most stuff when we talk national budgets. And actually we can cut billions and not be unsafe. Seriously if we cut it to Clinton era spending we'd still be outspending China nearly 4 to 1. And the Pentagon doesn't want a lot of stuff being pushed on it by Congressman who decry pork anywhere but in their districts. You can't tell me we have to spend 700 billion a year to stay safe.

All aside. I'm game.

But it's not just China we're worried about. And as much as we spend on our military, there are huge swaths of THAT that have "crumbling infrastructure" as well.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/9/lawmakers-force-pentagon-to-buy-tanks-keep-ships-a/?page=all

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I only went a decade because that's how we do most stuff when we talk national budgets. And actually we can cut billions and not be unsafe. Seriously if we cut it to Clinton era spending we'd still be outspending China nearly 4 to 1. And the Pentagon doesn't want a lot of stuff being pushed on it by Congressman who decry pork anywhere but in their districts. You can't tell me we have to spend 700 billion a year to stay safe.

All aside. I'm game.

But it's not just China we're worried about. And as much as we spend on our military, there are huge swaths of THAT that have "crumbling infrastructure" as well.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/9/lawmakers-force-pentagon-to-buy-tanks-keep-ships-a/?page=all

That speaks to what I was saying about spending what we already spend more wisely.

 

[Joe T]

Okay, to answer your question sans hysterics - It's because we don't have the money.

Actually, it's because we don't have the will to spend the money we're already spending in the best ways.

But we're Americans so we should be able to have whatever we want whenever we want it because we're Americans.

We have enough money to bomb the #### out of anyone we want though. we have enough money to give billions to farm subsidies. We have enough money to give billions in corporate welfare. We have plenty of money and it will only cost more to fix it later.

Hey crabby pants. I already said we need to spend more on it.

Where would you like to take it from first?

Well how about this first?

The debt and deficit aren't going anywhere. So we leave them alone, for now. Republicans were in favor of these sequester cuts, which we did. Democrats were in favor of raising taxes, which we did. So for starters, we take all of that extra revenue, and instead of using it to pay down the debt, we use it for infrastructure?

I can't stop laughing that someone posted we are "paying down our debt."

">

That was me, and my point is that we're not, and that this whole sequester business (which you're in favor of) is a huge joke.

You must have just mistyped that we are using all the extra revenue to "pay down the debt." That is a huge joke.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I only went a decade because that's how we do most stuff when we talk national budgets. And actually we can cut billions and not be unsafe. Seriously if we cut it to Clinton era spending we'd still be outspending China nearly 4 to 1. And the Pentagon doesn't want a lot of stuff being pushed on it by Congressman who decry pork anywhere but in their districts. You can't tell me we have to spend 700 billion a year to stay safe.

All aside. I'm game.

But it's not just China we're worried about. And as much as we spend on our military, there are huge swaths of THAT that have "crumbling infrastructure" as well.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/9/lawmakers-force-pentagon-to-buy-tanks-keep-ships-a/?page=all

That speaks to what I was saying about spending what we already spend more wisely.

Yeah. I'm just waiting for Tim to start a thread about stopping wasting money in government. Will never happen.

 

[NCCommish]

Well how about this first?

The debt and deficit aren't going anywhere. So we leave them alone, for now. Republicans were in favor of these sequester cuts, which we did. Democrats were in favor of raising taxes, which we did. So for starters, we take all of that extra revenue, and instead of using it to pay down the debt, we use it for infrastructure?

And then people will scream "See, whenever government gets more it just spends more" and then you'll be starting a post six months from now entitled "Why is our politics so gridlocked"?

There is no deficit problem. There is a demand problem. Jobs to fix our bridges and roads would be a step in the right direction.

BTW I would have much rather the Democrats and Obama focused on this over healthcare the first 4 years. But I am no fan of the ACA anyway so I may be biased.

 

[Politician Spock]

Okay, to answer your question sans hysterics - It's because we don't have the money.

Actually, it's because we don't have the will to spend the money we're already spending in the best ways.

But we're Americans so we should be able to have whatever we want whenever we want it because we're Americans.

We have enough money to bomb the #### out of anyone we want though. we have enough money to give billions to farm subsidies. We have enough money to give billions in corporate welfare. We have plenty of money and it will only cost more to fix it later.

No we don't. We borrow money so we can do all those things. We don't have plenty of money. We're broke... which is why we have to keep borrowing.

 

[E Street Brat]

Why aren't we fixing the thousands of bridges that are rated sub par? Because if we do that would mean jobs. Jobs for folks without college degrees as this work is largely blue collar. Those jobs would spur demand. The economy would grow faster. Can't have that. Obama may get a boost out of it. Politics over all.

"shovel-ready"

 

[Andy Dufresne]

There is no deficit problem. There is a demand problem. Jobs to fix our bridges and roads would be a step in the right direction.

BTW I would have much rather the Democrats and Obama focused on this over healthcare the first 4 years. But I am no fan of the ACA anyway so I may be biased.

That was going to be my next question...why didn't we have a stimulus package focused on infrastructure?

Oh, wait...

 

[Billy Bats]

Tim is just buying into the liberal "crumbling infrastructure" schtick.

I, for one, am shocked.

I buy into whatever makes sense. Are you saying our infrastructure is in good shape?

Yes I am. I've never seen anything to suggest otherwise.

Working in the civil engineering field, I can tell you with absolute certainty our roads and bridges are in horrendous shape. I work with bridge inspectors. There are major bridges in NJ I won't drive on.

Do tell, I would like to know which ones to avoid. TIA.

 

[Jobber]

For real?

Do you mean, "Why aren't we spending more on anti-truck bridge technology"?

I think this thread makes Tim an anti-semite.

 

[E Street Brat]

Duh,

Cause bridges can't vote,

 

[jonessed]

Okay, to answer your question sans hysterics - It's because we don't have the money. Actually, it's because we don't have the will to spend the money we're already spending in the best ways. But we're Americans so we should be able to have whatever we want whenever we want it because we're Americans.

We have enough money to bomb the #### out of anyone we want though. we have enough money to give billions to farm subsidies. We have enough money to give billions in corporate welfare. We have plenty of money and it will only cost more to fix it later.

Hey crabby pants. I already said we need to spend more on it. Where would you like to take it from first?

Well how about this first? The debt and deficit aren't going anywhere. So we leave them alone, for now. Republicans were in favor of these sequester cuts, which we did. Democrats were in favor of raising taxes, which we did. So for starters, we take all of that extra revenue, and instead of using it to pay down the debt, we use it for infrastructure?

We aren't paying down the debt with that money.

 

[Politician Spock]

For real?

Do you mean, "Why aren't we spending more on anti-truck bridge technology"?

I think this thread makes Tim an anti-semite.

I see what you did there.

 

[NCCommish]

There is no deficit problem. There is a demand problem. Jobs to fix our bridges and roads would be a step in the right direction.

BTW I would have much rather the Democrats and Obama focused on this over healthcare the first 4 years. But I am no fan of the ACA anyway so I may be biased.

That was going to be my next question...why didn't we have a stimulus package focused on infrastructure?

Oh, wait...

It was too small and it didn't really focus on the right stuff. If it had been me I would have made it pretty simple. Fix bridges and roads. Fix our electrical transmission infrastructure. Get high speed internet out into the hinterlands. Put a lot more into research into building Thorium nuke plants and then decommission the elderly plants we are running. There's more but I don't want to bore anyone. We could have had a far better ROI and put millions to work.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

There is no deficit problem. There is a demand problem. Jobs to fix our bridges and roads would be a step in the right direction.

BTW I would have much rather the Democrats and Obama focused on this over healthcare the first 4 years. But I am no fan of the ACA anyway so I may be biased.

That was going to be my next question...why didn't we have a stimulus package focused on infrastructure?

Oh, wait...

It was too small and it didn't really focus on the right stuff. If it had been me I would have made it pretty simple. Fix bridges and roads. Fix our electrical transmission infrastructure. Get high speed internet out into the hinterlands. Put a lot more into research into building Thorium nuke plants and then decommission the elderly plants we are running. There's more but I don't want to bore anyone. We could have had a far better ROI and put millions to work.

That was my point. The (D) team had their chance and blew it by focusing on political payback.

 

[Amused to Death]

Tim is just buying into the liberal "crumbling infrastructure" schtick.

I, for one, am shocked.

I buy into whatever makes sense. Are you saying our infrastructure is in good shape?

Yes I am. I've never seen anything to suggest otherwise.

Working in the civil engineering field, I can tell you with absolute certainty our roads and bridges are in horrendous shape. I work with bridge inspectors. There are major bridges in NJ I won't drive on.

Do tell, I would like to know which ones to avoid. TIA.

Pulaski Skyway. I've spoken to several bridge inspectors from more than one company that all say the same thing - don't drive on it. I've seen pictures. Major support members (both concrete and steel) with gaping holes. The health of the nation's roads and bridges overall is not good. And its not a Dem vs. GOP issue. Both parties have long neglected and mismanaged the transportation fund for decades. It didn't get to be this bad under one administration. At my company alone, I'd estimate 75% of our transportation projects are on hold due to a lack of funding. The one's that are funded have been greatly scaled back to do only the minimum to address major deficiencies.

 

[Amused to Death]

And I agree with whoever said our water lines and electrical grid are deficient. The public has no idea. Actually its all utilities, not just water and electric. Outdated and decaying.

 

[NCCommish]

And I agree with whoever said our water lines and electrical grid are deficient. The public has no idea.

Don't forget gas lines. We have hundred year old piping carrying gas through some of our most heavily populated areas. We have already had some issues with explosions. At some point we are going to lose a block of apartments and kill hundreds. Maybe then we'll do something.

 

[Amused to Death]

And I agree with whoever said our water lines and electrical grid are deficient. The public has no idea.

Don't forget gas lines. We have hundred year old piping carrying gas through some of our most heavily populated areas. We have already had some issues with explosions. At some point we are going to lose a block of apartments and kill hundreds. Maybe then we'll do something.

Yeah, I edited my original post after I thought about it. Trust me, you don't want to know about some of the older sewer lines.

 

[Ilov80s]

Hundreds of unsound structures in Michigan.

According to Transportation for America, 14 spans (mostly in a row) along I-94 in Detroit, from French Road to West Grand, are all rated structurally deficient. They join more than 80 bridges ranked "structurally deficient" in Wayne County, the highest per-county tally across the state of Michigan. Another 369 bridges were rated "functionally obsolete."

 

[Amused to Death]

More than 200 N.J. bridges are structurally deficient, report finds

Each of the bridges were assigned a sufficiency rating, with 18 of New Jersey's bridges ranking under 25 percent for sufficiency. The bridges with the lowest sufficiency rating — 2 percent — are the Pulaski Skyway, Jersey City; Route 1&9, Newark; Middlesex Avenue, Metuchen; and Route 36, Highlands.

And

Deadline ticking for nearly bankrupt N.J. Transportation Trust Fund

State Transportation Commissioner Jim Simpson likens the situation over the state’s beleaguered Transportation Trust Fund to a homeowner who for years spent too much on credit cards and now is living paycheck to paycheck.

Next month, the Transportation Trust Fund Authority plans to refinance $300 million to $400 million in existing bonds to take advantage of lower rates and also issue $800 million to $900 million in bonds to get the fund through March, it was announced today.

"We are now going to be completely tapped out and borrowed out for the trust fund," authority Treasurer Steve Petrecca said after a board meeting in Trenton

 

[Amused to Death]

Tax the deadbeats, fix the bridgesThe problem is traceable in part to the ideological gridlock in Congress. Natch.

As one transportation expert told ABC News the other day, "Infrastructure has always been non-partisan, [but] the reason it's contentious in Washington is because morning prayers are contentious in Washington."

The 18-cent federal gas tax, which pays for interstate transportation repairs, hasn't been raised in 20 years — because Republican politicians are beholden to their conservative base, and Democratic politicians are terrified of being tarred as tax-raisers.

That's a shame, because the American Society of Civil Engineers says in a new report that we need another $8 billion a year to repair and upgrade our deficient bridges. (To put that seemingly high figure in perspective: During the George W. Bush era, congressional Republicans sat mute while Bush waged his farcical war in Iraq by spending an average of $10 billion each month.)

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Tax the deadbeats, fix the bridges

The problem is traceable in part to the ideological gridlock in Congress. Natch.

As one transportation expert told ABC News the other day, "Infrastructure has always been non-partisan, [but] the reason it's contentious in Washington is because morning prayers are contentious in Washington."

The 18-cent federal gas tax, which pays for interstate transportation repairs, hasn't been raised in 20 years — because Republican politicians are beholden to their conservative base, and Democratic politicians are terrified of being tarred as tax-raisers.

That's a shame, because the American Society of Civil Engineers says in a new report that we need another $8 billion a year to repair and upgrade our deficient bridges. (To put that seemingly high figure in perspective: During the George W. Bush era, congressional Republicans sat mute while Bush waged his farcical war in Iraq by spending an average of $10 billion each month.)

Wow. I wonder why it is that we can't get people on both sides of the aisle to work with each other.

 

[Ilov80s]

Tax the deadbeats, fix the bridges

The problem is traceable in part to the ideological gridlock in Congress. Natch.

As one transportation expert told ABC News the other day, "Infrastructure has always been non-partisan, [but] the reason it's contentious in Washington is because morning prayers are contentious in Washington."

The 18-cent federal gas tax, which pays for interstate transportation repairs, hasn't been raised in 20 years — because Republican politicians are beholden to their conservative base, and Democratic politicians are terrified of being tarred as tax-raisers.

That's a shame, because the American Society of Civil Engineers says in a new report that we need another $8 billion a year to repair and upgrade our deficient bridges. (To put that seemingly high figure in perspective: During the George W. Bush era, congressional Republicans sat mute while Bush waged his farcical war in Iraq by spending an average of $10 billion each month.)

Both parties have zero sack. Much of the military endeavors of the last 13 years should have been challenged by conservatives for the wreckless fiscal factor and liberals for the morality of it all. We don't have an anti-war party, we have two parties that seem to favor endless war.

 

[Hang 10]

Hundreds of unsound structures in Michigan.

According to Transportation for America, 14 spans (mostly in a row) along I-94 in Detroit, from French Road to West Grand, are all rated structurally deficient. They join more than 80 bridges ranked "structurally deficient" in Wayne County, the highest per-county tally across the state of Michigan. Another 369 bridges were rated "functionally obsolete."

Better fix those bridges to those abandon neighborhoods.

 

[shader]

There is no excuse for what happened with that bridge in Washington. Our roads and bridges in this country are ####. Why don't we fix them? Whatever it costs, isn't this a worthy expenditure?

It is interesting.

I know that the "Meaningful Use"/electronic medical records portion of Obama's big spending bill led to a boomtown in the IT medical industry, and has helped a ton of people out financially.

Why wouldn't it work for infrastructure? I don't know. Of course some people yell that hyper-inflation would occur. Anymore, I just don't think anyone knows whats going to happen.

But infrastructure is aging and needs to be updated.

 

[Ilov80s]

Hundreds of unsound structures in Michigan.

According to Transportation for America, 14 spans (mostly in a row) along I-94 in Detroit, from French Road to West Grand, are all rated structurally deficient. They join more than 80 bridges ranked "structurally deficient" in Wayne County, the highest per-county tally across the state of Michigan. Another 369 bridges were rated "functionally obsolete."

Better fix those bridges to those abandon neighborhoods.

That area is easily one of the most traveled in the state. It is not a gian highway to abandon buildings. 94 links many of the key economic pieces of Michigan.

 

[Jackstraw]

Infrastructure is the mothers milk for economic development.

Come on Republicans. We can build stuff and STILL kick the poor.

 

[Ilov80s]

There is no excuse for what happened with that bridge in Washington. Our roads and bridges in this country are ####. Why don't we fix them? Whatever it costs, isn't this a worthy expenditure?

It is interesting.

I know that the "Meaningful Use"/electronic medical records portion of Obama's big spending bill led to a boomtown in the IT medical industry, and has helped a ton of people out financially.

Why wouldn't it work for infrastructure? I don't know. Of course some people yell that hyper-inflation would occur. Anymore, I just don't think anyone knows whats going to happen.

But infrastructure is aging and needs to be updated.

Are the changes to electronic medical records good for hospitals, doctors, nurses, and patients? I don't think it should be judged for it's benefit to the medical IT field. The Common Core Curriculum is going to make a killing for book makers and educational software, but I'm not sure many teachers, students, parents, or administrators are sold on the idea. We have schools falling apart and districts going broke, while are about to invest billions in a new curriculum and new tests.

 

[Amused to Death]

Infrastructure is the mothers milk for economic development.

The only thing I remember from my Econ 101 class (all those years ago) is the professor being adamant in times of slow economic growth, the best thing to do is invest in the infrastructure. Does wonders for job growth and pumps money back into the economy.

 

[Ilov80s]

Infrastructure is the mothers milk for economic development.

The only thing I remember from my Econ 101 class (all those years ago) is the professor being adamant in times of slow economic growth, the best thing to do is invest in the infrastructure. Does wonders for job growth and pumps money back into the economy.

Right. The money will end up as wages to contractors and workers, payment to companies that produce, sell, and ship the supplies. After the work is done, it allows other businesses to operate faster, smoother, safer. There are a lot of people that seem to benefit from it.

 

[oso diablo]

how much would it cost to repair/replace all the "below 50" bridges in America?

 

[humpback]

Well how about this first?

The debt and deficit aren't going anywhere. So we leave them alone, for now. Republicans were in favor of these sequester cuts, which we did. Democrats were in favor of raising taxes, which we did. So for starters, we take all of that extra revenue, and instead of using it to pay down the debt, we use it for infrastructure?

And then people will scream "See, whenever government gets more it just spends more" and then you'll be starting a post six months from now entitled "Why is our politics so gridlocked"?

People will scream no matter what. And the gridlock has become a major part of the problem.

I used to be in favor of gridlock in general, but it's becoming absurd now. Those Senators that Tommy posted that filibustered Obama's plan- they're not doing it out of ideology. They're doing it because right now in the GOP it's good politics to be against anything Obama is for. And that's disgusting IMO.

How do you explain the 1 Dem and 1 Independent who joined the filibuster? I'm not sure if you even know what bill you're talking about, but the main disagreement was over paying for it- Obama wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy. The dems killed a GOP version that would have cut unspent funding for other domestic programs. Seems pretty ideological to me.

I can't stop laughing that someone posted we are "paying down our debt."

">

That was me, and my point is that we're not, and that this whole sequester business (which you're in favor of) is a huge joke.

Sure it was.

 

[Kal El]

how much would it cost to repair/replace all the "below 50" bridges in America?

Probably less than it would take to settle any subsequent wrongful death lawsuits from the failures of said bridges. An ounce of prevention, as it were.

 

[DiStefano]

We should be spending money on everything. There isn't a single need that shouldn't be met.

The Fed knows how to print money. What could possibly go wrong?