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

[Politician Spock]

Estimated cost to replace the bridge span: $2.8 million.

Final cost after all is said and done (adjusting for government experience in these things): $14.6 million.

I use government experience in the Big Dig.

"The project was originally scheduled to be completed in 1998 at an estimated cost of $2.8 billion However, the project was completed only in December 2007, at a cost of over $14.6 billion.(The Boston Globe estimated that the project will ultimately cost $22 billion, including interest, and that it will not be paid off until 2038)."

Let's suppose your numbers are absolutely accurate and there's nothing we can do about it. What would the cost be if we do nothing and then there's an accident? 20 million? 30? And THEN we'll have to go back and replace the bridge span anyhow. Might as well do it now.

Replacing anything before it has reached its useful lifespan is more expensive than getting its useful lifespan before replacing it. If you put a new roof on your house, which should have a useful lifespan of 20 years, and decide to replace it after 12 years because "might as well do it now", you'll spend a lot more on maintaining the roof of your house.

Fear is always a great way to get tax payers to want the government to spend more than it needs to. Over 40,000 people per year die in automobile accidents, yet people don't think twice about the risk they take putting their kids in the car every single day. But OH MY GOSH, OH MY GOSH, OH MY GOSH, someone might be killed by a bridge unless we spend hundreds of billions of dollars right now to avoid it!!!

Did you bother to read the report I posted earlier? We're at the end of useful lifespan here.

You mean the report put together by a group of people who would get billions in new business in their industry if tax payers are convinced to let government spend billions more than we are already spending in the industry. Yes, I read it.

Here in Colorado our state DOT puts together a list of all the structurally deficient bridges, I don't think the state stands to make any money doing by pushing the bridges in poor condition into construction.

And they did the right thing to fund the work. From the site:

The Colorado Bridge Enterprise (CBE) was formed in 2009 as part of the FASTER (Funding Advancement for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery) legislation. It operates as a government-owned business within the Colorado Department of Transportation. The Colorado Transportation Commission serves as the Colorado Bridge Enterprise Board.

The purpose of the CBE is to finance, repair, reconstruct and replace bridges designated as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, and rated “poor."

In order to accomplish this goal, a bridge safety surcharge ranging from $13 to $32 has been imposed on vehicle registration based upon vehicle weight. Revenues from the bridge safety surcharge fee are phased in over a three-year period, and are estimated to generate approximately $100 million in annual funding.

 

[timschochet]

After having just committed a trillion dollars to a stimulus package and "shovel ready" jobs a few short years ago, this is disgraceful.

Why does everything always have to be an attack on Obama? It's so tiresome and has nothing to do with the issue I raised.

You asked why we aren't spending billions, and I pointed out that we've spent that and more. Whether the problem is Obama, or systemic, you've apparently already drawn your conclusion.

My question was meant to be rhetorical in that I was making an argument that we should spend the money. Are you seriously saying that we should ignore our very real problems with infrastructure because Obama screwed up the stimulus?

 

[pantagrapher]

After having just committed a trillion dollars to a stimulus package and "shovel ready" jobs a few short years ago, this is disgraceful.

Yeah, economy has really tanked since then.

It wasn't an argument about economics.

What is it with you guys?

Soooo, what was disgraceful about it?

 

[pantagrapher]

After having just committed a trillion dollars to a stimulus package and "shovel ready" jobs a few short years ago, this is disgraceful.

Why does everything always have to be an attack on Obama? It's so tiresome and has nothing to do with the issue I raised.

You asked why we aren't spending billions, and I pointed out that we've spent that and more. Whether the problem is Obama, or systemic, you've apparently already drawn your conclusion.

My question was meant to be rhetorical in that I was making an argument that we should spend the money. Are you seriously saying that we should ignore our very real problems with infrastructure because Obama screwed up the stimulus?

Using the fact that Obama didn't pass a big enough stimulus bill to rationalize not spending more on infrastructure is silly.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

We spend more on infrastructure than the E.U.

We are significantly less densely populated than most of Europe. Building and maintaining infrastructure across a large country like ours is much more expensive than somewhere like the Netherlands where their population density is 10x what ours is.

That's a decent point but the largest part of our population is concentrated on the coasts and that's where it appears most of our infrastructure is located as well.

And it's not like we spend just a little more. It's a lot. 3.3% of GDP vs 3.1%. Additionally, there's this:

Consider another hitch. OECD infrastructure experts find that Europe has too much supply of roads and rail relative to the demand. Yes, they have trains departing every few minutes, but half empty, and do Germans really need five different Autobahns to drive from Munich to Frankfurt? The same OECD experts find that the U.S., Canada, and Australia have built about the amount of infrastructure that fits the demand.

 

[snogger]

There is the other argument.. areas try to fix/replace existing bridges, only to run into the Sierra Club and other environmentalist that fight it for years and years. Thus cities and states end up spending money to fight the lawsuits that might have been better used elsewhere.

Case in point, The St. Croix bridge in Stillwater, MN was built in 1931 and has been in talks to be replaced for over 20 years. The Sierra Club and others have fought the replacement with many, many lawsuits..

Never mind the fact that during the summer hundreds of cars are lined up daily trying to cross the lift bridge, thereby polluting the same area they are suppose to be protecting.

 

[Kev4029]

We spend more on infrastructure than the E.U.

We are significantly less densely populated than most of Europe. Building and maintaining infrastructure across a large country like ours is much more expensive than somewhere like the Netherlands where their population density is 10x what ours is.

That's a decent point but the largest part of our population is concentrated on the coasts and that's where it appears most of our infrastructure is located as well.

And it's not like we spend just a little more. It's a lot. 3.3% of GDP vs 3.1%. Additionally, there's this:

>

Consider another hitch. OECD infrastructure experts find that Europe has too much supply of roads and rail relative to the demand. Yes, they have trains departing every few minutes, but half empty, and do Germans really need five different Autobahns to drive from Munich to Frankfurt? The same OECD experts find that the U.S., Canada, and Australia have built about the amount of infrastructure that fits the demand.

The federal government subsidizes the highway and interstate system, so I would assume that the more densely populated states are helping fund the less densely populated states.

I would also assume that our safety regulations and environmental regulations keep us from getting as much out of our money than just about anywhere in the world, including Europe. The cost of environmental studies on large projects prior to design is absolutely ridiculous and the growing cost of storm water management (keeping sentiment from rivers/storm sewers) is climbing to more than 10% of a project's construction budget in many cases.

 

[FlapJacks]

After having just committed a trillion dollars to a stimulus package and "shovel ready" jobs a few short years ago, this is disgraceful.

Why does everything always have to be an attack on Obama? It's so tiresome and has nothing to do with the issue I raised.

You asked why we aren't spending billions, and I pointed out that we've spent that and more. Whether the problem is Obama, or systemic, you've apparently already drawn your conclusion.

My question was meant to be rhetorical in that I was making an argument that we should spend the money. Are you seriously saying that we should ignore our very real problems with infrastructure because Obama screwed up the stimulus?

I'm saying that it's not a spending issue, it's an allocation issue.

 

[NCCommish]

We spend more on infrastructure than the E.U.

Well yeah. We drive trucks while they ride scooters.

Well actually once again we need to review our talking points:

But modern America is stingier. Total public spending on transport and water infrastructure has fallen steadily since the 1960s and now stands at 2.4% of GDP. Europe, by contrast, invests 5% of GDP in its infrastructure, while China is racing into the future at 9%. America's spending as a share of GDP has not come close to European levels for over 50 years.

The Economist

 

[NCCommish]

BTW I take the Economist over Forbes every day of the week.

 

[pantagrapher]

After having just committed a trillion dollars to a stimulus package and "shovel ready" jobs a few short years ago, this is disgraceful.

Why does everything always have to be an attack on Obama? It's so tiresome and has nothing to do with the issue I raised.

You asked why we aren't spending billions, and I pointed out that we've spent that and more. Whether the problem is Obama, or systemic, you've apparently already drawn your conclusion.

My question was meant to be rhetorical in that I was making an argument that we should spend the money. Are you seriously saying that we should ignore our very real problems with infrastructure because Obama screwed up the stimulus?

I'm saying that it's not a spending issue, it's an allocation issue.

Should have only funded FlapJacks-approved projects.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

We spend more on infrastructure than the E.U.

Well yeah. We drive trucks while they ride scooters.

Well actually once again we need to review our talking points:

>But modern America is stingier. Total public spending on transport and water infrastructure has fallen steadily since the 1960s and now stands at 2.4% of GDP. Europe, by contrast, invests 5% of GDP in its infrastructure, while China is racing into the future at 9%. America's spending as a share of GDP has not come close to European levels for over 50 years.

The Economist

Someone's numbers are wrong.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

BTW I take the Economist over Forbes every day of the week.

Forbes was quoting OECD.

 

[FlapJacks]

After having just committed a trillion dollars to a stimulus package and "shovel ready" jobs a few short years ago, this is disgraceful.

Why does everything always have to be an attack on Obama? It's so tiresome and has nothing to do with the issue I raised.

You asked why we aren't spending billions, and I pointed out that we've spent that and more. Whether the problem is Obama, or systemic, you've apparently already drawn your conclusion.

My question was meant to be rhetorical in that I was making an argument that we should spend the money. Are you seriously saying that we should ignore our very real problems with infrastructure because Obama screwed up the stimulus?

I'm saying that it's not a spending issue, it's an allocation issue.

Should have only funded FlapJacks-approved projects.

We'd be a lot better offf if we did

 

[Politician Spock]

We spend more on infrastructure than the E.U.

Well yeah. We drive trucks while they ride scooters.

Well actually once again we need to review our talking points:

>But modern America is stingier. Total public spending on transport and water infrastructure has fallen steadily since the 1960s and now stands at 2.4% of GDP. Europe, by contrast, invests 5% of GDP in its infrastructure, while China is racing into the future at 9%. America's spending as a share of GDP has not come close to European levels for over 50 years.

The Economist

My response to Andy was a joke.

 

[pantagrapher]

After having just committed a trillion dollars to a stimulus package and "shovel ready" jobs a few short years ago, this is disgraceful.

Why does everything always have to be an attack on Obama? It's so tiresome and has nothing to do with the issue I raised.

You asked why we aren't spending billions, and I pointed out that we've spent that and more. Whether the problem is Obama, or systemic, you've apparently already drawn your conclusion.

My question was meant to be rhetorical in that I was making an argument that we should spend the money. Are you seriously saying that we should ignore our very real problems with infrastructure because Obama screwed up the stimulus?

I'm saying that it's not a spending issue, it's an allocation issue.

Should have only funded FlapJacks-approved projects.

We'd be a lot better offf if we did

Bridge to FlapJacks.

 

[NCCommish]

BTW I take the Economist over Forbes every day of the week.

Forbes was quoting OECD.

Although America still builds roads with enthusiasm, according to the OECD's International Transport Forum, it spends considerably less than Europe on maintaining them. In 2006 America spent more than twice as much per person as Britain on new construction; but Britain spent 23% more per person maintaining its roads.

From the article I linked

 

[Andy Dufresne]

BTW I take the Economist over Forbes every day of the week.

Forbes was quoting OECD.

>Although America still builds roads with enthusiasm, according to the OECD's International Transport Forum, it spends considerably less than Europe on maintaining them. In 2006 America spent more than twice as much per person as Britain on new construction; but Britain spent 23% more per person maintaining its roads.

From the article I linked

The link I have still says we're outspending them on a GDP comparison basis. 3.37% vs 3.1%

 

[Slapdash]

Funny

After having just committed a trillion dollars to a stimulus package and "shovel ready" jobs a few short years ago, this is disgraceful.

Why does everything always have to be an attack on Obama? It's so tiresome and has nothing to do with the issue I raised.

You asked why we aren't spending billions, and I pointed out that we've spent that and more. Whether the problem is Obama, or systemic, you've apparently already drawn your conclusion.

My question was meant to be rhetorical in that I was making an argument that we should spend the money. Are you seriously saying that we should ignore our very real problems with infrastructure because Obama screwed up the stimulus?

Using the fact that Obama didn't pass a big enough stimulus bill to rationalize not spending more on infrastructure is silly.

I guess conservatives would have prefered us to allocate the 35% of the stimulus that was used up in tax cuts on infrastructure. Funny, I seem to remember hearing the opposite from Republicans in Congress while the ARRA was being debated.

 

[Politician Spock]

BTW I take the Economist over Forbes every day of the week.

Forbes was quoting OECD.

>Although America still builds roads with enthusiasm, according to the OECD's International Transport Forum, it spends considerably less than Europe on maintaining them. In 2006 America spent more than twice as much per person as Britain on new construction; but Britain spent 23% more per person maintaining its roads.

From the article I linked

Having a lot of century old bridges and not a lot of country to build new bridges within would produce those numbers.

 

[Slapdash]

Do rail lines cost a lot to maintain?

 

[Slapdash]

We spend more on infrastructure than the E.U.

Well yeah. We drive trucks while they ride scooters.

Well actually once again we need to review our talking points:

>But modern America is stingier. Total public spending on transport and water infrastructure has fallen steadily since the 1960s and now stands at 2.4% of GDP. Europe, by contrast, invests 5% of GDP in its infrastructure, while China is racing into the future at 9%. America's spending as a share of GDP has not come close to European levels for over 50 years.

The Economist

Pretty soon their GDP is going to be larger than ours anyways, it is amazing the pace they are moderinzing at.

 

[NCCommish]

BTW I take the Economist over Forbes every day of the week.

Forbes was quoting OECD.

>Although America still builds roads with enthusiasm, according to the OECD's International Transport Forum, it spends considerably less than Europe on maintaining them. In 2006 America spent more than twice as much per person as Britain on new construction; but Britain spent 23% more per person maintaining its

roads.

From the article I linked

The link I have still says we're outspending them on a GDP comparison basis. 3.37% vs 3.1%

And mine says they spend 5 to our 3. Like I said I'll take the Economist over Forbes. Always. Even when they make me rethink a position. Which they have.

 

[FlapJacks]

We spend more on infrastructure than the E.U.

Well yeah. We drive trucks while they ride scooters.

Well actually once again we need to review our talking points:

>But modern America is stingier. Total public spending on transport and water infrastructure has fallen steadily since the 1960s and now stands at 2.4% of GDP. Europe, by contrast, invests 5% of GDP in its infrastructure, while China is racing into the future at 9%. America's spending as a share of GDP has not come close to European levels for over 50 years.

The Economist

is percent of GDP the proper ratio? If we add in per capita, per sqare mile and other ratios, we may get a fuller picture.

 

[NCCommish]

We spend more on infrastructure than the E.U.

Well yeah. We drive trucks while they ride scooters.

Well actually once again we need to review our talking points:

>But modern America is stingier. Total public spending on transport and water infrastructure has fallen steadily since the 1960s and now stands at 2.4% of GDP. Europe, by contrast, invests 5% of GDP in its infrastructure, while China is racing into the future at 9%. America's spending as a share of GDP has not come close to European levels for over 50 years.

The Economist

Pretty soon their GDP is going to be larger than ours anyways, it is amazing the pace they are moderinzing at.

They have to navigate a huge bubble of their own so we'll see how that goes not to mention the rapid graying of their population. America is set to have the youngest workforce in the world in the next decade or two. China is killing their workforce with the one child rule. it isn't written in stone they surpass us.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

BTW I take the Economist over Forbes every day of the week.

Forbes was quoting OECD.

>Although America still builds roads with enthusiasm, according to the OECD's International Transport Forum, it spends considerably less than Europe on maintaining them. In 2006 America spent more than twice as much per person as Britain on new construction; but Britain spent 23% more per person maintaining its

roads.From the article I linked

The link I have still says we're outspending them on a GDP comparison basis. 3.37% vs 3.1%

And mine says they spend 5 to our 3. Like I said I'll take the Economist over Forbes. Always. Even when they make me rethink a position. Which they have.

Dude. The link isn't Forbes. It's OECD.

And anyway, all I'm saying is someone has their numbers wrong. I'm not even saying it's you or I as all we're doing is citing sources. In this case, it's two sources citing the same source with different interpretations.

 

[NCCommish]

We spend more on infrastructure than the E.U.

Well yeah. We drive trucks while they ride scooters.

Well actually once again we need to review our talking points:

>But modern America is stingier. Total public spending on transport and water infrastructure has fallen steadily since the 1960s and now stands at 2.4% of GDP. Europe, by contrast, invests 5% of GDP in its infrastructure, while China is racing into the future at 9%. America's spending as a share of GDP has not come close to European levels for over 50 years.

The Economist

is percent of GDP the proper ratio? If we add in per capita, per sqare mile and other ratios, we may get a fuller picture.

We were comparing the EU as a whole to the US. So GDP seems appropriate. I did include some per capita numbers in the discussion as well.

 

[Slapdash]

We spend more on infrastructure than the E.U.

Well yeah. We drive trucks while they ride scooters.

Well actually once again we need to review our talking points:

>But modern America is stingier. Total public spending on transport and water infrastructure has fallen steadily since the 1960s and now stands at 2.4% of GDP. Europe, by contrast, invests 5% of GDP in its infrastructure, while China is racing into the future at 9%. America's spending as a share of GDP has not come close to European levels for over 50 years.

The Economist

Pretty soon their GDP is going to be larger than ours anyways, it is amazing the pace they are moderinzing at.

They have to navigate a huge bubble of their own so we'll see how that goes not to mention the rapid graying of their population. America is set to have the youngest workforce in the world in the next decade or two. China is killing their workforce with the one child rule. it isn't written in stone they surpass us.

Sure they have issues, but they will have a larger economy than the US by the end of the decade no doubt.

 

[Joe T]

After having just committed a trillion dollars to a stimulus package and "shovel ready" jobs a few short years ago, this is disgraceful.

Yeah, economy has really tanked since then.

The sequester is killing it.

 

[Joe T]

After having just committed a trillion dollars to a stimulus package and "shovel ready" jobs a few short years ago, this is disgraceful.

Why does everything always have to be an attack on Obama? It's so tiresome and has nothing to do with the issue I raised.

You asked why we aren't spending billions, and I pointed out that we've spent that and more. Whether the problem is Obama, or systemic, you've apparently already drawn your conclusion.

Pretty good posting here. You didn't mention Obama. Tim did.

 

[NCCommish]

BTW I take the Economist over Forbes every day of the week.

Forbes was quoting OECD.

>Although America still builds roads with enthusiasm, according to the OECD's International Transport Forum, it spends considerably less than Europe on maintaining them. In 2006 America spent more than twice as much per person as Britain on new construction; but Britain spent 23% more per person maintaining its

roads.From the article I linked

The link I have still says we're outspending them on a GDP comparison basis. 3.37% vs 3.1%

And mine says they spend 5 to our 3. Like I said I'll take the Economist over Forbes. Always. Even when they make me rethink a position. Which they have.

Dude. The link isn't Forbes. It's OECD.

And anyway, all I'm saying is someone has their numbers wrong. I'm not even saying it's you or I as all we're doing is citing sources. In this case, it's two sources citing the same source with different interpretations.

Right it's Forbes interpretation versus the Economists interpretation. I understand both are citing the OECD. I was merely saying whose interpretation I put more stock in. Especially given the Forbes author and some of his previous "analysis".

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Right it's Forbes interpretation versus the Economists interpretation. I understand both are citing the OECD. I was merely saying whose interpretation I put more stock in. Especially given the Forbes author and some of his previous "analysis".

No it's not. The Forbes article links to a paper from OECD and it's on that paper that the numbers for '06-'11 show that we spend more as a percentage of GDP than the EU by a ratio of 3.37% to 3.07%.

It's raw data. There's no "interpretation" being done by Forbes.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Whatever. None of that changes that I agree we probably could be spending more/more wisely on our infrastructure needs than we are.

And we probably could shrink the defense budget considerably. I'd love to wean a lot of the world off their dependency on us for their own defense.

 

[NCCommish]

Whatever. None of that changes that I agree we probably could be spending more/more wisely on our infrastructure needs than we are.

And we probably could shrink the defense budget considerably. I'd love to wean a lot of the world off their dependency on us for their own defense.

I'm with you here. And if there wasn't some arguing it wouldn't be the FFA. You know I got nothing but love for ya man.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Whatever. None of that changes that I agree we probably could be spending more/more wisely on our infrastructure needs than we are.

And we probably could shrink the defense budget considerably. I'd love to wean a lot of the world off their dependency on us for their own defense.

I'm with you here. And if there wasn't some arguing it wouldn't be the FFA. You know I got nothing but love for ya man.

 

[Christo]

Whatever. None of that changes that I agree we probably could be spending more/more wisely on our infrastructure needs than we are.

And we probably could shrink the defense budget considerably. I'd love to wean a lot of the world off their dependency on us for their own defense.

I'm with you here. And if there wasn't some arguing it wouldn't be the FFA. You know I got nothing but love for ya man.

Adrian Peterson thinks this could change his mind.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Adrian Peterson thinks this could change his mind.

AP says lots of crazy stuff.

 

[NCCommish]

Whatever. None of that changes that I agree we probably could be spending more/more wisely on our infrastructure needs than we are.

And we probably could shrink the defense budget considerably. I'd love to wean a lot of the world off their dependency on us for their own defense.

I'm with you here. And if there wasn't some arguing it wouldn't be the FFA. You know I got nothing but love for ya man.

 

[NCCommish]

Whatever. None of that changes that I agree we probably could be spending more/more wisely on our infrastructure needs than we are.

And we probably could shrink the defense budget considerably. I'd love to wean a lot of the world off their dependency on us for their own defense.

I'm with you here. And if there wasn't some arguing it wouldn't be the FFA. You know I got nothing but love for ya man.

Adrian Peterson thinks this could change his mind.

AP is such a scamp.

 

[Politician Spock]

After having just committed a trillion dollars to a stimulus package and "shovel ready" jobs a few short years ago, this is disgraceful.

Why does everything always have to be an attack on Obama? It's so tiresome and has nothing to do with the issue I raised.

You asked why we aren't spending billions, and I pointed out that we've spent that and more. Whether the problem is Obama, or systemic, you've apparently already drawn your conclusion.

Pretty good posting here. You didn't mention Obama. Tim did.

Of course Tim did. Donald Trump mentioned money today too.

 

[Rich Conway]

Back to the original topic, the answer is obviously yes, we should be spending more on infrastructure. I'm pretty well convinced we should be spending more wisely as well. I can see highway funds getting wasted pretty regularly on projects that don't need doing.

The point is that unless you just want to print more money, that extra spending needs to come from something else. The OP seems to think that the only items we can shrink are defense, Social Security, and Medicare, while all other spending can be enlarged without consequence, and that's just not true. In addition, the OP seems to be against any reductions in spending that "cause real pain", without realizing that all reductions will cause pain to someone, even "well thought out reductions to defense, Social Security, and Medicare". For example, that tank that the army doesn't want or need? Of course we shouldn't buy it, but even if Congress manages to get over themselves and do what's right (i.e. not buy the tank the army doesn't want), someone is going to lose his/her job and experience "real pain".

 

[timschochet]

There is the other argument.. areas try to fix/replace existing bridges, only to run into the Sierra Club and other environmentalist that fight it for years and years. Thus cities and states end up spending money to fight the lawsuits that might have been better used elsewhere.

Case in point, The St. Croix bridge in Stillwater, MN was built in 1931 and has been in talks to be replaced for over 20 years. The Sierra Club and others have fought the replacement with many, many lawsuits..

Never mind the fact that during the summer hundreds of cars are lined up daily trying to cross the lift bridge, thereby polluting the same area they are suppose to be protecting.

Excellent point. There has got to be a way to streamline some of this environmentalist stuff - its coating us a fortune, and preventing progress.

 

[Kev4029]

Do rail lines cost a lot to maintain?

Commuter rail, light rail, whatever rail are highly subsidized by the government and on a per user basis they are WAY more expensive to maintain and operate than our highway systems.

 

[NCCommish]

Back to the original topic, the answer is obviously yes, we should be spending more on infrastructure. I'm pretty well convinced we should be spending more wisely as well. I can see highway funds getting wasted pretty regularly on projects that don't need doing.

The point is that unless you just want to print more money, that extra spending needs to come from something else. The OP seems to think that the only items we can shrink are defense, Social Security, and Medicare, while all other spending can be enlarged without consequence, and that's just not true. In addition, the OP seems to be against any reductions in spending that "cause real pain", without realizing that all reductions will cause pain to someone, even "well thought out reductions to defense, Social Security, and Medicare". For example, that tank that the army doesn't want or need? Of course we shouldn't buy it, but even if Congress manages to get over themselves and do what's right (i.e. not buy the tank the army doesn't want), someone is going to lose his/her job and experience "real pain".

Or we could do something crazy like raise taxes. We already collect less taxes than all but two OECD member nations.

 

[Rich Conway]

Back to the original topic, the answer is obviously yes, we should be spending more on infrastructure. I'm pretty well convinced we should be spending more wisely as well. I can see highway funds getting wasted pretty regularly on projects that don't need doing.

The point is that unless you just want to print more money, that extra spending needs to come from something else. The OP seems to think that the only items we can shrink are defense, Social Security, and Medicare, while all other spending can be enlarged without consequence, and that's just not true. In addition, the OP seems to be against any reductions in spending that "cause real pain", without realizing that all reductions will cause pain to someone, even "well thought out reductions to defense, Social Security, and Medicare". For example, that tank that the army doesn't want or need? Of course we shouldn't buy it, but even if Congress manages to get over themselves and do what's right (i.e. not buy the tank the army doesn't want), someone is going to lose his/her job and experience "real pain".

Or we could do something crazy like raise taxes. We already collect less taxes than all but two OECD member nations.

Didn't we just raise taxes? Actually, I'm not necessarily against further tax increases, but I'd like to see some indication that government has the ability to curb its spending problems first.

Regardless, my point was that we should all be in favor of eliminating wasteful spending, even though we recognize that someone will be harmed every single time. Using "someone will experience real pain" as an excuse not to reduce spending is a terrible argument.

 

[humpback]

Back to the original topic, the answer is obviously yes, we should be spending more on infrastructure. I'm pretty well convinced we should be spending more wisely as well. I can see highway funds getting wasted pretty regularly on projects that don't need doing.

The point is that unless you just want to print more money, that extra spending needs to come from something else. The OP seems to think that the only items we can shrink are defense, Social Security, and Medicare, while all other spending can be enlarged without consequence, and that's just not true. In addition, the OP seems to be against any reductions in spending that "cause real pain", without realizing that all reductions will cause pain to someone, even "well thought out reductions to defense, Social Security, and Medicare". For example, that tank that the army doesn't want or need? Of course we shouldn't buy it, but even if Congress manages to get over themselves and do what's right (i.e. not buy the tank the army doesn't want), someone is going to lose his/her job and experience "real pain".

Or we could do something crazy like raise taxes. We already collect less taxes than all but two OECD member nations.

Good thing there's no pain in that.

 

[Kev4029]

Back to the original topic, the answer is obviously yes, we should be spending more on infrastructure. I'm pretty well convinced we should be spending more wisely as well. I can see highway funds getting wasted pretty regularly on projects that don't need doing.

If there are really project that you are finding wasteful, I would guess there are two answers to why they are happening. Either you are wrong and they are necessary or there are considerable funds coming from a nearby development (big malls/shopping centers or big residential developments often throw money around to build new interchanges or expand nearby corridors) or local government (county or city). Not all the bridges or roads that you see being built or expanded are with state or federal funds, even if its on a state or federal highway. There are some many projects that need to be done that rarely, if ever, is your state going to spend money on something that is either structurally deficient or can't meet traffic needs any longer.

 

[Joe T]

Back to the original topic, the answer is obviously yes, we should be spending more on infrastructure. I'm pretty well convinced we should be spending more wisely as well. I can see highway funds getting wasted pretty regularly on projects that don't need doing.

The point is that unless you just want to print more money, that extra spending needs to come from something else. The OP seems to think that the only items we can shrink are defense, Social Security, and Medicare, while all other spending can be enlarged without consequence, and that's just not true. In addition, the OP seems to be against any reductions in spending that "cause real pain", without realizing that all reductions will cause pain to someone, even "well thought out reductions to defense, Social Security, and Medicare". For example, that tank that the army doesn't want or need? Of course we shouldn't buy it, but even if Congress manages to get over themselves and do what's right (i.e. not buy the tank the army doesn't want), someone is going to lose his/her job and experience "real pain".

Or we could do something crazy like raise taxes. We already collect less taxes than all but two OECD member nations.

Good thing there's no pain in that.

lol :great####ingpost:

 

[Politician Spock]

Back to the original topic, the answer is obviously yes, we should be spending more on infrastructure. I'm pretty well convinced we should be spending more wisely as well. I can see highway funds getting wasted pretty regularly on projects that don't need doing.

The point is that unless you just want to print more money, that extra spending needs to come from something else. The OP seems to think that the only items we can shrink are defense, Social Security, and Medicare, while all other spending can be enlarged without consequence, and that's just not true. In addition, the OP seems to be against any reductions in spending that "cause real pain", without realizing that all reductions will cause pain to someone, even "well thought out reductions to defense, Social Security, and Medicare". For example, that tank that the army doesn't want or need? Of course we shouldn't buy it, but even if Congress manages to get over themselves and do what's right (i.e. not buy the tank the army doesn't want), someone is going to lose his/her job and experience "real pain".

Or we could do something crazy like raise taxes. We already collect less taxes than all but two OECD member nations.

I don't think that is crazy at all. What Colorado did in the link above is the right thing to do. The $100 million being spent by Colorado to fix and maintain bridges is being paid for by Colorado residents registering their cars and vehicles and paying the tax to fix the bridges. The people who will use the fixed and maintained bridges are the ones who are paying the cost.... LIKE THEY SHOULD. I don't support the method of the Federal government issuing more bonds to pay for the improvement making my kids, and their kids, and their kids pay interest on the costs of today's work for the rest of their lives.

 

[NCCommish]

There is the other argument.. areas try to fix/replace existing bridges, only to run into the Sierra Club and other environmentalist that fight it for years and years. Thus cities and states end up spending money to fight the lawsuits that might have been better used elsewhere.

Case in point, The St. Croix bridge in Stillwater, MN was built in 1931 and has been in talks to be replaced for over 20 years. The Sierra Club and others have fought the replacement with many, many lawsuits..

Never mind the fact that during the summer hundreds of cars are lined up daily trying to cross the lift bridge, thereby polluting the same area they are suppose to be protecting.

Excellent point. There has got to be a way to streamline some of this environmentalist stuff - its coating us a fortune, and preventing progress.

The Stillwater bridge had it's groundbreaking yesterday I believe. And the fight was over the fact that what they wanted to replace it with was a huge interstate bridge. Which they ended up doing. It does run over a federally protected part of the river. No one was objecting to replacing the bridge or even the location. They were objecting to not replacing it with something similar in scope.