Why aren't we spending more billons on infrastructure? (1 Viewer)

[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.

Good thing there's no pain in that.

More pain in being a third world country. You got to pay to play.

 

[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.

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.

Do you think in an interconnected economy your kids and you benefit from other people being productive?

 

[Slapdash]

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.

What do you think about raising the federal gas tax?

 

[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.

Do you think in an interconnected economy your kids and you benefit from other people being productive?

Whether they do or they don't doesn't justify passing them a financial burden they had no input on creating.

 

[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.

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.

We still have corporations paying essentially nothing after making billions. We still have millionaires paying less of a percentage of their income than I do. There is still some room to grow those receipts.

 

[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.

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.

Do you think in an interconnected economy your kids and you benefit from other people being productive?

Whether they do or they don't doesn't justify passing them a financial burden they had no input on creating.

So you want the benefits of other people making money and keeping the economy churning but you don't want to put anything in to get there. Got it.

 

[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.

What do you think about raising the federal gas tax?

As long as the funds go to what they are intended, I'm fine with that.

 

[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.

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.

I was making an overall point. Wouldn't you acknowledge that environmental restrictions and lawsuits impede infrastructure improvements and add enormous costs?

 

[Slapdash]

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.

What do you think about raising the federal gas tax?

As long as the funds go to what they are intended, I'm fine with that.

Cool, just wondering. Seems like we could kill a few birds with that stone.

 

[RCon]

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.

We still have corporations paying essentially nothing after making billions. We still have millionaires paying less of a percentage of their income than I do. There is still some room to grow those receipts.

Meh, I'm not a big fan of corporate taxes anyway. They are just roundabout taxes on the consumer.

Again, though, whether receipts can or should go up is nonresponsive to the obvious fact that ALL reductions in spending cause pain for someone. Unless you're suggesting that all spending, once begun, should continue forever, I assume we're all in favor of eliminating wasteful spending.

 

[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.

More pain in being a third world country. You got to pay to play.

I'm thinking 4th or 5th world, no?

 

[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.

Do you think in an interconnected economy your kids and you benefit from other people being productive?

Whether they do or they don't doesn't justify passing them a financial burden they had no input on creating.

So you want the benefits of other people making money and keeping the economy churning but you don't want to put anything in to get there. Got it.

Biggest leap of a strawman argument I've ever seen.

My issue is with the increased debt based method of accomplishing these things. It's not necessary. And I scoff at your idea that it's either we do it that way or we can't do it at all. That's bull####!

 

[timschochet]

Rich, you obviously take great issue with my views on cutting spending, and that's fine. We've argued it before and we'll argue it again, I'm sure.

But isn't it irresponsible of you to take the position that, until spending is cut to YOUR satisfaction, we can't spend money on infrastructure? Based on the stuff I posted earlier, our infrastructure is in dreadful shape is several areas. Can we really afford to wait on it?

 

[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.

I was making an overall point. Wouldn't you acknowledge that environmental restrictions and lawsuits impede infrastructure improvements and add enormous costs?

I believe there is always going to be tension between unrestrained, unplanned sprawl and the desire to preserve not only the beauty but also the bio-diversity we have been blessed with here. And if it takes a while longer to get something built or if we have to move it to accommodate those goals I'm good with that. Now with that said I don't agree with every lawsuit filed and some seem silly to me. But overall I do think it is valuable in the long term to not just roll over and let them pave everything.

 

[Short Corner]

We spend more on infrastructure than the E.U.

Well yeah. We drive trucks while they ride scooters.

Germany get's more through traffic,ie semis, than any other EU country and the autobahns are pristine while the US freeways are the same old crap. Do it right when you have to and you don't have to keep replacing 6 inches of pavement every 5 years.

 

[Slapdash]

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.

What do you think about raising the federal gas tax?

As long as the funds go to what they are intended, I'm fine with that.

Cool, just wondering. Seems like we could kill a few birds with that stone.

As a follow up, I am wondering what would be a good way to tackle other infrastructure problems that we've mentioned like sewer/water lines or the electrical grid. In terms of a use specific tax, atleast.

 

[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.

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.

Do you think in an interconnected economy your kids and you benefit from other people being productive?

Whether they do or they don't doesn't justify passing them a financial burden they had no input on creating.

So you want the benefits of other people making money and keeping the economy churning but you don't want to put anything in to get there. Got it.

Biggest leap of a strawman argument I've ever seen.

My issue is with the increased debt based method of accomplishing these things. It's not necessary. And I scoff at your idea that it's either we do it that way or we can't do it at all. That's bull####!

You can't run a modern economy the way you fantasize about doing it. And it isn't a strawman. It is the same argument used when people with no kids pay taxes to educate other people's kids and whine.

 

[RCon]

timschochet, on 29 May 2013 - 11:53, said:Rich, you obviously take great issue with my views on cutting spending, and that's fine. We've argued it before and we'll argue it again, I'm sure.But isn't it irresponsible of you to take the position that, until spending is cut to YOUR satisfaction, we can't spend money on infrastructure? Based on the stuff I posted earlier, our infrastructure is in dreadful shape is several areas. Can we really afford to wait on it?

Maybe we can, maybe we can't. But what's truly irresponsible is to burden the next five generations with our debt.You're the one making the argument that we need to increase spending in Area A. Make an argument to reduce spending the same amount in Area B. Or make an argument that we need to specifically raise taxes to pay for the new spending. Don't just suggest that we should throw the new spending on our children.My issue is your cavalier view of "well, we have big debts anyway, so if we can't fix it all at once, might as well just make it worse so we can have instant gratification now". That's irresponsible, and the gall with which you suggest that I'm somehow advocating irresponsible policies is somewhat disturbing.

 

[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.

Good thing there's no pain in that.

More pain in being a third world country. You got to pay to play.

I'm thinking 4th or 5th world, no?

If we are going to be a hell hole may as well be the hellest hole we can be.

 

[timschochet]

Rich, you obviously take great issue with my views on cutting spending, and that's fine. We've argued it before and we'll argue it again, I'm sure.

But isn't it irresponsible of you to take the position that, until spending is cut to YOUR satisfaction, we can't spend money on infrastructure? Based on the stuff I posted earlier, our infrastructure is in dreadful shape is several areas. Can we really afford to wait on it?

Maybe we can, maybe we can't. But what's truly irresponsible is to burden the next five generations with our debt.

You're the one making the argument that we need to increase spending in Area A. Make an argument to reduce spending the same amount in Area B. Don't just suggest that we should throw the new spending on our children.

I just don't believe we can wait around until we are able to reduce enough spending in another area.

Also, while I consider the debt to be very worrisome, I have never fully bought into the argument that we are burdening our children and grandchildren with it. The solution is the same as we have always done in the past: grow the economy so that the debt shrinks by comparison. Fixing our infrastructure seems like it would be a help to this goal.

 

[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.

Do you think in an interconnected economy your kids and you benefit from other people being productive?

Whether they do or they don't doesn't justify passing them a financial burden they had no input on creating.

So you want the benefits of other people making money and keeping the economy churning but you don't want to put anything in to get there. Got it.

Biggest leap of a strawman argument I've ever seen.

My issue is with the increased debt based method of accomplishing these things. It's not necessary. And I scoff at your idea that it's either we do it that way or we can't do it at all. That's bull####!

You can't run a modern economy the way you fantasize about doing it. And it isn't a strawman. It is the same argument used when people with no kids pay taxes to educate other people's kids and whine.

BS!

I'll listen to Thomas Edison and Henry Ford before I ever listen to you.

From: http://publicbankinginstitute.org/muscle-shoals-article.htm

“Then you see no difference between currency and Government bonds? “Mr. Edison was asked.

“Yes, there is a difference, but it is neither the likeness nor the difference that will determine the matter; the attack will be directed against thinking of bonds and currency together and comparing them. If people ever get to thinking of bonds and bills at the same time, the game is up.

“Now, here is Ford proposing to finance Muscle Shoals by an issue of currency. Very will, let us suppose for a moment that Congress follows his proposal. Personally, I don’t think Congress has imagination enough to dot it, but let us suppose that it does. The required sum is authorized –say $30,000,000. The bills are issued directly by the Government as all money ought to be. When the workmen are paid off they receive these United States bills. When the material is bought it is paid in these United States bills. Except that perhaps the bills may have the engraving of the water dam, instead of a railroad train and a ship, as some of the Federal Reserve notes have. They will be the same as any other currency put out by the Government: that is, they will be money. They will be based on the public wealth already in Muscle Shoals, and their circulation will increase that public wealth, not only the public money but the public wealth—real wealth.

“When these bills have answered the purpose of building and completing Muscle Shoals, they will be retired by the earnings of the power dam. That is, the people of the United States will have all that they put into Muscle Shoals and all that they can take out for centuries—the endless wealth-making water power of that great Tennessee River—with no tax and no increase of the national debt.”

“But suppose Congress does not see this, what then?” Mr. Edison was asked.

“Well, Congress must fall back on the old way of doing business. It must authorize an issue of bonds. That is it must go out to the money brokers and borrow enough or our own national currency to complete great national resources, and we then must pay interest to the money brokers for the use of our own money.

“That is to say, under the old way any time we wish to add to the national wealth we are compelled to add to the national debt.

“Now, that is what Henry Ford wants to prevent. He thinks it is stupid, and so do I, that for the loan of $30,000,000 of their own money the people of the United States should be compelled to pay $66,000,000—that is what it amounts to, with interest. People who will not turn a shovelful of dirt nor contribute a pound of material will collect more money from the United States than will the people who supply the material and do the work. That is terrible the terrible thing about interest. In all our great bond issues the interest is always greater than the principal. All of the great public works cost more than twice the actual cost on that account. Under the present system of doing business we simply add 120 to 150 per cent. to the stated cost.

“But here is the point: If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 per cent., whereas the currency pays nobody but those who directly contribute to Muscle Shoals in some useful way.

“If the Government issues bonds it simply induces the money brokers to draw $30,000,000 out of the other channels of trade and turn it into Muscle Shoals: if the Government issues currency, it provides itself with enough to increase the national wealth at Muscle Shoals without disturbing the business of the rest of the country. And in doing this it increase its income without adding a penny to its debt.

“It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30,000,000 in bonds and not $30,000,000 in currency. Both are promises to pay: but one promise fattens the usurer, and the other helps the people.

If the currency issued by the Government were no good, then the bonds issued would be no good either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to increase the national wealth, must go into debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious values of gold.

“Look at it another way. If the Government issues bonds, the brokers will sell them. The bonds will be negotiable: they will be considered as gilt-edged paper. Why? Because the Government is behind them, but who is behind the Government? The people. Therefore it is the people who constitute the basis of Government credit. Why then cannot the people have the benefit of their own gilt-edged credit by receiving non-interest bearing currency on the Muscle Shoals instead of the bankers receiving the benefit of the people’s credit in interest-bearing bonds?”

Says People Must Pay Anyway.

“The people must pay any way: why should they be compelled to pay twice as the bond system compels them to pay? The people of the United States always accept their Government’s currency. If the United States Government will adopt this policy of increasing its national wealth without contributing to the interest collector—for the whole national debt is made up of the interest charges—then you will see an era of progress and prosperity in this country such as could never have come otherwise.”

“Are you going to have anything to do with outlining this proposed policy?” Mr. Edison was asked.

“I am just expressing my opinion as a citizen” he replied. “Ford’s idea is flawless. They won’t like it. They will fight it, but the people of this country ought to take it up and think about it. I believe it points the way to many reforms and achievements which cannot come under the old systems.”

 

[humpback]

As a follow up, I am wondering what would be a good way to tackle other infrastructure problems that we've mentioned like sewer/water lines or the electrical grid. In terms of a use specific tax, atleast.

Any chance we can actually spend the money that is already being raised for these things on them?

 

[NCCommish]

“But here is the point: If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 per cent., whereas the currency pays nobody but those who directly contribute to Muscle Shoals in some useful way.

So now you are for printing money to cover building things? That's what they are calling for here. And as I said that is no way to run a modern economy.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Also, while I consider the debt to be very worrisome, I have never fully bought into the argument that we are burdening our children and grandchildren with it. The solution is the same as we have always done in the past: grow the economy so that the debt shrinks by comparison. Fixing our infrastructure seems like it would be a help to this goal.

Not entirely stable? Well I'm glad you're here to tell us these things! Chewie! Take the Professor in back and plug him into the hyperdrive!

 

[Slapdash]

“But here is the point: If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 per cent., whereas the currency pays nobody but those who directly contribute to Muscle Shoals in some useful way.

So now you are for printing money to cover building things? That's what they are calling for here. And as I said that is no way to run a modern economy.

Why not?

 

[Slapdash]

As a follow up, I am wondering what would be a good way to tackle other infrastructure problems that we've mentioned like sewer/water lines or the electrical grid. In terms of a use specific tax, atleast.

Any chance we can actually spend the money that is already being raised for these things on them?

I would think specific taxes would help make sure that is the case.

 

[RCon]

Rich, you obviously take great issue with my views on cutting spending, and that's fine. We've argued it before and we'll argue it again, I'm sure.

But isn't it irresponsible of you to take the position that, until spending is cut to YOUR satisfaction, we can't spend money on infrastructure? Based on the stuff I posted earlier, our infrastructure is in dreadful shape is several areas. Can we really afford to wait on it?

Maybe we can, maybe we can't. But what's truly irresponsible is to burden the next five generations with our debt.

You're the one making the argument that we need to increase spending in Area A. Make an argument to reduce spending the same amount in Area B. Don't just suggest that we should throw the new spending on our children.

I just don't believe we can wait around until we are able to reduce enough spending in another area.

Also, while I consider the debt to be very worrisome, I have never fully bought into the argument that we are burdening our children and grandchildren with it. The solution is the same as we have always done in the past: grow the economy so that the debt shrinks by comparison. Fixing our infrastructure seems like it would be a help to this goal.

Right, we can't wait! And we don't have time to any reduce spending! And we can't let any single person anywhere experience pain as a result of reduced spending!

We paid more than $200B in interest on the national debt in FY2011. There's $200B annually for infrastructure right there, had we not been all about instant gratification for the past several decades. Previous generations have burdened this one with $200B in annual payments; there's no arguing that.

 

[Kev4029]

We spend more on infrastructure than the E.U.

Well yeah. We drive trucks while they ride scooters.

Germany get's more through traffic,ie semis, than any other EU country and the autobahns are pristine while the US freeways are the same old crap. Do it right when you have to and you don't have to keep replacing 6 inches of pavement every 5 years.

The interstates and highly traveled highways in my neck of the woods are somewhere between 11 inches and 14 inches thick, with between 1 and 2 feet of base course. I would be surprised if Germany is putting down much more than that. The problem we have isn't that our highways aren't meeting their design life but we are expecting them to perform longer than they were designed while maintaining them less than was anticipated.

 

[humpback]

As a follow up, I am wondering what would be a good way to tackle other infrastructure problems that we've mentioned like sewer/water lines or the electrical grid. In terms of a use specific tax, atleast.

Any chance we can actually spend the money that is already being raised for these things on them?

I would think specific taxes would help make sure that is the case.

Do you mean like re-naming them? We already have all sorts of taxes and fees that are supposed to go towards these things. Too many times it doesn't.

 

[Slapdash]

As a follow up, I am wondering what would be a good way to tackle other infrastructure problems that we've mentioned like sewer/water lines or the electrical grid. In terms of a use specific tax, atleast.

Any chance we can actually spend the money that is already being raised for these things on them?

I would think specific taxes would help make sure that is the case.

Do you mean like re-naming them? We already have all sorts of taxes and fees that are supposed to go towards these things. Too many times it doesn't.

What kind of taxes are there for those items at a federal level?

 

[NCCommish]

Rich, you obviously take great issue with my views on cutting spending, and that's fine. We've argued it before and we'll argue it again, I'm sure.

But isn't it irresponsible of you to take the position that, until spending is cut to YOUR satisfaction, we can't spend money on infrastructure? Based on the stuff I posted earlier, our infrastructure is in dreadful shape is several areas. Can we really afford to wait on it?

Maybe we can, maybe we can't. But what's truly irresponsible is to burden the next five generations with our debt.

You're the one making the argument that we need to increase spending in Area A. Make an argument to reduce spending the same amount in Area B. Don't just suggest that we should throw the new spending on our children.

I just don't believe we can wait around until we are able to reduce enough spending in another area.

Also, while I consider the debt to be very worrisome, I have never fully bought into the argument that we are burdening our children and grandchildren with it. The solution is the same as we have always done in the past: grow the economy so that the debt shrinks by comparison. Fixing our infrastructure seems like it would be a help to this goal.

Right, we can't wait! And we don't have time to any reduce spending! And we can't let any single person anywhere experience pain as a result of reduced spending!

We paid more than $200B in interest on the national debt in FY2011. There's $200B annually for infrastructure right there, had we not been all about instant gratification for the past several decades. Previous generations have burdened this one with $200B in annual payments; there's no arguing that.

My guess is some people are benefiting from stuff that was done to incur that debt. Maybe even you.

 

[Politician Spock]

“But here is the point: If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 per cent., whereas the currency pays nobody but those who directly contribute to Muscle Shoals in some useful way.

So now you are for printing money to cover building things? That's what they are calling for here. And as I said that is no way to run a modern economy.

I am for

1) taxing the people to cover government spending

and

2) government issuing the national currency instead of borrowing it into existence with interest due.

Growth of the currency MUST happen. You can't have the currency base stay static in size while the population and economy grows. The amount of currency in circulation MUST grow in size with it.

Given growth of the currency must occur, some mechanism of growth must be in place for that to occur, and #2 is what I am for.

I am opposed to, like Thomas Edison and Henry Ford were oppossed to back in 1920, a mechanism of growing the national currency that forces the US government to borrow the new currency into existance with interest due. What Thomas Edison and Henry Ford were afraid of 93 years ago regarding this type of mechanism is exactly what we are expreincing today. And it is only aggrevated by the US dollar having become the world's reserve currency in the Bretton Woods act of 1944. Because not only did we have to grow the base of US dollars in existance for our own population growth and economic growth, but given the rest of the countries in the world also have population growth and economic growth, the US government has to borrow more and more currency into existance to make sure they are getting enough US dollars in circulation too, or else they would look to alternatives if US dollars became harder and harder to come by. This is called Triffin's dilema. In which Triffin showed why the US would have to continuely let more and more gold out of the country in order for the US dollar to remain the world's reserve currency. When his theorectical dilema came to fruition, Nixon HAD to close the gold window to stop it. And two years later establsihed the PetroDollar to replace it. But that didn't end Triffin's dilema. We still must provide the world with more and more dollars in order to remain the world's reserve currency. Which means we must net export dollars. Or in other words, run a trade deficit. We must consume more in imports than we create for exporting. Which is why we have done this for more than four decades straight now. We have to. Our currency system requires this.

If we went back to 1920, and did what Edison and Ford wanted to do, we would not be in the situation we are in right now. We are paying the interest on WWII still today. We are paying the interest on the Korean War still today. We are paying the interest on the Vietnam War still today. We are paying the interest on the Gulf War still today. Wehther it's war, or building a bridge, this method of increasing the currency base requires our kids, and their kids, and their kids, to pay the interest due on that currency creation. And it is completely unncessary as the currency can be expanded by the government issuing a note and the people using that note as currency. If the government can issue a dollar bond, then it can issue a dollar bill.

 

[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.

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.

20+ years of lawsuits where they looked for every single little thing to fight it with. Heck, one of the lawsuits at one point was to stop building it to save a certain specie of mussels.

another argument was that it would ruin the scenic view.. here is a rendering of what the new bridge will look like.. On the left side of the photo you can see the lovely smoke stack that you get to look at right now.. Damn the builders for wanting to block that beautiful view.

There are times environmentalist are correct and are fighting for the good of the country..

But in this case it became a selling point for the Sierra Club to walk around with a proclaiming how powerful they were, instead of actually trying to help the situation.

 

[humpback]

As a follow up, I am wondering what would be a good way to tackle other infrastructure problems that we've mentioned like sewer/water lines or the electrical grid. In terms of a use specific tax, atleast.

Any chance we can actually spend the money that is already being raised for these things on them?

I would think specific taxes would help make sure that is the case.

Do you mean like re-naming them? We already have all sorts of taxes and fees that are supposed to go towards these things. Too many times it doesn't.

What kind of taxes are there for those items at a federal level?

Oh, do you want all of these projects done by the federal government?

Either way, my point is that we are already paying various taxes and fees that are supposed to go towards infrastructure improvements. I really don't see how shifting those from local to federal would change much.

 

[timschochet]

Rich, you obviously take great issue with my views on cutting spending, and that's fine. We've argued it before and we'll argue it again, I'm sure.

But isn't it irresponsible of you to take the position that, until spending is cut to YOUR satisfaction, we can't spend money on infrastructure? Based on the stuff I posted earlier, our infrastructure is in dreadful shape is several areas. Can we really afford to wait on it?

Maybe we can, maybe we can't. But what's truly irresponsible is to burden the next five generations with our debt.

You're the one making the argument that we need to increase spending in Area A. Make an argument to reduce spending the same amount in Area B. Don't just suggest that we should throw the new spending on our children.

I just don't believe we can wait around until we are able to reduce enough spending in another area.

Also, while I consider the debt to be very worrisome, I have never fully bought into the argument that we are burdening our children and grandchildren with it. The solution is the same as we have always done in the past: grow the economy so that the debt shrinks by comparison. Fixing our infrastructure seems like it would be a help to this goal.

Right, we can't wait! And we don't have time to any reduce spending! And we can't let any single person anywhere experience pain as a result of reduced spending!

We paid more than $200B in interest on the national debt in FY2011. There's $200B annually for infrastructure right there, had we not been all about instant gratification for the past several decades. Previous generations have burdened this one with $200B in annual payments; there's no arguing that.

Look, no matter how many times you rephrase it, your argument seems to be: "I am opposed to spending money on infrastructure until we cut spending elsewhere, etc." And I find that irresponsible.

 

[Slapdash]

As a follow up, I am wondering what would be a good way to tackle other infrastructure problems that we've mentioned like sewer/water lines or the electrical grid. In terms of a use specific tax, atleast.

Any chance we can actually spend the money that is already being raised for these things on them?

I would think specific taxes would help make sure that is the case.

Do you mean like re-naming them? We already have all sorts of taxes and fees that are supposed to go towards these things. Too many times it doesn't.

What kind of taxes are there for those items at a federal level?

Oh, do you want all of these projects done by the federal government?

Either way, my point is that we are already paying various taxes and fees that are supposed to go towards infrastructure improvements. I really don't see how shifting those from local to federal would change much.

I'm just asking questions. Evidently local governments are not keeping their infrastructure up to snuff in these areas.

 

[NCCommish]

“But here is the point: If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 per cent., whereas the currency pays nobody but those who directly contribute to Muscle Shoals in some useful way.

So now you are for printing money to cover building things? That's what they are calling for here. And as I said that is no way to run a modern economy.

I am for

1) taxing the people to cover government spending

and

2) government issuing the national currency instead of borrowing it into existence with interest due.

Growth of the currency MUST happen. You can't have the currency base stay static in size while the population and economy grows. The amount of currency in circulation MUST grow in size with it.

Given growth of the currency must occur, some mechanism of growth must be in place for that to occur, and #2 is what I am for.

I am opposed to, like Thomas Edison and Henry Ford were oppossed to back in 1920, a mechanism of growing the national currency that forces the US government to borrow the new currency into existance with interest due. What Thomas Edison and Henry Ford were afraid of 93 years ago regarding this type of mechanism is exactly what we are expreincing today. And it is only aggrevated by the US dollar having become the world's reserve currency in the Bretton Woods act of 1944. Because not only did we have to grow the base of US dollars in existance for our own population growth and economic growth, but given the rest of the countries in the world also have population growth and economic growth, the US government has to borrow more and more currency into existance to make sure they are getting enough US dollars in circulation too, or else they would look to alternatives if US dollars became harder and harder to come by. This is called Triffin's dilema. In which Triffin showed why the US would have to continuely let more and more gold out of the country in order for the US dollar to remain the world's reserve currency. When his theorectical dilema came to fruition, Nixon HAD to close the gold window to stop it. And two years later establsihed the PetroDollar to replace it. But that didn't end Triffin's dilema. We still must provide the world with more and more dollars in order to remain the world's reserve currency. Which means we must net export dollars. Or in other words, run a trade deficit. We must consume more in imports than we create for exporting. Which is why we have done this for more than four decades straight now. We have to. Our currency system requires this.

If we went back to 1920, and did what Edison and Ford wanted to do, we would not be in the situation we are in right now. We are paying the interest on WWII still today. We are paying the interest on the Korean War still today. We are paying the interest on the Vietnam War still today. We are paying the interest on the Gulf War still today. Wehther it's war, or building a bridge, this method of increasing the currency base requires our kids, and their kids, and their kids, to pay the interest due on that currency creation. And it is completely unncessary as the currency can be expanded by the government issuing a note and the people using that note as currency. If the government can issue a dollar bond, then it can issue a dollar bill.

I wonder if we can find an example from the 20's of a country that followed that advice? Why yes we can. It was Weimar Republic. Rather than borrow they printed money to cover their spending and debts. I am sure you know how well that ended up working.

 

[Politician Spock]

“But here is the point: If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 per cent., whereas the currency pays nobody but those who directly contribute to Muscle Shoals in some useful way.

So now you are for printing money to cover building things? That's what they are calling for here. And as I said that is no way to run a modern economy.

I am for

1) taxing the people to cover government spending

and

2) government issuing the national currency instead of borrowing it into existence with interest due.

Growth of the currency MUST happen. You can't have the currency base stay static in size while the population and economy grows. The amount of currency in circulation MUST grow in size with it.

Given growth of the currency must occur, some mechanism of growth must be in place for that to occur, and #2 is what I am for.

I am opposed to, like Thomas Edison and Henry Ford were oppossed to back in 1920, a mechanism of growing the national currency that forces the US government to borrow the new currency into existance with interest due. What Thomas Edison and Henry Ford were afraid of 93 years ago regarding this type of mechanism is exactly what we are expreincing today. And it is only aggrevated by the US dollar having become the world's reserve currency in the Bretton Woods act of 1944. Because not only did we have to grow the base of US dollars in existance for our own population growth and economic growth, but given the rest of the countries in the world also have population growth and economic growth, the US government has to borrow more and more currency into existance to make sure they are getting enough US dollars in circulation too, or else they would look to alternatives if US dollars became harder and harder to come by. This is called Triffin's dilema. In which Triffin showed why the US would have to continuely let more and more gold out of the country in order for the US dollar to remain the world's reserve currency. When his theorectical dilema came to fruition, Nixon HAD to close the gold window to stop it. And two years later establsihed the PetroDollar to replace it. But that didn't end Triffin's dilema. We still must provide the world with more and more dollars in order to remain the world's reserve currency. Which means we must net export dollars. Or in other words, run a trade deficit. We must consume more in imports than we create for exporting. Which is why we have done this for more than four decades straight now. We have to. Our currency system requires this.

If we went back to 1920, and did what Edison and Ford wanted to do, we would not be in the situation we are in right now. We are paying the interest on WWII still today. We are paying the interest on the Korean War still today. We are paying the interest on the Vietnam War still today. We are paying the interest on the Gulf War still today. Wehther it's war, or building a bridge, this method of increasing the currency base requires our kids, and their kids, and their kids, to pay the interest due on that currency creation. And it is completely unncessary as the currency can be expanded by the government issuing a note and the people using that note as currency. If the government can issue a dollar bond, then it can issue a dollar bill.

I wonder if we can find an example from the 20's of a country that followed that advice? Why yes we can. It was Weimar Republic. Rather than borrow they printed money to cover their spending and debts. I am sure you know how well that ended up working.

Whether the currency base is grown through the government issuing the currency into existance or borrowing the currency into existance, growing the currency base too fast has disasterous consequences. As does growing the currency base too slowly. The collapse in Weimar is because the currency base grew too fast, not because of how the currency comes into existance.

 

[humpback]

As a follow up, I am wondering what would be a good way to tackle other infrastructure problems that we've mentioned like sewer/water lines or the electrical grid. In terms of a use specific tax, atleast.

Any chance we can actually spend the money that is already being raised for these things on them?

I would think specific taxes would help make sure that is the case.

Do you mean like re-naming them? We already have all sorts of taxes and fees that are supposed to go towards these things. Too many times it doesn't.

What kind of taxes are there for those items at a federal level?

Oh, do you want all of these projects done by the federal government?

Either way, my point is that we are already paying various taxes and fees that are supposed to go towards infrastructure improvements. I really don't see how shifting those from local to federal would change much.

I'm just asking questions. Evidently local governments are not keeping their infrastructure up to snuff in these areas.

No doubt, I'm just saying that I don't see how that would change if we start taxing for these things at the federal level instead. They are just going to take the money and give it back to the states (which is what they do with most of it now).

 

[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.

What do you think about raising the federal gas tax?

As long as the funds go to what they are intended, I'm fine with that.

Cool, just wondering. Seems like we could kill a few birds with that stone.

As a follow up, I am wondering what would be a good way to tackle other infrastructure problems that we've mentioned like sewer/water lines or the electrical grid. In terms of a use specific tax, atleast.

There are taxes on utility bills. If the repairs are necessary and underfunded, increase the taxes on the bills and use that new tax revenue appropriately.

 

[Politician Spock]

“But here is the point: If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 per cent., whereas the currency pays nobody but those who directly contribute to Muscle Shoals in some useful way.

So now you are for printing money to cover building things? That's what they are calling for here. And as I said that is no way to run a modern economy.

Why not?

A documentary created in 2009, that won "Best Documentary" award in 2010, goes into detail as to why we SHOULD run a modern economy on the way Thomas Edison and Henry Ford suggested, which nccommish has concluded is "no way to run a modern economy".

It's called the Secret of Oz:

The explanation of the symbolism within the Wizard of Oz is interesting enough on it's own to watch the movie.

The producer of the movie also did a four hour documentary on government issued currency being a basis for modern economy about 15 years ago. It's called The Money Masters. If you do a google search, you can find it.

Perhaps nccommish can provide four hours of video presentation making his opposing case to answer your question. I doubt it thuogh.

 

[gandalas]

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 costs a lot to give free medical care, schooling, and all sorts of other social services to Illegals. Something has to give. You made your choice.

Calculate up the total costs for all those social services, and then get back to me.

I've posted them before. You're welcome to go back and find them.

When exactly did you post them? I looked back through all your posts for the past 8 months, and did not see anything like that, and anything much older than that is not really very accurate any longer.

Don't really have a dog in this fight, but if you want to tell someone they are wrong, then tell them why.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=user_activity&mid=22107&search_app=forums&userMode=content&sid=5430925c8c775dce49b16243915ca50a&search_app_filters[forums][searchInKey]=&search_app_filters[forums][sortKey]=date&st=200

 

[RCon]

Rich, you obviously take great issue with my views on cutting spending, and that's fine. We've argued it before and we'll argue it again, I'm sure.

But isn't it irresponsible of you to take the position that, until spending is cut to YOUR satisfaction, we can't spend money on infrastructure? Based on the stuff I posted earlier, our infrastructure is in dreadful shape is several areas. Can we really afford to wait on it?

Maybe we can, maybe we can't. But what's truly irresponsible is to burden the next five generations with our debt.

You're the one making the argument that we need to increase spending in Area A. Make an argument to reduce spending the same amount in Area B. Don't just suggest that we should throw the new spending on our children.

I just don't believe we can wait around until we are able to reduce enough spending in another area.

Also, while I consider the debt to be very worrisome, I have never fully bought into the argument that we are burdening our children and grandchildren with it. The solution is the same as we have always done in the past: grow the economy so that the debt shrinks by comparison. Fixing our infrastructure seems like it would be a help to this goal.

Right, we can't wait! And we don't have time to any reduce spending! And we can't let any single person anywhere experience pain as a result of reduced spending!

We paid more than $200B in interest on the national debt in FY2011. There's $200B annually for infrastructure right there, had we not been all about instant gratification for the past several decades. Previous generations have burdened this one with $200B in annual payments; there's no arguing that.

Look, no matter how many times you rephrase it, your argument seems to be: "I am opposed to spending money on infrastructure until we cut spending elsewhere, etc." And I find that irresponsible.

My argument is "I am opposed to deficit spending because that is irresponsible". You want new spending? At least have the balls to advocate new taxes to pay for it. Don't tell me I'm being irresponsible when your best suggestion is "I want something now, but I want your children to pay for it later".

I understand the whole "spend when times are bad, save when times are good" thing, and I understand that deficit spending isn't always bad, but it has become clear that the saving when times are good never happens. I understand that something along the lines of a balanced budget amendment isn't a good idea, but I'm beginning to think it's significantly better than the alternative.

 

[E Street Brat]

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.

Has this been authenticated by the proper death panels?

 

[StrikeS2k]

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 costs a lot to give free medical care, schooling, and all sorts of other social services to Illegals. Something has to give. You made your choice.

Calculate up the total costs for all those social services, and then get back to me.

I've posted them before. You're welcome to go back and find them.

When exactly did you post them? I looked back through all your posts for the past 8 months, and did not see anything like that, and anything much older than that is not really very accurate any longer.

Don't really have a dog in this fight, but if you want to tell someone they are wrong, then tell them why.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=user_activity&mid=22107&search_app=forums&userMode=content&sid=5430925c8c775dce49b16243915ca50a&search_app_filters[forums][searchInKey]=&search_app_filters[forums][sortKey]=date&st=200

Tim and I have been discussing immigration policy for years, not months. He knows I've posted a boatload of links to the costs of illegals. and Tim NEVER posts links. I always do to support my position. However, I don't feel compelled to do so repeatedly, especially for Tim who has already seen them.

 

[DiStefano]

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.

 

[Politician Spock]

“But here is the point: If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 per cent., whereas the currency pays nobody but those who directly contribute to Muscle Shoals in some useful way.

So now you are for printing money to cover building things? That's what they are calling for here. And as I said that is no way to run a modern economy.

Why not?

A documentary created in 2009, that won "Best Documentary" award in 2010, goes into detail as to why we SHOULD run a modern economy on the way Thomas Edison and Henry Ford suggested, which nccommish has concluded is "no way to run a modern economy".

It's called the Secret of Oz:

At the 1:01:00 mark in the video above comes this quote:

"[We} must keep the people busy with political antagonisms.

“We'll therefore speed up the question of reform in the custom rates by the political organization called the Democratic Party; and we'll put the spotlight on the question of protection and of the reciprocity by the Republican Party.

“By dividing the electorate this way, we'll be able to have them spend their energies at struggling amongst themselves on questions that, for us, have no importance whatsoever, and on which we only touch upon as instructors of the common flock.

“It is thus that, through discreet acts, we can maintain what was so generously projected and executed with such a remarkable success.”

- Published in "United States Bankers' Magazine" in 1892

Ever wonder why so many banks fund both candidates in an election? And why neither party ever suggests monetary reform as a political issue, despite how frequent and how important monetary policy/reform was to the common man through the majority of US history (until the two political parties and the media became as influencial as they are now)? And why the Senate will never allow the Audit the Fed bill to even be considered on the Senate Floor despite it passing overwhelmingly in the House? And why the US has ONLY two parties, despite so many other countries having more than two? And why congress talks about reducing the national debt, but never does anything about it? Etc, etc...

It is because the banks run the two parties, so that the people will never be able to elect enough representation to challenge the banks' power to create our nation's currency with interest due. This was a constant and significant battle that common people discussed in depth with their families, friends and neighbors, for the first 125 to 150 years of this country. But ever since the banks successfully implemented the above, we're too consumed with partisan issues to even consider changing the power of money creation in this country. It protects the banks from their power to create our currency ever being challenged by the people. The best way to protect that power is to compell the people to talk about something else.... like OH MY GOSH, OH MY GOSH, OH MY GOSH, bridgers could fail if we don't borrow trillions of more dollars into existence... WITH INTEREST DUE!

I know some will call this conspiracy theory. I don't care. There is far more than enough evidence that common people frequently discussed what is money, where does it come from, who should control it, etc, etc... as a signficant political issue for the vast majority of the birth of this country. But people don't talk about it anymore. I'd be willing to consider other theories as to why we don't talk about it anymore, but the fact we don't talk about it anymore in this country is a big reason why our country is so ####ed up right now.

 

[timschochet]

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 costs a lot to give free medical care, schooling, and all sorts of other social services to Illegals. Something has to give. You made your choice.

Calculate up the total costs for all those social services, and then get back to me.

I've posted them before. You're welcome to go back and find them.

When exactly did you post them? I looked back through all your posts for the past 8 months, and did not see anything like that, and anything much older than that is not really very accurate any longer.

Don't really have a dog in this fight, but if you want to tell someone they are wrong, then tell them why.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=user_activity&mid=22107&search_app=forums&userMode=content&sid=5430925c8c775dce49b16243915ca50a&search_app_filters[forums][searchInKey]=&search_app_filters[forums][sortKey]=date&st=200

Tim and I have been discussing immigration policy for years, not months. He knows I've posted a boatload of links to the costs of illegals. and Tim NEVER posts links. I always do to support my position. However, I don't feel compelled to do so repeatedly, especially for Tim who has already seen them.

What Strike writes here is largely true. I don't agree much with either his sources or his conclusions, but he has been very good about links. His comment that I never post links is false, however.

 

[Bull Dozier]

“But here is the point: If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 per cent., whereas the currency pays nobody but those who directly contribute to Muscle Shoals in some useful way.

So now you are for printing money to cover building things? That's what they are calling for here. And as I said that is no way to run a modern economy.

Why not?

A documentary created in 2009, that won "Best Documentary" award in 2010, goes into detail as to why we SHOULD run a modern economy on the way Thomas Edison and Henry Ford suggested, which nccommish has concluded is "no way to run a modern economy".

It's called the Secret of Oz:

Honest question. Are there other countries with plurality voting that have more than 2 significant parties? I think our system of government is a bigger cause for the two parties than the banking system. We've had two parties for the vast majority of our history. Those two parties have changed only under extreme circumstances, and third parties have risen briefly, only for specific issues. That's not because of the banking system, but because of how our system elects representatives.

 

[Slapdash]

“But here is the point: If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 per cent., whereas the currency pays nobody but those who directly contribute to Muscle Shoals in some useful way.

So now you are for printing money to cover building things? That's what they are calling for here. And as I said that is no way to run a modern economy.

Why not?

A documentary created in 2009, that won "Best Documentary" award in 2010, goes into detail as to why we SHOULD run a modern economy on the way Thomas Edison and Henry Ford suggested, which nccommish has concluded is "no way to run a modern economy".

It's called the Secret of Oz:

I completely agree with you about the influence banks exert on the political process, despite not for the reasons you state.

But I don't understand what you're saying the connection is between the Federal Government issuing debt and the Federal Reserve's monetary policy. Outside of that question, it sounds like your beef is with fractional reserve banking. Is that accurate?