Americans of both major parties say infrastructure has worsened; want more spending

[Cigar]

Well No Sh!t Einstein ... just because The GOP keeps saying NO, doesn't mean The Infrastructure Stops Decaying :rollseyes:


Nearly half of registered U.S. voters think American infrastructure has deteriorated in the last five years, a national poll released on Tuesday found, with Republicans taking the dimmer view.

While the poll showed that a bipartisan majority believes more infrastructure funding would positively affect the economy, those surveyed held different views on the nation's recent infrastructure changes.

Forty-one percent of Democrats said infrastructure has gotten worse over the last five years, while 53 percent of Republicans took that view.

Republican voters tend to be older and male, and Democratic voters younger and more diverse, said Kip Eideberg, vice president of public affairs and advocacy for the Association of Equipment Manufacturers, which commissioned the poll.
"The older voters tend to be more pessimistic and they tend to have a view that it was a lot better in the past, whereas younger voters tend to be more optimistic," Eideberg told Reuters.

The poll surveyed 1,975 registered voters between June 17-20. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-infrastructure-poll-idUSKCN10K0YI

[Mac-7]

We gave obumer almost a trillion dollars in 2008 for shovel ready infastructure jobs.

but he squandered the money on stupid stuff like teaching his relatives in africa how to clean their penis.

[Don]

People do want the eroding infrastructure repaired or replaced. The states and counties and cities used to have plenty of money to build and maintain infrastructure. Now they have to send the money to Washington to be wasted on things other than infrastructure or they have to spend money on Washington mandates. Break that cycle and watch things boom again.

[Bo-4]

Lawrence O'Donnell did a nice segment on the gas tax .. 4.3 cents per gallon and it barely got through under Clinton.

And that was the last one.

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/donald-trump-and-the-value-of-a-nickel-740488259955

That would be the best idea for infrastructure funding - but of course Republicans won't do it even though a majority of their constituents want their crumbling bridges fixed.

Sad :(

[Chris]

The infrastructure illusion (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/7/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-wrong-on-infrastructu/)


Trump and Hillary want to spend more money on public works, and they’re both wrong

https://i.snag.gy/jJyicT.jpg

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump don’t agree on much of anything, but there is one area where they have a meeting of the minds: they both want to spend way more on public works programs. Hillary Clinton says that her primary jobs stimulus will be a massive $275 billion-plus infrastructure spending binge.

Donald Trump one-upped Hillary last week promising to spend twice that amount. He says the money is necessary because of crumbling roads and “bridges that are falling down.”

...If our infrastructure is crumbling, it surely isn’t because the federal government is spending too little money. Public works projects were supposed to be the centerpiece of the Obama $830 billion stimulus bill. We were promised “shovel-ready” jobs. Remember that? But job growth has remained abysmal for seven years. So what happened to all that money? No one in Washington wants to ask or answer.

We now know a lot of the money didn’t even get spent on public works, but got intercepted for projects like the now-bankrupt Solyndra solar energy company and more still for food stamps and welfare programs. Some of President Obama’s spending went to build big white elephants like the $70 billion California high speed rail train from and to nowhere, or low-return investments such as the Washington Metro silver line with at least five cost overruns and almost no riders.

Over Mr. Obama’s presidency, Washington has spent nearly $1 trillion on infrastructure. As the chart shows, this was more money than any other president in history has spent. Amazingly, it cost about $250 billion to build the interstate highway system. Mr. Obama has spent at least three times more than that and we still have what more pot holes in America than jobs.


Throwing good money after bad.

[NapRover]

240,000 Water main breaks/year, the cost $2.6B/year

Much of our water infrastructure is >100 years old and has outlived it's expectancy.

>$1T is needed to correct it, my own opinion is that if the government funds it all, the cost would double.
That's why when Obama, early in his first term, took a trillion of our $$ and squandered it among his crony capitalists, it really made a lot of people mad and dug in to subvert everything else he tried to do. Not to mention the other stuff shoved down our throats that the overwhelming majority of us opposed. If that earned us the "obstructionist" label, so be it.

http://dupress.com/articles/us-aging-water-infrastructure-investment-opportunities/

[Bo-4]

240,000 Water main breaks/year, the cost $2.6B/year

Much of our water infrastructure is >100 years old and has outlived it's expectancy.

>$1T is needed to correct it, my own opinion is that if the government funds it all, the cost would double.
That's why when Obama, early in his first term, took a trillion of our $$ and squandered it among his crony capitalists, it really made a lot of people mad and dug in to subvert everything else he tried to do. Not to mention the other stuff shoved down our throats that the overwhelming majority of us opposed. If that earned us the "obstructionist" label, so be it.

http://dupress.com/articles/us-aging-water-infrastructure-investment-opportunities/

Well in fairness, the Wall Street bailouts were started by Bushie.

Obama would have liked more of it to go to infrastructure - but he was cock-blocked (primary by R's).

[Chris]

Well in fairness, the Wall Street bailouts were started by Bushie.

Obama would have liked more of it to go to infrastructure - but he was cock-blocked (primary by R's).


We will ever be screwed by the government because some want to blame parties.

[Docthehun]

We will ever be screwed by the government because some want to blame parties.

"We have found the enemy and the enemy is us."

We may have record turnout in November, but it will still be a lousy number.

All the bailouts were necessary, even though I have a personal disdain for the practice. Tons of small businesses perished and no one offered them a bailout. As far as "shovel ready" projects go, for all intent and purpose, they don't exist. Around here, funding is already in place by the time the project gets to "shovel ready" status.

But the economy needed Narcan and the really important thing was getting money into the system. It's not hard to argue that much of the money wasn't spent wisely, but there was little time to plan. "Cash for Clunkers" probably was a wash as that immediate inflow resulted in higher used car prices later on, hurting those who typically can only afford to buy in the secondary market. But the bailout, as distasteful as it might have been, kept the boat afloat and that was the goal.

My thought on the infrastructure is that it needs to be a long term plan, twenty years or so. But you still have to pay for it and that means more tax dough. Trump's plan is to sell bonds. They'd have to be Government bonds which adds to the debt. Hillary will just raise taxes. To me, it's six of one, half dozen of another. The real question then becomes, how much do you really care about the infrastructure? Enough to get in your wallet?

[Chris]

I don't think the bail outs were necessary. The government should never have led the banks and others to believe they were too big to fail. The government should long ago have let them fail New banks and companies would arise to replace them if they are necessary, of people value them.

[Docthehun]

I don't think the bail outs were necessary. The government should never have led the banks and others to believe they were too big to fail. The government should long ago have let them fail New banks and companies would arise to replace them if they are necessary, of people value them.

I guess I'm from the school of thought that feels that the really big financial firms are indeed, too big to fail. It would be un-American to force them into a "Ma Bell" split. Big just keeps getting bigger. I read recently that business closures exceeded start-ups. That's not a good sign in my book. Rather than try and breakup the big firms, the Government has attempted to reign them in under a host of new regulations designed to protect the little guy. I see no easy answer, but I do have an idea. Unfortunately, we live in the age of "got to have it now" so my idea is probably "too yesterday".

SUPPORT SMALL LOCAL BUSINESSES!

[Mac-7]

When bush and obama and clinton said "too big to fail" they meant too big to allow it to fail.

because without government intervention some or all of those banks would have dailed,

[Chris]

I guess I'm from the school of thought that feels that the really big financial firms are indeed, too big to fail. It would be un-American to force them into a "Ma Bell" split. Big just keeps getting bigger. I read recently that business closures exceeded start-ups. That's not a good sign in my book. Rather than try and breakup the big firms, the Government has attempted to reign them in under a host of new regulations designed to protect the little guy. I see no easy answer, but I do have an idea. Unfortunately, we live in the age of "got to have it now" so my idea is probably "too yesterday".

SUPPORT SMALL LOCAL BUSINESSES!

At this point they probably are too big to fail just as our government probably is. But the government shouldn't have created such a situation to begin with.

Had GM gone belly up there were buyers at the ready to buy up their plants, parts, sales, etc and start new companies.