Are we really too cheap to maintian and improve this country.

[James D Hill]

So what is it all you right wing cheapskates want to do? Your side is always so patriotic and have a strong belief in American being the greatest country in the world yet you do not want to pay to maintain it. Did Eisenhower worry about cost when the interstate highway system was built? Did JFK worry about cost when he wanted to go to the moon? Did Reagan worry about cost when he drove the USSR into the ground by outspending them. If these fiscal hawks where in power then nothing would have been done.

The fact is our infrastructure is in need of repair. We could employ thousands who would may income tax and increase revenue because of better paying jobs. There is no excuse for American companies not to hire Americans and pay them a fair wage, increase revenue and make this country a truly first rate nation. You know the ones who take care of their own people. Are we really too cheap to do the right things?

 

[ocean515]

So what is it all you right wing cheapskates want to do? Your side is always so patriotic and have a strong belief in American being the greatest country in the world yet you do not want to pay to maintain it. Did Eisenhower worry about cost when the interstate highway system was built? Did JFK worry about cost when he wanted to go to the moon? Did Reagan worry about cost when he drove the USSR into the ground by outspending them. If these fiscal hawks where in power then nothing would have been done.

The fact is our infrastructure is in need of repair. We could employ thousands who would may income tax and increase revenue because of better paying jobs. There is no excuse for American companies not to hire Americans and pay them a fair wage, increase revenue and make this country a truly first rate nation. You know the ones who take care of their own people. Are we really too cheap to do the right things?

Hey JD.

Hey, it's not that we're too cheap, it's you're too expensive. How about we stop spending $10's of billions on people who are here illegally, and start spending on those infrastructure jobs you're whining about?

By the way, have the unstuck the TBM under Seattle yet? Talk about waste.

 

[Baralis]

This may be the one time I actually agree with JD. I think we overspend in some areas while neglecting other important areas.


Having said that I will say our highway construction/repair from my observation seems to be very inefficient with its resources. I know in my area road work is bid on by the local companies but all of those companies are unionized and we could probably get the work done for a lot less. Between the much higher than average pay (for area jobs) along with hiring 6 workers to fill a pothole (5 to stand around while 1 works lol) they cost the taxpayer far more than they should imo.

 

[ttwtt78640]

This may be the one time I actually agree with JD. I think we overspend in some areas while neglecting other important areas.


Having said that I will say our highway construction/repair from my observation seems to be very inefficient with its resources. I know in my area road work is bid on by the local companies but all of those companies are unionized and we could probably get the work done for a lot less. Between the much higher than average pay (for area jobs) along with hiring 6 workers to fill a pothole (5 to stand around while 1 works lol) they cost the taxpayer far more than they should imo.

You can thank the Davis-Bacon act for requiring those "scale" (i.e. union) wages.

 

[Bigfoot 88]

Offsetting spending is not a hard concept.

 

[James D Hill]

Hey JD.

Hey, it's not that we're too cheap, it's you're too expensive. How about we stop spending $10's of billions on people who are here illegally, and start spending on those infrastructure jobs you're whining about?

By the way, have the unstuck the TBM under Seattle yet? Talk about waste.

You are right about that giant drill that's stuck. Hey if we want to remain a first class country we have to pay for it. All this austerity talk will return us to dirt roads like in Oklahoma. I do think it is time to employ and pay American workers so they can pay more tax's and increase revenue. I frankly don't care if it is private companies or government. Yes I said the evil word for you conservatives. Government. If American business is too cheap to hire and pay then it is government at the state or federal level. People will pay into our social services and generate revue either way. Everything will work with a employed and well paid America. Until that happens these stupid Austerity wars will continue.

 

[James D Hill]

This may be the one time I actually agree with JD. I think we overspend in some areas while neglecting other important areas.


Having said that I will say our highway construction/repair from my observation seems to be very inefficient with its resources. I know in my area road work is bid on by the local companies but all of those companies are unionized and we could probably get the work done for a lot less. Between the much higher than average pay (for area jobs) along with hiring 6 workers to fill a pothole (5 to stand around while 1 works lol) they cost the taxpayer far more than they should imo.

Hey. Those people are earning good pay and paying income tax. That generate revenue and pays the bills. Isn't that what we really need?

 

[James D Hill]

Offsetting spending is not a hard concept.

That depends what you want to slash and burn. I say hire Americans and pay them well and everything else will work.

 

[eohrnberger]

Put me down on the side that would insist on more 'intelligent' (wise, frugal, efficient and effective) spending from the government.

I'd be inclined to spend more on the needed infrastructure maintenance and development over say, ObamaPhones and free birth control and the like.

Of course, there are some who would claim that eliminating the free birth control and spending on infrastructure would be someone's 'war on women' (that's false).

As usual, it's done my committee, and you get 'done by committee' results, which is spending more than the value you get.

There's no such thing as a bottomless money pit, i.e. the tax payers are not a bottomless money pit for the government to fleece.

 

[James D Hill]

Put me down on the side that would insist on more 'intelligent' (wise, frugal, efficient and effective) spending from the government.

I'd be inclined to spend more on the needed infrastructure maintenance and development over say, ObamaPhones and free birth control and the like.

Of course, there are some who would claim that eliminating the free birth control and spending on infrastructure would be someone's 'war on women' (that's false).

As usual, it's done my committee, and you get 'done by committee' results, which is spending more than the value you get.

There's no such thing as a bottomless money pit, i.e. the tax payers are not a bottomless money pit for the government to fleece.

The reason we are having fiscal problems is not food stamps, Obama phones or WIC programs. The problem is not enough good jobs and people paying into the system. American business has become harsh and nasty over the years towards workers. They have shipped millions of good paying jobs overseas and replaced them with low paying service jobs that don't even get people off food stamps. Part of that is on the right wing because they go to bat for business every time they get held accountable. Just look at their hatred of unions and the NLRB. They undermine revenue then bitch about all the lazy people who are hurting in the economy they endorse.

 

[Fearandloathing]

So what is it all you right wing cheapskates want to do? Your side is always so patriotic and have a strong belief in American being the greatest country in the world yet you do not want to pay to maintain it. Did Eisenhower worry about cost when the interstate highway system was built? Did JFK worry about cost when he wanted to go to the moon? Did Reagan worry about cost when he drove the USSR into the ground by outspending them. If these fiscal hawks where in power then nothing would have been done.

The fact is our infrastructure is in need of repair. We could employ thousands who would may income tax and increase revenue because of better paying jobs. There is no excuse for American companies not to hire Americans and pay them a fair wage, increase revenue and make this country a truly first rate nation. You know the ones who take care of their own people. Are we really too cheap to do the right things?

You make it all sound so simple, and the fault of one side of the same playing card.

Eisenhower build the interstate highway system during the biggest boom the country had ever seen. At the time, the "space race" was seen a necessary for military purposes. Reagan too had a robust economy with rising wages and jobs, jobs, jobs.

And all of that was before the first war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the war on terror and the most costly bail out in the history of the United States that failed. And then there was the second Iraq war and now maybe a third.

It is also interesting to note that you turn, like every good leftist, to the low hanging fruit of infrastructure building. Have you forgotten that's been tried? There was this "shovel ready" thing? Where billions were spent and so few jobs were created the Commander in Chief joked that "er, ha, ha, ha, shovel ready, hee, chuckle, wasn't as shovel ready as we thought har, har."

With socialists at the helm you will never see the completion of a highways system, a space race or putting Russia in its place. What you will get is the program in Seattle, $13 million to pay workers to re-insulate poor peoples homes. They spent a year and all the money meeting and discussing how to do that...the only jobs created were the already employed poverty pimps.

Infrastructure building does not fix an economy, it is a very expensive band aid that usually results in a bridge to some politician's vacation home.

 

[jamesrage]

You are right about that giant drill that's stuck. Hey if we want to remain a first class country we have to pay for it. All this austerity talk will return us to dirt roads like in Oklahoma. I do think it is time to employ and pay American workers so they can pay more tax's and increase revenue. I frankly don't care if it is private companies or government. Yes I said the evil word for you conservatives. Government. If American business is too cheap to hire and pay then it is government at the state or federal level. People will pay into our social services and generate revue either way. Everything will work with a employed and well paid America. Until that happens these stupid Austerity wars will continue.

How is government generating revenue if it is the one paying for all these decent wage jobs?

 

[Hard Truth]

The reason we are having fiscal problems is not food stamps, Obama phones or WIC programs. The problem is not enough good jobs and people paying into the system. American business has become harsh and nasty over the years towards workers. They have shipped millions of good paying jobs overseas and replaced them with low paying service jobs that don't even get people off food stamps. Part of that is on the right wing because they go to bat for business every time they get held accountable. Just look at their hatred of unions and the NLRB. They undermine revenue then bitch about all the lazy people who are hurting in the economy they endorse.

Don't forget the outrageous "defense" spending.

 

[imagep]

You make it all sound so simple, and the fault of one side of the same playing card.

Eisenhower build the interstate highway system during the biggest boom the country had ever seen. At the time, the "space race" was seen a necessary for military purposes. Reagan too had a robust economy with rising wages and jobs, jobs, jobs.

You ever wonder if it wasn't infrastructure spending that allowed us to have the biggest boom we have ever seen? You don't understand that Reagan had rising wages because of inflation, and that jobs were created by his spending spree?

Infrastructure building does not fix an economy...

So you believe that we would have a better economy if we didn't have roads? Really?

Our businesses would thrive if we didn't have an educated workforce?

 

[imagep]

How is government generating revenue if it is the one paying for all these decent wage jobs?

By expanding our tax base.

Of course back when we were creating the interstate highway system, our top tax rate was much higher than it is today, and our deficits were much lower. Maybe we should return to that.

 

[jamesrage]

By expanding our tax base.

You do realize the government is taking a hit for every person employed by the government? If Uncle Sam is paying you $50,000 a year and hypothetically you get taxed 25%, the government is losing $37,500 a year to employ you. So the government is not making any revenue by employing people.

Of course back when we were creating the interstate highway system, our top tax rate was much higher than it is today, and our deficits were much lower. Maybe we should return to that.

Our top tax might have been higher, but there was also a lot more deductions one was allowed to take.

 

[imagep]

You do realize the government is taking a hit for every person employed by the government? If Uncle Sam is paying you $50,000 a year and hypothetically you get taxed 25%, the government is losing $37,500 a year to employ you. So the government is not making any revenue by employing people.

It is increasing revenue when the private sector expands due to the infrastructure that government provided.

Do you think that our private sector would be as large and productive if we had never built the Hoover Damn, or the interstate highway system, or if we didn't have a military, or public education?

It's called "investment", and it's what allows our economy to expand.

That one $50k job directly created by government isn't the only job that results. Over time, that investment will result in lot's of job creation, the vast majority being private sector. Expansion of the private sector may not be in the same year that the public sector investment is made, but that's why we call it "investment", and that's part of the reason that our government borrows part of it's funding, just like most private sector companies do.

Point me to one country on the face of this earth that has a booming private sector that also has a government that doesn't create any infrastructure. Is it the Congo? Somalia? Where?

And yes, we had more deductions and loop holes, but the effective marginal tax rate was still far higher than it was today. How do you think we were able to afford expensive infrastructure projects back then? And the tax investment paid off for the rich, they became even richer.

Taxation is an expense, but business expenses are also investments, ones that increase the bottom line. When I purchase a new piece of equipment for my company, it's an expense, but that doesn't bother me a bit, as it is an expense that will increase my bottom line in the future. When I purchase advertising, it's an expense, but it increases my bottom line. When I pay an employee, it's an expense, but I make a profit off that employees work.

When BMW decided to build a plant a few miles from my business, the government provided them with certain infrastructure that they needed to make the plant viable. Without that, they couldn't have made the plant work. In turn, it's thousands of employees pay state and federal income taxes, and sales and property tax. Over time, this tax revenue far exceeds the initial cost of the infrastucture that our government invested in. The government even built a new bridge over the interstate, expanded our local airport (longer runways to accomadate air freight planes), built an "inland port" to check in shipments from Germany though customs, and ran an underground pipeline from a nearby garbage dump to the plant to supply them with methane to use for fuel. This plant is now the largest BMW plant in the world. Right here in the USA - imagine that.

Same with our Boeing plant, and our Amazon.com distribution centers. There was an upfront public sector investment, which has or will pay off many times over. Such investments can actually lead to LOWER taxes long term.

What it comes down to is do you prefer no government investment and lots of poverty/welfare/unemployment, or do you prefer government investment and prosperity?

 

[beerftw]

This may be the one time I actually agree with JD. I think we overspend in some areas while neglecting other important areas.


Having said that I will say our highway construction/repair from my observation seems to be very inefficient with its resources. I know in my area road work is bid on by the local companies but all of those companies are unionized and we could probably get the work done for a lot less. Between the much higher than average pay (for area jobs) along with hiring 6 workers to fill a pothole (5 to stand around while 1 works lol) they cost the taxpayer far more than they should imo.

speaking of union workers,we have some busy roads in texas that have been under construction over a year,with lanes blocked with cones yet zero progress is made,while i watched another road done by a different company get done in 3 days.its sad when a company can do more in one day than another could do in a year.

 

[lizzie]

The fact is our infrastructure is in need of repair. We could employ thousands who would may income tax and increase revenue because of better paying jobs. There is no excuse for American companies not to hire Americans and pay them a fair wage, increase revenue and make this country a truly first rate nation. You know the ones who take care of their own people. Are we really too cheap to do the right things?

Between welfare, ss, health care, and medicare, we have our plates pretty damn full with things to pay for. THen there is military (one of the few actual federally mandated expenditures), which eats up a sizeable chunk. Something has to suffer, and God knows it won't be social welfare programs.

 

[vesper]

So what is it all you right wing cheapskates want to do? Your side is always so patriotic and have a strong belief in American being the greatest country in the world yet you do not want to pay to maintain it. Did Eisenhower worry about cost when the interstate highway system was built? Did JFK worry about cost when he wanted to go to the moon? Did Reagan worry about cost when he drove the USSR into the ground by outspending them. If these fiscal hawks where in power then nothing would have been done.

The fact is our infrastructure is in need of repair. We could employ thousands who would may income tax and increase revenue because of better paying jobs. There is no excuse for American companies not to hire Americans and pay them a fair wage, increase revenue and make this country a truly first rate nation. You know the ones who take care of their own people. Are we really too cheap to do the right things?

How many hundreds of millions were earmarked to infrastructure in the two stimulus bills Obama and the Democrats passed before 2010? You know all those damn shovel ready jobs that turned out to be not so shovel ready?

Until everyone has to pay their fair share, don't be asking for another dime. Almost 50% of folks in this country don't pay a dime of federal income tax yet they use the bridges, highways and by-ways daily. And all the money being budgeted for border security which at the moment isn't producing much in the way of border security at all these folks don't pay a dime toward. No we ain't getting any bangs for our bucks these days. But by golly we can purchase airline tickets, provide transportation, housing, food, clothing, medical treatment for those walking across our borders illegally.

When someone is made accountable in how the People's money is being fecklessly spent, don't ask for another damn dime.

 

[Sabanist]

The reason we are having fiscal problems is not food stamps, Obama phones or WIC programs. The problem is not enough good jobs and people paying into the system. American business has become harsh and nasty over the years towards workers. They have shipped millions of good paying jobs overseas and replaced them with low paying service jobs that don't even get people off food stamps. Part of that is on the right wing because they go to bat for business every time they get held accountable. Just look at their hatred of unions and the NLRB. They undermine revenue then bitch about all the lazy people who are hurting in the economy they endorse.

Do you think the existence of labor unions encourage businesses to stay put or move over seas.

 

[imagep]

How many hundreds of millions were earmarked to infrastructure in the two stimulus bills Obama and the Democrats passed before 2010? You know all those damn shovel ready jobs that turned out to be not so shovel ready?

The spendulous bill was horribly planned, and even more horribly managed. I'll give ya that.

Until everyone has to pay their fair share, don't be asking for another dime. Almost 50% of folks in this country don't pay a dime of federal income tax yet they use the bridges, highways and by-ways daily....

Everyone pays taxes of some sort. Many of those who don't pay income taxes work and produce at a bargain price for the rest of us. If someone is willing to cook my supper for $7.25/hr, then I say let them have at it. I prefer to work for a decent wage. But what's the point of taxing people at all for working and being productive? Any time you tax something, you get less of it. So why the HELL we chose to tax people for working, I dunno.

You guys shouldn't be complaining that 47% of us don't pay enough in taxes, you should be complaining that 52% of us pay too much in taxes. Exactly when was it that conservatives started thinking that we don't pay enough in taxes?

All that said, the logical solution would be to lure people off of welfare by phasing it out, and phasing IN more infrastructure creation jobs. We either pay people to sit their arses at home, or we can pay them to work and be productive and to build things that will expand our national wealth and create private sector jobs. It's a choice, a tradeoff. I think that the best choice in this tradeoff is obvious.

 

[The Baron]

So what is it all you right wing cheapskates want to do? Your side is always so patriotic and have a strong belief in American being the greatest country in the world yet you do not want to pay to maintain it.

Oh, it’s not a matter of not maintaining it. It’s a matter of priorities. Do we want to repair our bridges or do we want to continue support a growing welfare system, illegal immigrants, AIDS awareness campaigns (everybody knows how you get it so why are we still explaining it to people?), etc.

I only get paid so much money and right now the government takes half? At what point does it become forced servitude?

Did Eisenhower worry about cost when the interstate highway system was built? Did JFK worry about cost when he wanted to go to the moon? Did Reagan worry about cost when he drove the USSR into the ground by outspending them. If these fiscal hawks where in power then nothing would have been done.

Left to themselves the states could have built the highway system more cheaply and never involved the federal government--who does nothing well. JFK and Reagan both lowered taxes to bring in more tax dollars. You want more money for the fed? Lower taxes. Works everytime.

The fact is our infrastructure is in need of repair. We could employ thousands who would may income tax and increase revenue because of better paying jobs.

Typical clueless liberal. This is called “stealing from Peter to pay Paul”. And at some point…Peter gets pissed.

There is no excuse for American companies not to hire Americans and pay them a fair wage…

And yet liberals won’t secure the border?

…increase revenue and make this country a truly first rate nation. You know the ones who take care of their own people. Are we really too cheap to do the right things?

Typical…senseless…liberal…rant…

Nothing less than simple ignorance on parade.

 

[imagep]

Do you think the existence of labor unions encourage businesses to stay put or move over seas.

Private sector labor unions have been loosing membership for longer than outsourcing has been common place. So I wouldn't neccesarily blame labor unions for outsourcing.

Companies that move overseas typically do it because of lower labor rates, but also for more lax worker and environmental protections in general.

Textiles used to be king in my state, now there are virtually no textile jobs at all. Yet labor unions are and have always been rare here, and are not given special powers by our state (we are a right to work state). Textiles move out of my state for a variety of reasons, one of them being that the jobs really sucked, and as we became more prosperous, fewer workers here really wanted to work in terrible working conditions for low wages.

Hey, if someone somewhere else wants to work for 35¢ an hour, let them have at it. I can find something better to do with my time and labor and effort.

 

[vesper]

The spendulous bill was horribly planned, and even more horribly managed. I'll give ya that.



Everyone pays taxes of some sort. Many of those who don't pay income taxes work and produce at a bargain price for the rest of us. If someone is willing to cook my supper for $7.25/hr, then I say let them have at it. I prefer to work for a decent wage. But what's the point of taxing people at all for working and being productive? Any time you tax something, you get less of it. So why the HELL we chose to tax people for working, I dunno.

You guys shouldn't be complaining that 47% of us don't pay enough in taxes, you should be complaining that 52% of us pay too much in taxes. Exactly when was it that conservatives started thinking that we don't pay enough in taxes?

All that said, the logical solution would be to lure people off of welfare by phasing it out, and phasing IN more infrastructure creation jobs. We either pay people to sit their arses at home, or we can pay them to work and be productive and to build things that will expand our national wealth and create private sector jobs. It's a choice, a tradeoff. I think that the best choice in this tradeoff is obvious.

Everyone should be paying something toward things they use and depend on. Highways are a key part of infrastructure and 99% of us rely on them almost daily. And by all rights all should be paying something toward their maintenance. Fair is fair. Today we have reached a point where there are so many dang subsidies for low income families, they actually make out better than the middle class schmuck that sought higher learning to land a job. He/she makes enough to have their income federally taxed and makes enough not to qualify for subsidies. When a single mom of two only has to work part time and still qualifies for numerous subsides and ends up with more than the middle class couple with two kids working full time at entry level positions and does not qualify for subsidies and has to pay federal taxes, something is very very wrong.