Should America pay to fix its bridges?

[Cardinal]

If only we paid attention to our own infrastructure like we pay attention to bombing some nation for whatever reason... we would not have to have this conversation.

Ah **** it, let's go to bomb someone else... who needs maintained bridges anyway? :roll:

Repairing bridges doesn't pay for missiles.

 

[Bodi]

If only we paid attention to our own infrastructure like we pay attention to bombing some nation for whatever reason... we would not have to have this conversation.

Ah **** it, let's go to bomb someone else... who needs maintained bridges anyway? :roll:

Don't think about this stuff... Keep up with the Kardashians instead.

 

[Eric7216]

Re: Should America pay to fix its bridges?[

I thought that we had that covered with the $800+ billion stimulus of 2009. Remember when we had millions out of work and we passed the bill for shovel ready projects such as bridge repair.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

Re: Should America pay to fix its bridges?[

Hey! Something everyone agrees on, this is surprising.

 

[Cyrylek]

Where the money should come from?
Should we fix every single bridge, even those with negligible traffic?
Should bridges built by state, municipal and private entities be maintained by taxpayers from all over the country?

I would say, follow Ike: the Interstate Highway System was not built via plundering the general budget. Bonds were issued for this specific purpose - and paid off through gasoline taxes and tolls. Keep tolls after the debt is paid, and keep the money secure for future maintenance, each bridge having its own account (money will accumulate in proportion to traffic, i.e proportionally (more or less) to the degree of wear)

 

[Cyrylek]

Re: Should America pay to fix its bridges?[

I thought that we had that covered with the $800+ billion stimulus of 2009. Remember when we had millions out of work and we passed the bill for shovel ready projects such as bridge repair.

Well, a dangerously crumbling bridge is a wonderful propaganda tool, when you want to go on a spending binge. But only $750 million were allocated to the maintenance of existing roads and bridges. That's less than 0.1%.

 

[radcen]

Where the money should come from?
Should we fix every single bridge, even those with negligible traffic?
Should bridges built by state, municipal and private entities be maintained by taxpayers from all over the country?

I would say, follow Ike: the Interstate Highway System was not built via plundering the general budget. Bonds were issued for this specific purpose - and paid off through gasoline taxes and tolls. Keep tolls after the debt is paid, and keep the money secure for future maintenance, each bridge having its own account (money will accumulate in proportion to traffic, i.e proportionally (more or less) to the degree of wear)

We should have Mexican pay for them. :mrgreen:

Ok, seriously...

1) Priorities. I almost never vote to approve tax increases, but I did favor a gas tax increase last year in my state. IMO we need to suck it up and do it. Responsibly, of course, not willy-nilly.

2) If a bridge is worth having it's worth maintaining. Unsafe is unsafe. If we deem a bridge as not being worthy of maintenance, then we should remove said bridge from use and dismantle it. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea for some rural areas, anyway. Having said that, we would need to prioritize based on use, condition, etc.

3) I'd prefer state, but if we're going to have a federal gas tax then I'm ok with fed money being used, preferably for Interstates only.

4) I am a staunch opponent of toll roads. Charge me a toll, or charge me gas tax, but not both. Of the two I'd prefer the tax so that I can drive freely and unfettered. Yes, it's a convenience thing, and in this case I'm willing to make that compromise. I avoid toll roads like the plague, and will often take secondary highways whenever possible, and they're usually as good as the toll freeways, anyway.

 

[Cyrylek]

4) I am a staunch opponent of toll roads. Charge me a toll, or charge me gas tax, but not both. Of the two I'd prefer the tax so that I can drive freely and unfettered. Yes, it's a convenience thing, and in this case I'm willing to make that compromise. I avoid toll roads like the plague, and will often take secondary highways whenever possible, and they're usually as good as the toll freeways, anyway.

I am tempted to agree, but the problem is that the gasoline tax will be charged regardless of whether you are using the bridge in question. I don't know, may be it may be imposed locally, in the near vicinity of the bridge? Sounds complicated.

 

[radcen]

I am tempted to agree, but the problem is that the gasoline tax will be charged regardless of whether you are using the bridge in question. I don't know, may be it may be imposed locally, in the near vicinity of the bridge? Sounds complicated.

I know what you're saying, but what I'm trying to say is that I have decided that I'm ok with that. It's not perfect, but then there is no perfect solution, so I have decided what I think is *best*, in a relative sense, for me.

I live in the eastern part of my state. There are many roads in the western part that I have never driven on. But, when/if I do I don't want to be bothered with tolls, I just want to go and not be "molested"... maybe "hindered" and/or "slowed" would be better terms... in the form of a toll booth while I'm on my travels.

And even complex local gas taxing and/or electronic tolling systems would perpetuate bloated bureaucracy, I think, trying to keep it all in line. I'd rather just keep it simple and me left alone.

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: Should America pay to fix its bridges?[

There are about 600K bridges in the US, and about ten percent are structurally deficient. We currently spend around $10-12 billion annually on bridge maintenance. To fix the ones with serious problems, we'd need to spend something like eight billion more. Should we tell Congress to find the money?

It's a loaded and ridiculous liberal question. Where is the answer, "yes we should fix the bridges, but we should find the money to do it with, instead of deficit spending to do it"?

 

[Grand Mal]

Re: Should America pay to fix its bridges?[

There are about 600K bridges in the US, and about ten percent are structurally deficient. We currently spend around $10-12 billion annually on bridge maintenance. To fix the ones with serious problems, we'd need to spend something like eight billion more. Should we tell Congress to find the money?

Elect Trump. He'll make Mexico pay for it.

 

[Grand Mal]

Re: Should America pay to fix its bridges?[

It's a loaded and ridiculous liberal question. Where is the answer, "yes we should fix the bridges, but we should find the money to do it with, instead of deficit spending to do it"?

Raise taxes? Just a thought.
Only, politicians have been treating taxation like an STD for so long, politicians at all levels, that now a lot of stuff that was taken for granted when I was young has become an issue. Money has to be taken from Peter to pay Paul, and deficit budgets are the norm because a politician campaigning on raising more money (taxation) has about a snowball's chance in hell of being elected. Better that kids have to sell chocolate almonds door-to-door so their school can buy band instruments than someone suggest a tax increase to pay for it. Better mental hospitals close and homeless shelters cut back so potholes can be filled and white lines painted without raising taxes.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Re: Should America pay to fix its bridges?[

There are about 600K bridges in the US, and about ten percent are structurally deficient. We currently spend around $10-12 billion annually on bridge maintenance. To fix the ones with serious problems, we'd need to spend something like eight billion more. Should we tell Congress to find the money?

Yes. The idea that it is in any way optional if the country wants to have viable commerce and prevent people from dying on collapsed bridges, as happened in my former state, is morally repugnant beyond my ability to articulate.

This is not optional. This is mandatory if America wishes to continue to be a developed country. Pretty much every state in the country now has major bridges that are an extreme danger simply to be on. That is despicable and unacceptable for the so-called richest nation on earth.

That this is even a question to anyone is mind-boggling.

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: Should America pay to fix its bridges?[

Should we repair / upgrade the bridges? And the roads? And the seaports? And the airports? Absolutely.

they do because there are little to no performance penalties built into it.
also usually the contractor is a friend of the person doing the bills and handing out the money.

to me this is gross negligence to the point of bribery.

the contractor also does it if a job falls through that was planned to start the next month or something.

so lets say there is a 4 month project to fix a road. in month 5 you have another project but the next one isn't till month 7.

so lets say the month 5 project falls through. that means you have 3 months till the next one.

It is Ludin. But the government is mandated to take the lowest bidder, and that's exactly what government does, and the resulting build never lasts as long as it's supposed to, and never gets the maintenance that it should.

That's where I agree with you that it's "gross negligence to the point of bribery", because more often than not it's also the government that's redirecting funds that were intended to go to infrastructure maintenance to other spending, 'because the roads aren't really in that bad a shape' (roads, bridges, seaports, airports, whatever) - and it's finally caught up with us. This dedicated funds redirection is what's finally caught up with us, and it's the part which is "gross negligence to the point of bribery"if you ask me.

I agree that we should fix our bridges and other infrastructure but I also recognize that there isn't much money available since the government is already spending well beyond their means. My suggestion is to dump government spending that is less important than bridge repair to free up the money.

According to the OP, we need 10-12 billion annually to do the job so I suggest we dump Michelle's 14 billion encroachment into State's rights known as her school lunch mandates. That should take care of the problem, don't you think?

Quite right Mycroft. The government spending priorities are one of life's unfathomables. Needed infrastructure maintenance spending is put on hold, delayed, funds diverted, until the infrastructure is in such a sorry shape that it can garner it's own tax increase, and then it starts all over again with maintenance neglect until it's in a bad enough state for another tax increase. The politicians are shirking their responsibilities in making smart spending decisions and are just passing the buck to the next legislators.

Where the money should come from?
Should we fix every single bridge, even those with negligible traffic?
Should bridges built by state, municipal and private entities be maintained by taxpayers from all over the country?

I would say, follow Ike: the Interstate Highway System was not built via plundering the general budget. Bonds were issued for this specific purpose - and paid off through gasoline taxes and tolls. Keep tolls after the debt is paid, and keep the money secure for future maintenance, each bridge having its own account (money will accumulate in proportion to traffic, i.e proportionally (more or less) to the degree of wear)

Indeed. The approach that you propose would at least be better than the outright legislative fraud that we are suffering under now. Further, whatever is the approach that we end up with, it needs to be coded into the legislation so that we don't continue this cycle of tax hike, fix, ignore to degraded until the next tax hike because it's state has gotten so bad again.

 

[Russell797]

Re: Should America pay to fix its bridges?[

The answer to this question is an unequivocal yes, and the sooner the better. I don't care who does it, who pays for it or any of the particulars. The fact of the matter is bridges and all infrastructure is in need of constant repair and modernization. These things don't fix or upgrade themselves, we have to do it and we have to pay for it to be done.

 

[Bodi]

Re: Should America pay to fix its bridges?[

There are about 600K bridges in the US, and about ten percent are structurally deficient. We currently spend around $10-12 billion annually on bridge maintenance. To fix the ones with serious problems, we'd need to spend something like eight billion more. Should we tell Congress to find the money?

I don't understand. Do you think that we should be driving across unsafe/unsound bridges? If no then who else should pay for it? If yes then you are crazy...

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: Should America pay to fix its bridges?[

I don't understand. Do you think that we should be driving across unsafe/unsound bridges? If no then who else should pay for it? If yes then you are crazy...

The tooth fairy should pay for it out of deficit funds, which they believe will grow the economy. Heck, you can even print the money to pay for it without having to use real money. I just read an article today which stated that it takes several years to jump through the hoops in order to get infrastructure spending approved and projects actually started, meaning that there are no current "shovel ready" jobs to stimulate the economy now and by the time we jump through those hoops, it will already be too late for the stimulus to have the immediate effect wanted.

 

[Casper]

:lamo

"Bridge"?

"BRIDGE"?

"I'm building walls! I'm not building any bridges to anywhere! America! AMERICA! We're gonna' be SO great"!

Stop That:lamo

 

[Russell797]

The question shouldn't be should America pay to fix it's bridges, but rather when to fix them. They will have to be fixed, it's not an option.

 

[mmi]

Re: Should America pay to fix its bridges?[

Do you think that we should be driving across unsafe/unsound bridges?

No.

>>If no then who else should pay for it?

The Mexicans?

>>If yes then you are crazy...

Yes, the crazies are the people who don't want to have the work done.

I just read an article today which stated … .

Rats! Oh well, crumbling infrastructure it is then.

 

[Bodi]

Re: Should America pay to fix its bridges?[

No.

>>If no then who else should pay for it?

The Mexicans?

>>If yes then you are crazy...

Yes, the crazies are the people who don't want to have the work done.



Rats! Oh well, crumbling infrastructure it is then.

We should pay for our own infrastructure repair... making another country pay for it is not realistic.

 

[Bodi]

Re: Should America pay to fix its bridges?[

The tooth fairy should pay for it out of deficit funds, which they believe will grow the economy. Heck, you can even print the money to pay for it without having to use real money. I just read an article today which stated that it takes several years to jump through the hoops in order to get infrastructure spending approved and projects actually started, meaning that there are no current "shovel ready" jobs to stimulate the economy now and by the time we jump through those hoops, it will already be too late for the stimulus to have the immediate effect wanted.

I call bull**** on getting the "tooth fairy" to pay for it and printing money will just lead to inflation. Do you have any other ideas?

 

[mmi]

Re: Should America pay to fix its bridges?[

We should pay for our own infrastructure repair

That seems to be the consensus around here at least.

>>making another country pay for it is not realistic.

Sadly, not much less realistic than expecting the Congress to step up and find the required funding. They came up with around $300 billion over five years with last December's Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST). It includes some efforts to streamline permitting processes. American Society of Civil Engineers says we need another $150B just to get started. They say as much as $1.6T may be needed.

Additional legislation is being considered — the Building and Renewing Infrastructure for Development and Growth in Employment (BRIDGE) Act. It would establish a federal "infrastructure bank" to finance major projects. And despite being an idea that came from (gulp) candidate Obummer in 2008 that's been kept alive by his administration, it now has bipartisan support from a dozen senators. Not surprisingly, the problem is the fight over the money. A so-called "repatriation holiday" for those three trillion dollars in corporate profits being held overseas is the proposed initial source, but the Democrats want a 14% tax and Mr Ryan wants something like 3-4%.

Drive carefully.

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: Should America pay to fix its bridges?[

No.

>>If no then who else should pay for it?

The Mexicans?

>>If yes then you are crazy...

Yes, the crazies are the people who don't want to have the work done.



Rats! Oh well, crumbling infrastructure it is then.

With you guys it is always black and white. It just never enters your brain that it is possible to work on that infrastructure without it having to be a "stimulus", AKA deficit spending.

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: Should America pay to fix its bridges?[

I call bull**** on getting the "tooth fairy" to pay for it and printing money will just lead to inflation. Do you have any other ideas?

I was being sarcastic. That is what MMI believes. I think we should start working on the infrastructure but do it without increased deficit spending. The whole thread was just a backhanded way of saying we should deficit spend to fix our infrastructure. MMI was not honest about that.