• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should America pay to fix its bridges?

Should America pay to fix its bridges?

  • Yes, we should bridge the gap.

    Votes: 37 92.5%
  • No, and if you think we should, I've got a bridge to sell you.

    Votes: 1 2.5%
  • I'm not sure. Let's cross that bridge when we get to it.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I don't care. It's all just water under the bridge anyway.

    Votes: 2 5.0%

  • Total voters
    40
Re: Should America pay to fix its bridges?[

Probably at least 50% of infrastructure spending should be at the state level.

In 2007, the public sector spent $146 billion to build, operate, and maintain highways in the United States. About three-quarters of that total was provided by state and local governments. One-quarter was provided by the federal government. — "Spending and Funding for Highways," CBO publication, Jan 2011​

But states and local gubmints have been cutting back in recent years, reducing their contribution by about twenty percent. In real dollars, 2008 federal expenditures were at about the same level they were fifty years ago.

federal_highway_spending_1956_2009.jpg (same document)

>>I'm not so sure why it is the fed's responsibility to do this infrastructure spending anyway.

It may not be their responsibility, but the money has to come from somewhere. The Feds are the American people's last resort. I hope that doesn't somehow come across as "defensive."
 
Re: Should America pay to fix its bridges?[

Infrastructure spending takes high priority. Some other spending will have to go. That's the job for the current and future governments. Hypothetically, who has the better handle on cutting spending? Trump or Hillary?

Neither would be better. Hillary wouldn't reduce spending to any meaningful degree, and if Trump did he would go after the programs which I and the Democrats find of vital importance.

Spending can not be cut without damaging the quality of life people have come to expect in this country. In fact spending will need to increase as we go forward or things will only get worse. We are trapped in an endless spiral of continuous growth which demands growth everywhere in all things. It's not sustainable. We are screwed.
 
And we should fix our water systems (fresh water delivery to citizens) , and we should find a way to afford to build a modern passenger rail system, we should never let our urban transit systems rot as bad as DC Metro is...or even BART for that matter, our electricity grid is under built and overly rotted out, we have over 15,000 dams that are high hazard that maybe just maybe we should do something about, the roads are falling apart even with all the "stimulus" money we put into them .....and we dont have a funding mechanism to pay for much of any of it, nor does DC work well enough for a reasonable rational person to conclude that those bozos could possible figure out a way forwards.

Thus the rise of Trump.
 
And we should fix our water systems (fresh water delivery to citizens) , and we should find a way to afford to build a modern passenger rail system, we should never let our urban transit systems rot as bad as DC Metro is...or even BART for that matter, our electricity grid is under built and overly rotted out, we have over 15,000 dams that are high hazard that maybe just maybe we should do something about, the roads are falling apart even with all the "stimulus" money we put into them .....and we dont have a funding mechanism to pay for much of any of it, nor does DC work well enough for a reasonable rational person to conclude that those bozos could possible figure out a way forwards.

Thus the rise of Trump.


According to MMT'rs we can just increase the deficit to pay for it all and since this will be added to the national debt, which isn't real debt anyway, because we can print all the money we want, while at the same time all of this employs a bunch of people, growing the economy and bringing our unemployment rate down to 0%. Wow, the perfect solution.
 
According to MMT'rs we can just increase the deficit to pay for it all and since this will be added to the national debt, which isn't real debt anyway, because we can print all the money we want, while at the same time all of this employs a bunch of people, growing the economy and bringing our unemployment rate down to 0%. Wow, the perfect solution.

Running up debt then junking the currency that the deal was done on is called reneging on the deal. Yes you can do that, but there will be consequences.
 
Back
Top Bottom