Sen. Sanders will introduce a $1 trillion infrastructure spending bill in the coming weeks.
81 replies, posted
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;46858146]
It's going to happen which is why I voted republican this time. We can 2/3rds over ride it.[/QUOTE]
um...i was saying the koch brothers, probably the root of most of washington's evil are going to make a shitload of cash off of the pipeline while everybody else is killed by it. they litterally hold the most claims on alberta tar-sands and are only using their congressional leverage to push it through this way to avoid all EPA and federal standards. nobody but the pipeline owner will make any money off of it, everybody else is getting railroaded by it
also the republicans don't have a super-majority and nobody wants it, 35 jobs is nothing
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;46858175]At least that pipeline has a return on investment.[/QUOTE]
For Gulf Coast oil refineries and companies, maybe.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46858188]For Gulf Coast oil refineries and companies, maybe.[/QUOTE]
which in terms funds federal government, as well as state and local.
[editline]5th January 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sableye;46858179]
also the republicans don't have a super-majority and nobody wants it, 35 jobs is nothing[/QUOTE]
Again can you please direct me to how many jobs it makes? Otherwise you are just repeating what others said and did not factual look up on it.
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;46858194]which in terms funds federal government, as well as state and local.
[editline]5th January 2015[/editline]
Again can you please direct me to how many jobs it makes? Otherwise you are just repeating what others said and did not factual look up on it.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2013/05/10/pipe-dreams-how-many-jobs-will-be-created-by-keystone-xl/[/url]
[editline]4th January 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;46858146]I don't get why no one in the last few threads ever provided me with those numbers. They just always said "less than X" but please point me to an official document saying the perm jobs and the temp jobs it creates. Please prove me wrong by your documentation.
A pipeline is the equivalent to a 4 lane highway, US makes profit off taxation, tariffs, inceptions, refineries, and other misc jobs/cities supporting it.
Creating jobs with virtually no return on investment is like printing more money so you have more of it. What the fuck kind of job/world do you want?
Infrastructure delevopment is good, but without industries supporting them what good is building roads to nowhere? When 1 trillion could feed the hungry long term or such?
[editline]5th January 2015[/editline]
It's going to happen which is why I voted republican this time. We can 2/3rds over ride it.[/QUOTE]
1) [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2013/05/10/pipe-dreams-how-many-jobs-will-be-created-by-keystone-xl/[/url] Here are the numbers, Educate yourself.
2) The profit is so miniscule that its questionable whether it's worth it or not. Or how Bill Maher worded it, "What a small price to pay, for everyone to die".
3) You're not making any fucking sense. There is a return on this will would be the fact that it attracts foreigners to invest in the US. What kind of company would want to invest in a country with dilapidated infrastructure? The money from the bill would go respectively to state, and private construction firms. And from there, they hire workers to build the infrastructure. Those guys, union or not, get paid, money is circulated into the economy, etc. It's simple economics. What do you not get?
[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;46858241][url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2013/05/10/pipe-dreams-how-many-jobs-will-be-created-by-keystone-xl/[/url]
[/QUOTE]
OKay It turns out I am wrong
[QUOTE=Code3Response;46856007]Resident here: Can confirm. Bridges are way past their replacement date and mnDOT is just now getting around to fixing some of the most traveled ones in the metro.
Power grid isnt bad if your in the burbs', but any external lines are shitty.
Minnesota has one of the WORST maintenance budgets because we have to deal with hot summer and unbelievably cold winters. No matter what you do, roads will need replaced in like 5 years.[/QUOTE]
I live on the most extreme edge of the suburbs and when we got hit by a huge storm back in 06' some places were without power for days. We're actually considering installing generators now
Trust me, as much as I might disagree with sanders on some things, better roads is a definite yes from me.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46858188]For Gulf Coast oil refineries and companies, maybe.[/QUOTE]
Are they not Americans?
3 words
solar fucking roadways
[editline]4th January 2015[/editline]
[url]http://www.solarroadways.com/faq.shtml[/url]
[QUOTE=darunner;46858934]Are they not Americans?[/QUOTE]
Point is that the US would be on the losing end of the deal. It was benefiting Canada more than the US.
The US cant export any oil that is captured within our borders. Its weird.
[QUOTE=cody8295;46859039]3 words
solar fucking roadways
[editline]4th January 2015[/editline]
[url]http://www.solarroadways.com/faq.shtml[/url][/QUOTE]
This has been rekt so many times over, it's not feasible.
60 Minutes report on the current state of our infrastructure, for some background: [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/falling-apart-americas-neglected-infrastructure/[/url]
[QUOTE=cody8295;46859039]3 words
solar fucking roadways
[editline]4th January 2015[/editline]
[url]http://www.solarroadways.com/faq.shtml[/url][/QUOTE]
Nice, unbiased source there.
And how are they going to be maintained? Our government can't even afford to maintain fucking asphalt roadways.
[QUOTE=cody8295;46859039]3 words
solar fucking roadways
[editline]4th January 2015[/editline]
[url]http://www.solarroadways.com/faq.shtml[/url][/QUOTE]
this is a scam
[QUOTE=darunner;46859311]Nice, unbiased source there.
And how are they going to be maintained? Our government can't even afford to maintain fucking asphalt roadways.[/QUOTE]
Imo solar roadways are absolute bullshit, but it's not that our government can't afford to maintain our roads, it's just that our congress sucks so bad they can't even pass an infrastructure bill.
Should this come to fruition, some state (and some possible international) infrastructure programs (aka California's CAHSR, Gateway Project, Pacific Northwest Corridor and the privately-owned Texas Central Railway) should get renewed interest. In terms of cost-per-mile efficiency for specific metropolitan corridors (e.g. San Diego - Los Angeles - San Francisco, Boston - New York - Washington D.C and a possible Vancouver (Canada) - Seattle - Portland corridors, etc etc) show that more people will likely utilise cheaper public transportation to curb costs and could also be more easier for them when travelling. Not to forget the large amounts of new jobs directly created from the construction-to-operation of major rail infrastructure, and the flow-on jobs that can be created in-line with surrounding development projects along these lines. It could also alleviate growing climate change issues, airspace congestion and in general the entirety of the economy that can benefit from such projects.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;46854023]13 million jobs is a big promise..
I hope it's delivered of this comes to fruition.[/QUOTE]
Not really.
The roads, bridges in this country are 40 [i]years[/i] out of spec, pretty much across the entire landmass.
[QUOTE=TestECull;46855704]Oooh, nice. While our infrastructure, and in particular our road network, is second to none, it's also 40, 50, 60 years old. It desperately needs funding for maintenance and repairs.[/QUOTE]
I'd say it's lagged behind places like Japan,West Europe(FR,DE,ES) and even China, wich is now ranked 1st by total nr of high-speed roads; a place that untill a few years ago was held by the US.
Also, their road infrastructure is ~10y/o at max.
Also those places that I mentioned are well-renowned for the high speed train network, about 17 out of the top 20 airports by passenger nrs are in West europe and East Asia. and port-wise, China ships the most stuff and NL aswell.
[editline]5th January 2015[/editline]
That being said, I agree with this investment plan and the one regarding europe. A too late wake up call for the government to invest the tax money in kickstarting the economy again. Why did it take so long, it's not really rocket science?
[QUOTE=godfatherk;46860262]I'd say it's lagged behind places like Japan,West Europe(FR,DE,ES) and even China, wich is now ranked 1st by total nr of high-speed roads; a place that untill a few years ago was held by the US.
Also, their road infrastructure is ~10y/o at max.
Also those places that I mentioned are well-renowned for the high speed train network, about 17 out of the top 20 airports by passenger nrs are in West europe and East Asia. and port-wise, China ships the most stuff and NL aswell.
[editline]5th January 2015[/editline]
That being said, I agree with this investment plan and the one regarding europe. A too late wake up call for the government to invest the tax money in kickstarting the economy again. Why did it take so long, it's not really rocket science?[/QUOTE]
Its 2 things, chiefly.
Our congress is too afraid to raise our petrol tax, which is way too low to maintain infrastructure to even a B- level. And lastly, our last major infrastructure bill was in the early 90s, I believe. Our congress won't listen to the Obama administration calls for 50 billion in port upgrades, and calls for road and bridge replacement.
Hopefully this bill ends all this and really gets the ball rolling for us. Not only would this cause a possible construction boom, our country would be a lot more aesthetically pleasing.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;46855635]Wait a minute here. I see people often complain about US infrastructure. If you are not spending money on universal health care, free education and infrastructure then where the hell does all the money go to ? And on top of that the US is 20 trillion dollars in debt. Seriously ?[/QUOTE]
[IMG_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png[/IMG_thumb]
a lot of it goes to the defense department; nearly half goes to a few bloated, aging social safety net programs that are very inefficient but also very popular and thus immune to cuts and regressive changes. six percent is going towards paying off the net interest on the debt we accumulate to keep our credit rating solid and our creditors happy. the rest is just a bunch of smaller stuff.
the debt is a product of running a deficit - we spend more than we take in in revenues, in no small part thanks to the bush-era tax cuts and the ramp-up of defense spending for the war on terror. now that our dick is in every pie of the world regarding global security, though, we can't necessarily afford to reduce defense spending drastically. and meanwhile, wage growth continues to be stagnant, so many americans can't afford tax hikes in the wake of the recession. not to mention that voters as a collective are always anti-tax forever despite all compelling argument otherwise and would probably vote everyone out of office if such a tax hike were to succeed in the legislature.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.