Infrastructure Grade: D. Conservative Grade: F

[Joe Steel]

The American Society of Civil Engineers' preliminary release today of its 2009 Report Card on Infrastructure lays bare the toll conservative ideology has taken on our transportation system, public facilities, water network and power grid.

The ASCE gives the nation a collective grade of D in all of these areas. But when the grades issued today are compared to the groups 2001 and 2005 reports, it is clear that in critical areas conservative stewardship of these resources have made things worse, and in no area has it made things significantly better.

Conservatives, therefore, get an F on their infrastructure stewardship.

Infrastructure Grade: D. Conservative Grade: F. (http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009010528/infrastructure-grade-d-conservative-grade-f)



This is your government.

http://lh4.google.com/DeepuRoy/RmInM_zWKhI/AAAAAAAAAAA/JfjLXZxq6fM/DSC_0132.JPG?imgmax=512

This is your government on conservatism.

http://lh3.google.com/CSaxonMN/RrJu1huyhoI/AAAAAAAAAAA/azfxjIDFkbE/capt.f4e2ef14cb6842d0953a95e3b50c6c16.bridge_colla pse_ny122.jpg?imgmax=320

Any questions?

[5stringJeff]

Well, if the federal government weren't so busy spending all our tax dollars (and then some) on things like welfare (wealth redistribution), or health care and education (not authorized in the Constitution), perhaps there would be money left for infrastructure. Or, if Congress didn't use the transportation appropriations bill as their main way to get pork for their districts, infrastructure in need of repair would be funded ahead of unneeded projects in the "right" Congressman's district.

[bullypulpit]

Well, if the federal government weren't so busy spending all our tax dollars (and then some) on things like welfare (wealth redistribution), or health care and education (not authorized in the Constitution), perhaps there would be money left for infrastructure. Or, if Congress didn't use the transportation appropriations bill as their main way to get pork for their districts, infrastructure in need of repair would be funded ahead of unneeded projects in the "right" Congressman's district.

If Bush hadn't spent nearly $1 trillion on an illegal and unnecessary war we would be having this discussion now...would we. But then, Grover Norquist should be happy. The government and many innocent people drowned in that river instead of the bath-tub he'd envisioned.

[avatar4321]

If Bush hadn't spent nearly $1 trillion on an illegal and unnecessary war we would be having this discussion now...would we. But then, Grover Norquist should be happy. The government and many innocent people drowned in that river instead of the bath-tub he'd envisioned.

I get it:

$1 Trillion for national security over several years: bad (Im skeptical about your totals btw)

An insane amount more on pork projects all at once: Good

Got ya.

[Joe Steel]

An insane amount more on pork projects all at once: Good

One man's pork is another man's safe bridge.

[Silver]

Right on...the other UNBIASED articles on that site were good too...

Like:

Obama’s Economic Recovery Plan Is Almost As Pure As Ivory Soap
by Bernie Horn
January 27, 2009

and:

Community Pick
Why House Republicans Aren't Worth Listening To
01/30/2009 by Christopher Hayes
----------

Get a freekin' clue, moron

[bullypulpit]

I get it:

$1 Trillion for national security over several years: bad (Im skeptical about your totals btw)

An insane amount more on pork projects all at once: Good

Got ya.

Since when is a safe bridge pork? Since when is a power grid that doesn't go down in a stiff breeze pork? Since when is safe drinking water and the means to deliver it pork?

And the invasion and occupation of Iraq had nothing to do with national security...<a href=http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/1038>Bush Has Made America Less Safe</a>.

[Yurt]

Since when is a safe bridge pork? Since when is a power grid that doesn't go down in a stiff breeze pork? Since when is safe drinking water and the means to deliver it pork?

so there is absolutely zero pork in the democratic/obama stimulus plan?

[Kathianne]

so there is absolutely zero pork in the democratic/obama stimulus plan?

How many times does one need to respond to you, before you stop asking the same question?

[Yurt]

How many times does one need to respond to you, before you stop asking the same question?

strange, first time i asked bully that question....

what are you talking about btw?

[Kathianne]

strange, first time i asked bully that question....

what are you talking about btw?

Really? You are obsessive with your posts, yet don't take the time to read others.

[bullypulpit]

so there is absolutely zero pork in the democratic/obama stimulus plan?

As with any spending bill, whether its is Republican or Democratic, there is certain to be pork. But given the mood of the country, they should keep it to an absolute minimum and start rebuilding crumbling road, bridges, railways, power grids, and sanitation and water systems.

[Kathianne]

As with any spending bill, whether its is Republican or Democratic, there is certain to be pork. But given the mood of the country, they should keep it to an absolute minimum and start rebuilding crumbling road, bridges, railways, power grids, and sanitation and water systems.

Do you think this bill did, 'keep it at a minimum'?

[LiberalNation]

for a bill of it's size and money spent, yep. I like pork when it comes to my states, city, school, and it creates good jobs and infastructure.

[emmett]

How many times does one need to respond to you, before you stop asking the same question?


Funny...... I thought it was an excellent question! Directed like a bullet and requiring a yes/no answer. What was wrong with it?

And it was the first time he had asked it!


just pointing it out!

[PostmodernProphet]

As with any spending bill, whether its is Republican or Democratic, there is certain to be pork. But given the mood of the country, they should keep it to an absolute minimum and start rebuilding crumbling road, bridges, railways, power grids, and sanitation and water systems.

unless it's part of the interstate system there is no reason at all for a taxpayer in Michigan to pay for a road in New York, or vice versa ........

[Joe Steel]

so there is absolutely zero pork in the democratic/obama stimulus plan?

Not a cent.

It's all stimulus.

[avatar4321]

Not a cent.

It's all stimulus.

yeah... too bad none of it is actually going to help the economy.

[Joe Steel]

yeah... too bad none of it is actually going to help the economy.

Recessions are caused by a lack of spending. Spending is the only way to fix a lack of spending. Every penny of the stimulus bill is going to help the economy.

[5stringJeff]

Recessions are caused by a lack of spending. Spending is the only way to fix a lack of spending. Every penny of the stimulus bill is going to help the economy.

This particular recession was not caused by a lack of spending, but is the inevitable market correction to an unsustainable bubble in housing prices. The best way to end the recession is to let the housing market correct itself, which, along the way, will cause some people to have less available money (since they're not doing things like taking out home equity loans). Taxing people on top of their already-reduced cash flow in order to "stimulate the economy" will only cause more pain for people who don't need it while contributing to inefficient, politically chosen projects.

[Yurt]

Really? You are obsessive with your posts, yet don't take the time to read others.

whatever...as i said, first time i asked that question and you go nuts over obsessiveness and the claim that i don't take the time to read others

weird

[avatar4321]

Recessions are caused by a lack of spending. Spending is the only way to fix a lack of spending. Every penny of the stimulus bill is going to help the economy.

You are honestly going to try to argue that we havent been spending enough the last 8 years? Seriously?

Come on.

[DannyR]

Recessions are caused by a lack of spending.

There is a difference between spending by citizens and companies vs spending by government. Every penny the government spends is a penny taken from citizens that they themselves cannot spend.

Deficit spending is no exception, as it must be paid back with interest which only kills our economy all the more. We could easily cover the cost of the next 7 largest foreign military budgets with just the money we waste each year in interest payments on our already existing debt. (over $412 billion!)

[Joe Steel]

This particular recession was not caused by a lack of spending, but is the inevitable market correction to an unsustainable bubble in housing prices.

All recessions are caused by a lack of spending.


Taxing people on top of their already-reduced cash flow in order to "stimulate the economy" will only cause more pain for people who don't need it while contributing to inefficient, politically chosen projects.

Not everyone will be taxed. That's the beauty of the plan. It taxes those who have too much money and gives it to those who have too little.

No pain. Much gain.

[Joe Steel]

Recessions are caused by a lack of spending.

There is a difference between spending by citizens and companies vs spending by government. Every penny the government spends is a penny taken from citizens that they themselves cannot spend.

Not exactly. Taxes can be placed on those who won't spend the money. The tax revenue then can be distributed to those who have no money to spend.

[Noir]

Forgetting the talk of pork, and looking back at the OP, how respected are the American Society of Civil Engineers as an unbiased group?

[DannyR]

Not exactly. Taxes can be placed on those who won't spend the money. The tax revenue then can be distributed to those who have no money to spend.

Only certain way I can think of doing this is to directly tax savings accounts, since that is by definition money put aside and not immediately spent. That would be a nightmare.


how respected are the American Society of Civil Engineers as an unbiased group?

I'm sure there are plenty of examples of individual ASCE members who are quite partisan, but due to their non-profit tax status, the society at large is prohibited from endorsing candidates and taking sides on direct legislation. In general I've seen they do support the spending of more money updating infrastructure - a LOT more money. However they do recommend such money be used as widely as possible, rather than concentrated in wasteful projects like the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. Probably mildly liberal.

[Joe Steel]

Only certain way I can think of doing this is to directly tax savings accounts, since that is by definition money put aside and not immediately spent. That would be a nightmare.

That's not the only way. All we have to do is raise marginal tax rates. High-income taxpayers spend less of each marginal dollar than do low-income taxpayers so raising taxes on high-income taxpayers would take money they wouldn't spend.

[The ClayTaurus]

All recessions are caused by a lack of spending.



Not everyone will be taxed. That's the beauty of the plan. It taxes those who have too much money and gives it to those who have too little.

No pain. Much gain.Define "too much money" and "too little." Let's hear some numbers.

[PostmodernProphet]

Recessions are caused by a lack of spending. Spending is the only way to fix a lack of spending. Every penny of the stimulus bill is going to help the economy.

then why aren't we spending $5 trillion instead of only $1 trillion....we would help the economy five times as much, no?.......

[avatar4321]

Not exactly. Taxes can be placed on those who won't spend the money. The tax revenue then can be distributed to those who have no money to spend.

Everyone spends money. In fact, they spend so much they are spending 120% of the income.

The problem isnt that people arent spending enough. Its that they spent too much and now they arent realizing the money they never had to begin with.

[Joe Steel]

Define "too much money" and "too little." Let's hear some numbers.

What difference would it make? "Too much" for some is "not enough" for others.

[Joe Steel]

then why aren't we spending $5 trillion instead of only $1 trillion....we would help the economy five times as much, no?.......


Lack of means. We probably just don't have the money. Secondly, we may not be able to spend that much at current prices. Dumping that much money into the economy might serve only to raise prices.

[Joe Steel]

Everyone spends money. In fact, they spend so much they are spending 120% of the income.

The problem isnt that people arent spending enough. Its that they spent too much and now they arent realizing the money they never had to begin with.

That may be. Nevertheless, spending is the only thing which can end the recession. If consumers don't have the means, the government will have to give it to them.

[The ClayTaurus]

What difference would it make? "Too much" for some is "not enough" for others.So are you suggesting you only take from those who believe they have too much and give it to those who believe they don't have enough?

If not, who gets to decide what is too much and what is not enough, and what is it based on? Pure income?

It's your measuring stick, I'm just asking you to define it.

[avatar4321]

That may be. Nevertheless, spending is the only thing which can end the recession. If consumers don't have the means, the government will have to give it to them.

I fail to see how spending more money we dont have is going to fix the recession when that's what started it to begin with.

How about we stop being dishonest as a society and actually spend what we earn? Then our economy can grow at its natural rate. Instead, we insist an pumping up the economy with steriods. We build the economies foundation on debt and wonder why the hell we have problems.