Comments on: A bipartisan proposal for more government spending

By: DrJJJJ

DrJJJJ — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:53:13 +0000

I have a family member about to go bankrupt! I’ll tell them to step up their spending as a solution!

By: FifthDecade

FifthDecade — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 04:02:59 +0000

Certainly spending on maintenance needs to be maintained, not cut, but is this another way for pork belly politics to buy votes? Of course it sounds sensible, but if the price is cuts elsewhere, perhaps those cuts should instead be made in the localities where the repairs would be made? That would cut out the pork belly element, and focus the minds of local politicians on local matters.

Instead of following what the Alaskan Tea Party wants to do, a Republican Congressman may find it harder to refuse to spend money on a local problem his voters want fixed, and may even think twice about the cuts he would have to make to other local projects in order to pay for the maintenance.

By: Auros

Auros — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 01:32:08 +0000

Given that dsl80 is echoing the Big Lie, I’m half inclined to mark his triple-post as spam… Fannie and Freddie did NOT cause the financial crisis, and they were followers, not leaders, as the financial industry piled into overinflated real estate derivatives.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/w hat-caused-the-financial-crisis-the-big- lie-goes-viral/2011/10/31/gIQAXlSOqM_sto ry.html

By: silliness

silliness — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 00:59:53 +0000

This is all wonderful, but… the political cost of taking on this debt is unacceptable. The GOP will require tax cuts for the rich and the utter destruction of the social safety net in return for repairs to infrastructure. How is this a good deal?

By: TFF

TFF — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 22:35:26 +0000

kmbutler, I can’t speak for that particular project, but roads are built in several layers. Replacing the top layer is relatively cheap. But once the top layer (the asphalt) breaks down, the lower layers start to pit (potholes). Fixing THOSE is dramatically more expensive. The estimates might be realistic.

By: kmbutler

kmbutler — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 21:13:00 +0000

“The state’s Department of Transportation says fixing it today would cost $6 million, but waiting two years would cause the roadbed to be so degraded by traffic and weather that the price would rise fivefold, to $30 million.”

This is pretty meaningless unless you also provide the amount that would need to be spent in two years if you did the $6mm today. Surely it will still need some work. Maybe it’s $6mm again in 2 years, maybe it’s $20mm, so you only save $4mm. Now, I’m sure it’s better to spend now then later, but with what is presented, it shows the far end of the spectrum, which may not be that close to reality.

By: jomiku

jomiku — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 21:06:57 +0000

You missed half the problem: the GOP will agree to spend on infrastructure but only if we cut spending on the poor, the old and the sick. They treat this as a less than zero sum game; the ending cuts would need to be more than the spending. Can’t rationally deal with people like that.

By: TinyOne

TinyOne — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:50:36 +0000

“Look at California, who is moving ahead with its HSR system through a bond issue.”— uhhh, you may want to google the latest developments on that one.

By: MyLord

MyLord — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:30:05 +0000

Where are those who argued fiscal stimulus couldn’t be done fast enough to bother with? Oh yeah, .. they are in charge.

By: AngryInCali

AngryInCali — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:01:08 +0000

Isn’t it a bit disingenuous to say there’s a “bipartisan consensus” against all government spending. The Republicans only oppose spending when they are in the opposition, and love giving money to their friends and donors when they are in power. The Democrats are not nearly that bad.

Do you really think the infrastructure debate would be going nowhere if the Dems could pass anything in Congress?

The other issue is why all this has to happen on the Federal level. Things like air traffic control need to be upgraded nationally, but roads and HSR and water systems can all be funded and built locally. Look at California, who is moving ahead with its HSR system through a bond issue. If the need is so great, paying the higher interest rates on state bonds is well worth it.

By: gringcorp

gringcorp — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:59:22 +0000

I think you should take a look at the origins of the ASCE number, Felix. It’s one of those endlessly-quoted but little-questioned numbers. i could be wrong, and it could be very rigorously calculated, and it is plausible. But there’s a certain built-in bias in the ASCE, no?

By: TFF

TFF — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:47:59 +0000

“Here’s my question: how did we miss this the first time round?”

Repairs aren’t sexy. They are maintenance, you can’t pretend they represent growth. Hard to buy votes that way.

Better to do something that is entirely useless but LOOKS cutting edge. That’s how you impress voters.

By: KenG_CA

KenG_CA — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:32:05 +0000

PJ O’Rourke is only a Republican if your definition of a Republican is someone who is not a Democrat. The Republicans are so controlled by the small tea party minority that they will reject this idea instantly.

There is no “bipartisan idea that government spending is a bad thing”. That view is held by a minority in the Republican party, the majority of which are too cowardly to stand up against it, and the inevitable downward spiral it would bring.

By: absinthe

absinthe — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:26:30 +0000

We can also really, really, suck at this. Take the Army Corps of Engineers, for instance.

By: dsl80

dsl80 — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:20:39 +0000

please… no more talks of federally sponsored banks, infrastructure or otherwise. fannie and freddie caused as much, and likely more, damage than any private bank. they were also the largest campaign donors to our corrupt congress (this fact alone boggles the mind). lets get infrastructure spending going, but please forget about another government owned bank.