If Obama wants infrastructure spending...

It seems that every so often President Obama likes to talk about spending some money to fix up the country's infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.), so it seems to me that the subject is near and dear to his heart. Fixing up the infrastructure would create some temporary construction jobs plus facilitate commerce, and we don't want our roads to be crappy or our bridges to be dangerous, but we also have a large deficit and a high national debt.

So my question is, since Obama wants this infrastructure spending where should he be willing to accept spending cuts elsewhere in the budget so that that money can be used to fund the infrastructure repair? Raising taxes and cutting defense won't work since those would be done at the expense of things the Republicans want, so if Obama wants infrastructure spending badly enough it should be done at the expense of programs that him and his party want? So that in mind, what should be cut in order to fund more road and bridge repairs?

I weep over the political mindset of this country.

Just charge Hillary and Bill 50% tax on their speaking fees and we got it covered.

@sonicare That would solve a lot of problems!

@mattbbpl: haha yup. Though it shouldn't surprise you anymore. :P

Raise the gas tax would be a nice start but that would never happen.

Because that's a recessive tax. you'd be hitting the working and middle class for harder than anyone else. I doubt that's a democratic strategy.

I suppose a good place to start would be to know how much money is needed in the first place. Anyone know because I do not.

Also when did become good stewards of the nation's infrastructure become a bad political deal for republicans and not democrats? Wouldn't it almost be entirely funding for blue collar jobs like construction? Aren't people in blue collar jobs essentially republicans bread and butter when it comes to voting constituency? Wouldn't a tax increase mixed with a spending cut for the sake of funding construction jobs be right up the GOP's alley? Or is everyone still in the mindset of not letting the president be seen favorably that they would let potential jobs wait over a year and a half so the right person/party can get the credit?

Then you need to entirely overhaul how infrastructure is funded because it all comes out of the Highway fund which gets its funding from the Gas Tax.

I'm ignoring OP crap about the solution having to be something that only Democrats must care about.

~ $2B

and the idea to try to tie this to cuts elsewhere is petty politics. this shit needs to get done. how is it a partisan issue if it's a public safety measure?

@Aljosa23 Actually, it's a real possibility that's gaining more traction. From the current tax level value deteriorating from inflation to more efficient cars making each mile return less revenue, it makes a lot of sense. There are some Republicans to back it, just... not enough.

@sonicare I'm becoming very concerned about the continued shift from progressive taxes to regressive taxes. The complexities of this trend could be discussed for days, but I'm sure you're well versed in the details so I'll just leave it at that - that I'm concerned.

Come on, there isn't that level of rationality in the GOP anymore in enough quantity to be substantive. There are a few members here and there, but they get drowned out by the screeching of those vying to be the most conservative.

you should have to have your last w2 scanned every time you get gas. that way your income can be checked and the appropriate tax levied

simple!

Haha, I love the Rube Goldberg style complexity of the proposal.

For the record, I am entirely OK with the current structure of the highway funding (outside of the fact that the tax needs to raised to at least account for inflation). I'm more concerned about the aggregate effect of the shift to more regressive taxes, the lowering of progressive taxes despite projected shortfalls (which then tend to leads to more regressive taxes because they're politically easier), and the unwillingness to adjust when necessary.

@comp_atkins said:

@Serraph105 said:

I suppose a good place to start would be to know how much money is needed in the first place. Anyone know because I do not.

~ $2B

Really? Only 2 Billion? The last estimate for the deficit this year was $486 billion, would anybody notice or care if that number changed to $488 billion? I doubt even the people who would have jobs because of it would notice.

Sounds fair. After all if republicans have to cut their own glory holes in the stalls in public restrooms then dems should have to take responsibility for the things they care about.

It's pretty fucking stupid we have people bitching about spending for infrastructure.. Yeah Infastructure, who fucking needs that! It's only the roads, sewers, electrical grids, dams and bridges we all depend off of every day.. Who cares if its in a red zone levels of disrepair around the country.. Hilarious we are getting this from the party of "fiscal" responsibility who were full in favor of multi-trillion dollar wars, and want to get us in another war with Iran..

.. You couldn't write better comedy material.. The party with large support from the seniors is the very same party that wants to cut things like Medicare and social security..

@sSubZerOo: They want to cut it, but only in a way that allows them to use it before it goes by the way side.

At least the highways in AZ, NV, and UT are in great shape based on my recently concluded family road trip.

In his first year in office he spent eight hundred billion dollars that was to go for infrastructure spending, but the money was spent on everything but infrastructure.

Hehe. That could work.

No. I said no tax increases, pay attention to the rules!

I think we should rely on our local and state governments instead for improving maintenance and spending on infrastructure. Of course, there's nothing wrong with obtaining funds from the federal government.

But that'll never happen because people think the federal government can do everything, local politicians are crazier than federal politicians, and the local politicians that are representing their base tend to be crazy, stupid, or just indifferent.

@JimB:

Please provide sources.

@fenriz275: Just look up his spending in his first year in office. It hasn't been that long ago. The money was to be for shovel ready jobs to get Americans back to work of which road and bridge repair projects were at the top of the list. The money was never spent for that.

Aren't state government responsible for most roadway infrastructure?

@bmanva: For the most part yes. I guess there are some interstate highways that the Feds are responsible for, but from what I understand the federal gas tax goes to the feds and then the feds send that money back to the states. Some Republicans are suggesting lowering the federal gas tax and letting the states keep more of the money with the states also being given more discretion on how to raise and spend the money.

I'm going to say the spending cuts should come from the following areas: 1. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development 2. Dept. of Education 3. Title X 4. Title XX

@JimB: Really? All of the stimulus bill was for shovel ready infrastructure jobs? And confirmation of that is easy to find?

That's wonderful because I'm sure you won't mind providing that confirmation in order to validate your claim.

The signs do seem like a bit of a waste of money, and they should probably prioritize better.

It depends what kind of infrastructure projects we're talking about. I'm okay with taxes being raised on certain income brackets so long as the projects aren't pipe dreams. I'm not going to support billions of dollars for high speed rail systems, though.

@airshocker: What about slow speed rails?

Foreign aid and other soft power ventures would be a good choice for budget cuts.

GazaAli don't play! He ain't no softie! He hard, he an OG hangin' out on OT

Skipping the annual tribute to Israel once would save the U.S $3B, which is more than enough to fund whatever grandiose infrastructure plans Obama has.

@mattbbpl: So I weep, yeah, 'cause he don't know what I do.

lmao what a tool.

That wouldn't cover it, but I would not mind that at all TBH.

Reasonable opinion right here, one that I'd partially agree with. They should start with the necessary infrastructure projects first.

What about the regular railway systems? Regular railways serve a larger purpose. And they don't cost an obscene amount of money per mile of track.

@bmanva: local perhaps but i don't think that applies to interstates

We should absolutely cut military spending. There is no sane reason to spend more than the next top 13 countries combined. It's a huge corporate welfare system. We should also tax the rich. They should be paying for everything.

It's just the mindset of the stupid half of the country, the Republicans, the Duggers, as I call them.

Wouldn't make sense to build regular railways systems since those don't provide any benefit compared to just using a plane. The main draw of high speed is they compete directly versus airplane travel so it would also make airlines lower prices. I'm not saying the US needs high speed rails right this second but if they wanted to upgrade their train infrastructure going all in on high speed rails would be the only way to do it rather than a half-assed approach of using outdated tech that's obsolete before laying down a single foot of track.

@Aljosa23: Clasisc rail is used for freight, and it moves that freight very efficiently. The ease with which it moves goods is a big economic benefit.

Looking at it solely from a passenger viewpoint is examining it from the wrong angle.

Yeah I'm strictly talking about commuter rails here since that's I think of when the topic comes up. Is there a need for more freight rail systems in the US?

edit: turns out some high speed systems also provide freight service.

That's an interesting question. In certain areas, the answer is certainly yes as current demand exceeds currently supply in those areas. However, that's not the case everywhere. Beyond that, we ship a bunch of stuff by truck that has no business going by truck over rail. I don't know if that's because people don't think of freight, or are more used to using truck, or what, but what we have could be used more fully (and then that could potentially reveal a need for greater capacity).

We (my company) are actually in the middle of building a railway port and increasing our shipping lanes in the Great Lakes.The first is specifically to increase shipping capacity in our local area and be able to pull in more product from a wider radius.

@samusbeliskner: The Dugger business was over in the world of politics after two weeks. Honestly you sound as idiotic as the people holding onto the tern Gruber.

lol. Looks like I upset another Dugger!

@samusbeliskner: I'm upset because you make Democrats look like idiots, not because I agree with anything Republicans say.