Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do we need to sell our roads and bridges to private investors? Will they use their tax break cash to take control of our public resources and assets?
Given that this is a proposal I'd suppose that it will be tweaked and added to/deleted from as it goes through the legislative process.
We'll have to see how this gets changed in the end...
The roads "may" be but it looks like some bridges are not. Still want to tell him to "go pound sand" or to start fixing the problems?
And then there's this report from last year. While FL got a "C" grade which is better than some it still means there's work that can be done. Why not put aside politics and do it?
They are fine. No need to tax our residents to pay for crap which is not needed. We'll fix our own problems.
I don't see local funding covering over $1T in infrastructure through bonds or anything else.
While I'm not a huge fan of Trump one has to admit that construction is his strong suit and this could be one of the areas where he could use his expertise.
Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your outlook) he's no expert at politics (yet) so that will be the "iffy" thing in all of this...
They are fine. No need to tax our residents to pay for crap which is not needed. We'll fix our own problems.
Didn't look at the map right? If what you're saying is true then why only a "C"? Schools with a "D-" rating, Stormwater with a "D" rating, Roads with a "C" rating, Coastal Areas, one of the big draws in FL got a wonderful "D+" etc,etc,etc. If everything is so great and y'all can "fix it yourselves" why the poor grades?
C'mon, get fixing already...
I didn't like Obama's plan to save the world with infrastructure spending, and I don't like Trump's.
Both for similar reasons: major infrastructure spending plans don't do much. It doesn't create long term jobs (jobs only last the length of the spending). It generally doesn't add new infrastructure; it just patches up existing infrastructure. And, it adds billions (or in this case, a Trillion) to the budget.
If Infrastructure spending is such a great thing why do we keep needing another dose of it with every administration? It's akin to welfare spending: it just keeps people (or in this case, states) dependent on the government dole.
Don't get me wrong: the government (Fed, state, local) does need to do a certain amount of spending on infrastructure, but spending MORE is NOT the brilliant solution for creating long term jobs that DC would like us to believe.
I'd really like to see some new ideas instead of yet another administration regurgitating the same old idea. And, I said the same thing when Obama said that infrastructure spending was going to be the great savior too.
The problem is how much of those past bills actually went to infrastructure? Another thing, remember the TVA project? That project put thousands to work in good paying jobs.
Ask Congress watchers what major legislation is most likely to pass under the next administration, one answer always comes up: infrastructure investment. It is one of the few issues the two presidential candidates appear to agree on: Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump argue that the country’s dilapidated roads, bridges and airports need rebuilding. Both candidates also say those programs will create many new jobs, putting construction workers back to work.
Clinton has proposed a five-year, $275 billion plan, while last week, Trump suggested he would double her proposal. Clinton’s website touts a White House report that every $1 billion in infrastructure spending creates 13,000 jobs.
Only one problem: That report is from 2011 when the construction industry was in the midst of one of its worst economic years in its history. Five years later, things look a lot different. Unemployment is low and wages have even started rising. Instead of creating thousands of jobs, experts now warn that a new infrastructure investment could face the exact opposite challenge: a labor shortage.
While the stimulus bill included money for new infrastructure spending, President Barack Obama also lobbied Congress to pass an additional stimulus during the fall of 2011—the American Jobs Act—that included more than $50 billion in additional infrastructure investment. The plan, though, was blocked by a Republican Congress. In the years since, America’s critical infrastructure has continued to deteriorate, making the need for a big investment even more urgent.
But during that same period, the construction industry has slowly recovered as the housing sector has picked up, undermining the case for infrastructure investment as fiscal stimulus. Unemployment in the construction industry in June (2016) was down to 4.6 percent, the lowest it’s been since 2000. Compensation has started rising as well, hitting 2.5 percent in the second quarter of this year—not a rapid improvement but its highest level since 2008. Job openings in the construction industry are also nearing their pre-recession peak. Headlines now repeatedly warn of a shortage in construction workers.
Proponents of a big infrastructure plan brush off these numbers. The real value in infrastructure investment is not the short-term jobs, they say, but the long-term economic benefits from reduced commute times, safe drinking water and improved productivity. Plus, if the government does face a labor shortage, wages will rise and workers in other industries will switch to construction.
Since many Americans have faced years of stagnant incomes, higher wages would not exactly be a bad thing. But higher wages also means higher costs for the government while also potentially crowding out other construction projects. Those are real costs that didn’t exist in 2011. Most important, with the labor market for construction workers tight, a large infrastructure program is unlikely to create many new jobs.
Last edited by RosieSD; 02-12-2018 at 10:07 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No generalities or talking points but point by point specifics.
If what you're saying is true then why only a "C"? Schools with a "D-" rating, Stormwater with a "D" rating, Roads with a "C" rating, Coastal Areas, one of the big draws in FL got a wonderful "D+" etc,etc,etc. If everything is so great and y'all can "fix it yourselves" why the poor grades?
