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.
Our infrastructure needs attention. With UE high and interest rates at all time lows, it is a no-brainer.
Agreed, but the prevailing attitude among the tea party wing seems to be that anything that could be a success for Obama, we oppose, regardless of the consequences.
For those more open to the notion, I'd like to hear the best ideas. Investments with the best outcome to cost ratio.
Want to rebuild the infrastructure? Drill, Frac and use the revenue from that coming to the federal government to rebuild it and don't increase the national debt or defecit. I'll be onboard.
03-31-2013, 12:06 PM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules
There is nothing wrong with our infrastructure.
Why are people always trying to scare everyone that the infrastructure is falling apart?
Nothing wrong with our infrastructure? You need to get out more. Some places are fine, others are not.
Infrastructure needs to be prioritized. We have roads in the Portland area that are operating far in excess of what they were designed to handle, and it's only getting worse as major employers expand. Extra lanes, new bridges, more light rail stops, etc need to be constructed so the economic engine can keep purring along and growing.
I see you've been walking this statement back in subsequent posts. Perhaps less kneejerk opposition and more thinking before posting would help?
This says that over 600 bridges have failed since the 1980s. Hardly trivial.
But rather than the fear-based approach, I would challenge you to think of your grandchildren. What could we do to make their lives better?
When I visit national parks, I often seem to see campground, picnic areas, and roads, lodges built by the works project administration and civil conservation corps in the 1930s. Their efforts live on nearly a century latter. Most of what they did was not needed to avert risk, so much as to create opportunities for future generations. Why can't we have that attitude?
I completely agree with what Obama is saying in terms of investing in infrastructure, the problem is I don't trust him to actually do it. Remember how when he was selling his part of the stimulus to America, he talked on and on about infrastructure, but the vast majority of it was handouts, disproportionately to bankers, campaign donors, democratic constituencies, and money to states so they could deficit-spend on the federal dime. Since the last time Obama argued for using government resource to build things we got a lot of debt-fueled handouts instead, you'd have to be pretty naive to take him on his word on this until and unless he puts a potential bill in writing and then gives people enough time to read it.
Quite the contrary... "IF" obama were to propose that we start taking advantage of our natural resources and drill, sell our oil and gas on the open market, while creating jobs in the energy sector and increasing revenues to the government, then I would openly support him in it. He has not done so. While drilling activity is up, it is only up on private land because the Obama administration is not giving out adequate leases to public land for drilling and the new EPA regulations are strangling the energy sector. In other words, you're right. As long as Obama is a tax and spend president, he will NOT get my support on anything.
Well, I think Obama's track record has been pretty moderate with respect to conservation issues. Obviously drilling on public land is controversial. Conservatives seem to have run far away from natural resource conservation, but the public as a whole has very strong feelings about when and where we log, mine, and graze on our public lands. As a strong conservation voter, I would say Obama is hardly making us happy all the time. He has been pretty moderate, much to the frustrations of the environmentalists.
Bottomline is resource exploitation is far more controversial than infrastructure investment. And instead of creating value for the future, it is doing exactly the opposite.
Well, I think Obama's track record has been pretty moderate with respect to conservation issues. Obviously drilling on public land is controversial. Conservatives seem to have run far away from natural resource conservation, but the public as a whole has very strong feelings about when and where we log, mine, and graze on our public lands. As a strong conservation voter, I would say Obama is hardly making us happy all the time. He has been pretty moderate, much to the frustrations of the environmentalists.
Bottomline is resource exploitation is far more controversial than infrastructure investment. And instead of creating value for the future, it is doing exactly the opposite.
As hard as it may be for you to understand, that we disagree does NOT make you right. The government has bought up private land through forced sale in order to bottle neck the production of oil and gas. We have on tap the largest and most vast energy fields in the world and yet our economy is being strangled by unjustified environmental laws that have more to do with an agenda than the environment. Each year our government forces the sale of thousand upon thousands of acres back to the federal government and the land just sits there unused by any of us. The public as a whole has a very uneducated view of how environmentally friendly "MOST" oil and gas companies are and to what lengths they go to protect the environment. I'm not saying you have to advance oil and gas exploration. What I am saying is if you don't have the money to pay for it up front, don't spend it. If you want the money to pay for it, consider your options.
As hard as it may be for you to understand, that we disagree does NOT make you right. The government has bought up private land through forced sale in order to bottle neck the production of oil and gas. We have on tap the largest and most vast energy fields in the world and yet our economy is being strangled by unjustified environmental laws that have more to do with an agenda than the environment. Each year our government forces the sale of thousand upon thousands of acres back to the federal government and the land just sits there unused by any of us. The public as a whole has a very uneducated view of how environmentally friendly "MOST" oil and gas companies are and to what lengths they go to protect the environment. I'm not saying you have to advance oil and gas exploration. What I am saying is if you don't have the money to pay for it up front, don't spend it. If you want the money to pay for it, consider your options.
I don't claim to be right on this issue. It is admittedly a complicated one, and one in which a lot of discussion can and should occur before we proceed. It warrants its own thread. The infrastructure issue is more immediate, IMO.
I don't claim to be right on this issue. It is admittedly a complicated one, and one in which a lot of discussion can and should occur before we proceed. It warrants its own thread. The infrastructure issue is more immediate, IMO.
The two issues are not separate.. One is a part of the other... One enhances the other and makes the other viable....
Let one pay for the other and reap the benefits of both..Both are actually a part of the infrastructure.
Last edited by freightshaker; 03-31-2013 at 12:45 PM..
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.
