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.
Why pay today when you can get the next guy in line to pay. GOP does not believe that deficits matter. At State and local levels it matters a lot. See NJ and the issues with their failure tobring in enough revenue.
If the State already has a gas tax to repay the bonds with then Why not? You would have to look at the return you get on the investment. Does the tax money spent on the improvement justify the expenditure? Etc. But if the tax revenue is there to repay the bonds with then it should be OK.
On the other hand can they cut spending far enough else where to pay for it out of existing taxes?
What is the HTF? What Dems? How did that pass the Republican dominated House?
LOL..you ask these questions in a thread you started about infrastructure spending ?
Why does Obama want this tax ? What fund went broke in 2008 and has been bailed out since ?
LOL..you ask these questions in a thread you started about infrastructure spending ?
Why does Obama want this tax ? What fund went broke in 2008 and has been bailed out since ?
I'm done here.
He didn't even Google HTF. I'll give him it took Googling HTF bail out to find the acronym but two tries was to much to ask of him.
If the State already has a gas tax to repay the bonds with then Why not? You would have to look at the return you get on the investment. Does the tax money spent on the improvement justify the expenditure? Etc. But if the tax revenue is there to repay the bonds with then it should be OK.
On the other hand can they cut spending far enough else where to pay for it out of existing taxes?
No, this is what happened:
Quote:
Two years ago, Walker and GOP lawmakers approved $2 billion in borrowing — about half of it for buildings and maintenance and about half of it for transportation. Walker's new plan would provide no new borrowing for buildings and $1.3 billion for transportation, up from $991 million.
Is borrowing money a sustainable method for maintaining infrastructure? Doesn't that increase the deficit and the debt?
I thought Republicans were for decreasing debt. Is that not true?
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.
