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.
Obama had 8 years to build infrastructure and he completely failed...
Eight years and $827 billion ($878 billion, by some accounts), as appropriated by Congress, no less, pursuant to the provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
And with all of that time and that incredible level of financial resources specifically allocated for the purpose, at the request of Obama himself, he nonetheless failed to address the infrastructure issues he said he intended to deal with. With only limited exceptions, every infrastructure project needing federal resources in 2009 still needs them in 2018, despite the expenditure of nearly $1 trillion. As a stimulus measure, each job created by the ARRA of 2009 (to the limited extent any were actually created at all) cost the taxpayers between $185,000 and $278,000. While ARRA's proponents maintained that unemployment would peak at 8% with the measure in place, the unemployment rate after passage actually reached (and exceeded, for a few months) 10%.
It stands as the greatest feat of governmental fiscal mismanagement in the history of Western civilization. Nobody has ever screwed up a bigger free taco dinner than B. Hussein Obama did with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
It is at this point that the intellectual pygmies asking "Where is Trump's infrastructure bill?" must answer a far more important question: Have you retired the debt incurred from the last infrastructure bill?
It is at this point that the intellectual pygmies asking "Where is Trump's infrastructure bill?" must answer a far more important question: Have you retired the debt incurred from the last infrastructure bill?
Someone is an "intellectual pygmy" if they question where Trump's promised infrastructure bill is? The one he guaranteed would be passed in the first 100 days, and would be "incredible"?
Trump lies, his fanatical supporters attack and deflect. Rinse, repeat.
Eight years and $827 billion ($878 billion, by some accounts), as appropriated by Congress, no less, pursuant to the provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
And with all of that time and that incredible level of financial resources specifically allocated for the purpose, at the request of Obama himself, he nonetheless failed to address the infrastructure issues he said he intended to deal with. With only limited exceptions, every infrastructure project needing federal resources in 2009 still needs them in 2018, despite the expenditure of nearly $1 trillion. As a stimulus measure, each job created by the ARRA of 2009 (to the limited extent any were actually created at all) cost the taxpayers between $185,000 and $278,000. While ARRA's proponents maintained that unemployment would peak at 8% with the measure in place, the unemployment rate after passage actually reached (and exceeded, for a few months) 10%.
It stands as the greatest feat of governmental fiscal mismanagement in the history of Western civilization. Nobody has ever screwed up a bigger free taco dinner than B. Hussein Obama did with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
It is at this point that the intellectual pygmies asking "Where is Trump's infrastructure bill?" must answer a far more important question: Have you retired the debt incurred from the last infrastructure bill?
The answer to that question, obviously, is "No."
infrastructure was about 100Bn of the bill. Perhaps if the bill had been bigger more funds could have been allocated towards this area. However, blaming Obama for something Trump promised he would do doesn't solve the fact that this should be a bipartisan goal for as much $$ as possible as it's sorely needed. Daddy's big plan of seed money from the Fed while forcing overburdened local and state govs to come up with the VAST majority of the funds is as useless as his tax cuts for private projects. the Ike model should be what we look to here.
That would depend a) on the infrastucture project and b) the contract with the private entity.
Most road and bridge construction and design is already done by private firms. It is usually funded by government. The DOT overseas the project. So true privatization would remove the funding but there would still need to be oversight. Then of course there is the question of how the private entity makes money on the funded dollars.
Get government funding out it completely. Private companies already have oversight--their customers.
No, that was the private company hired to build the bridge.
Private companies already build nearly all roads and bridges anyway. If they actually owned those things, instead of the government, they'd be safer and in better shape.
He is still trying to figure out how to sell our country's infrastructure to private interests and get away with it. Until then, the project's on hold ...
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.
