Grand Infrastructure projects....

[Mxylplyx]

Wouldnt it be great if every fiscal year, our government set aside 50 billion or so to fund grand infrastructure projects that could be chosen by the people? Yearly committes could be formed that consists of city leaders, artists, architects, and even regular citizens, who would come up with various ideas that could be presented to the people, and the people could vote on which one(s) they want to see funded. These would be projects that make the whole country stand back and go "Wow", and just well up with pride that such a thing was built here in America. This would allow us to cast aside practicality and budget concerns every once in a while, and do something just so we could feel good about it and be proud to be Americans. Kind of like going to the moon, which didnt have much practical purpose at the time.

I think they could easily take this out of the military budget by scaling back a few dozen pointless deployments around the world.

What do you think?

 

[BoberFett]

I have an idea. Stop confiscating and wasting so much of my money, and I'll contribute to projects which I feel are worthwhile.

 

[K1052]

50 billion really wouldn't fund very many "grand infrastructure projects" especially taking into account the tendancy for them to go massively over budget.

The kind of stuff we actually need simply isn't very glamorous. I mean how many people are going to look at a new run of high voltage line, power substation, sewer main, or rail line replacement and really be awed?

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I have an idea. Stop confiscating and wasting so much of my money, and I'll contribute to projects which I feel are worthwhile.

What national infrastructure projects have you voluntarily contributed to recently?

 

[xochi]

I think that is a good idea. They should only provide 50%/60% of the funds and have the cities/state match the rest of the money.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: xochi
I think that is a good idea. They should only provide 50%/60% of the funds and have the cities/state match the rest of the money.

This is typically what already happens. The Feds match capital funds for many projects.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: K1052
50 billion really wouldn't fund very many "grand infrastructure projects" especially taking into account the tendancy for them to go massively over budget.

The kind of stuff we actually need simply isn't very glamorous. I mean how many people are going to look at a new run of high voltage line, power substation, sewer main, or rail line replacement and really be awed?

These dont have to be critical infrastructure, and it doesnt have to be nationwide. This can, and should be stuff like building the tallest building in the world, building a state of the art rail line connecting a few cities, or building a revolutionary type of airport.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: K1052
50 billion really wouldn't fund very many "grand infrastructure projects" especially taking into account the tendancy for them to go massively over budget.

The kind of stuff we actually need simply isn't very glamorous. I mean how many people are going to look at a new run of high voltage line, power substation, sewer main, or rail line replacement and really be awed?

These dont have to be critical infrastructure, and it doesnt have to be nationwide. This can, and should be stuff like building the tallest building in the world, building a state of the art rail line connecting a few cities, or building a revolutionary type of airport.

Then it's just more pork if it isn't economically justifiable.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: K1052
50 billion really wouldn't fund very many "grand infrastructure projects" especially taking into account the tendancy for them to go massively over budget.

The kind of stuff we actually need simply isn't very glamorous. I mean how many people are going to look at a new run of high voltage line, power substation, sewer main, or rail line replacement and really be awed?

These dont have to be critical infrastructure, and it doesnt have to be nationwide. This can, and should be stuff like building the tallest building in the world, building a state of the art rail line connecting a few cities, or building a revolutionary type of airport.

Then it's just more pork if it isn't economically justifiable.

I think economics being the overriding concern above all else is what has made America so damn boring. How many of the man made wonders of the world were based on economics? Was the Roman Coliseum based on economics. I think sometimes we should just build something because it would be damn cool to build. The economics would come in to play around the projects "wow" factor.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: K1052
50 billion really wouldn't fund very many "grand infrastructure projects" especially taking into account the tendancy for them to go massively over budget.

The kind of stuff we actually need simply isn't very glamorous. I mean how many people are going to look at a new run of high voltage line, power substation, sewer main, or rail line replacement and really be awed?

These dont have to be critical infrastructure, and it doesnt have to be nationwide. This can, and should be stuff like building the tallest building in the world, building a state of the art rail line connecting a few cities, or building a revolutionary type of airport.

Then it's just more pork if it isn't economically justifiable.

I think economics being the overriding concern above all else is what has made America so damn boring. How many of the man made wonders of the world were based on economics? Was the Roman Coliseum based on economics. I think sometimes we should just build something because it would be damn cool to build. The economics would come in to play around the projects "wow" factor.

Didnt Rome burn and crumble from within?

Anyways I think with as taxed as we are as a population. Simply setting aside 50 billion a year to build some gran monument isnt the wisests of decisions. Take that 50 billions and expand our federal highway system, repair bridges, repair roads, expand air and seaport capacity.

We as a nation have become so fixated on how to steal from ourselves, we forgot to keep the house of cards maintained enough to not crumble on itself.

 

[ProfJohn]

Could you give us an idea of the types of projects you want to build.

And please explain how building the tallest building in the world in NY is going to help those of us living in Florida.

Now a high speed rail line along DC/Boston corridor might make sense, but that is about the only place in the country where there would be enough traffic to make it work.

As someone else already pointed out the rest of your ?grand? projects end up looking more like pork than anything else. I can imagine congress fighting over who gets what.

Also? why take the money out of our defense budget? Why not take it from the $1 trillion we spend per year on social programs?

 

[sandorski]

If you did that every year, the "Wow" would wear off pretty quick. Maybe one such project every Decade or so.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: K1052
50 billion really wouldn't fund very many "grand infrastructure projects" especially taking into account the tendancy for them to go massively over budget.

The kind of stuff we actually need simply isn't very glamorous. I mean how many people are going to look at a new run of high voltage line, power substation, sewer main, or rail line replacement and really be awed?

$50 billion a YEAR would fund a lot of 'grand projects'
The Denver airport cost about $5 billion so imagine 10 major airports being built per year that would certainly have a huge impact on air travel.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Could you give us an idea of the types of projects you want to build.

And please explain how building the tallest building in the world in NY is going to help those of us living in Florida.

Now a high speed rail line along DC/Boston corridor might make sense, but that is about the only place in the country where there would be enough traffic to make it work.

As someone else already pointed out the rest of your ?grand? projects end up looking more like pork than anything else. I can imagine congress fighting over who gets what.

Also? why take the money out of our defense budget? Why not take it from the $1 trillion we spend per year on social programs?

Tallest building in the world.
Most advanced airport in the world
Most advanced seaport in the world
Highest capacity wind turbine farm in the world.

Anything with the words "Biggest", "Best", "Most Advanced", and "In the World".



ps. If you read my posts around here, you'd know that I'm certainly not a liberal. I'm a proud American that wants something to be proud of again. Seems whenever one wants to read about Americas great accomplishments, they have to get out the history books.

 

[ProfJohn]

Aren?t we already building the tallest building in the world in form of the freedom tower? Or has it already been passed up?

All the other stuff sounds great, but it shouldn?t be built just for the sake of building it. We need to focus on spending money where it will provide the greatest benefit. Building one additional runway at the 10 busiest airports in the country would have more impact than building one super airport.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: K1052
50 billion really wouldn't fund very many "grand infrastructure projects" especially taking into account the tendancy for them to go massively over budget.

The kind of stuff we actually need simply isn't very glamorous. I mean how many people are going to look at a new run of high voltage line, power substation, sewer main, or rail line replacement and really be awed?

$50 billion a YEAR would fund a lot of 'grand projects'
The Denver airport cost about $5 billion so imagine 10 major airports being built per year that would certainly have a huge impact on air travel.

DIA was literally built out in the middle of nowhere. That is a tad harder (and much more expensive) to do in most of the built up metro areas that need more flight capacity. The expansion and runway re-alignment at ORD will run 8-10 billion by the time it is completed or roughly double the cost of constructing DIA.

High speed rail in California 30-40+ billion. High speed rail in the NE 100-200 billion. The CTA here wants 10 Billion for capital improvements and expansion, as do METRA (commuter rail).

The line for that 50 billion will be incredibly long and might as well be rolled into other funding the Feds already provide by matching state funds for infrastructure improvements/replacement.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I have an idea. Stop confiscating and wasting so much of my money, and I'll contribute to projects which I feel are worthwhile.

What national infrastructure projects have you voluntarily contributed to recently?

Everyone on the internet contributes to it's growth. Everyone who drives a car and pays fuel and auto taxes contributes to their expansion and upkeep.

What do you want? Useless monuments? Statues of our Grand Leader?

 

[nageov3t]

why build new things when we don't even have the money to maintain existing structures?

though I'd kill for better train service in the north east corridor. but there's probably no money in it, no matter how much I'd rather take a train out to penn state than drive 4 hours each way.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: K1052
50 billion really wouldn't fund very many "grand infrastructure projects" especially taking into account the tendancy for them to go massively over budget.

The kind of stuff we actually need simply isn't very glamorous. I mean how many people are going to look at a new run of high voltage line, power substation, sewer main, or rail line replacement and really be awed?

These dont have to be critical infrastructure, and it doesnt have to be nationwide. This can, and should be stuff like building the tallest building in the world, building a state of the art rail line connecting a few cities, or building a revolutionary type of airport.

Then it's just more pork if it isn't economically justifiable.

I think economics being the overriding concern above all else is what has made America so damn boring. How many of the man made wonders of the world were based on economics? Was the Roman Coliseum based on economics. I think sometimes we should just build something because it would be damn cool to build. The economics would come in to play around the projects "wow" factor.

So you want bread and circuses to keep the masses fat, dumb and happy? You're despicable.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Could you give us an idea of the types of projects you want to build.

And please explain how building the tallest building in the world in NY is going to help those of us living in Florida.

Now a high speed rail line along DC/Boston corridor might make sense, but that is about the only place in the country where there would be enough traffic to make it work.

As someone else already pointed out the rest of your ?grand? projects end up looking more like pork than anything else. I can imagine congress fighting over who gets what.

Also? why take the money out of our defense budget? Why not take it from the $1 trillion we spend per year on social programs?

Tallest building in the world.
Most advanced airport in the world
Most advanced seaport in the world
Highest capacity wind turbine farm in the world.

Anything with the words "Biggest", "Best", "Most Advanced", and "In the World".



ps. If you read my posts around here, you'd know that I'm certainly not a liberal. I'm a proud American that wants something to be proud of again. Seems whenever one wants to read about Americas great accomplishments, they have to get out the history books.

What kind of sad person gains self worth from what others have done? You're just like the people who root for their "hometown" major league sports team. The people on that team have no allegiance. They're in it for the money. They're rarely from that town, and they'll leave once a better offer comes along. The owners don't care about the locals, they're just in it for the free stadium and the massive wealth they can suck out of the local economy. Yet sheep like you continue to cheer and yell while someone else gets rich off your back.

Do something in your life of your own that you can be proud of. It's much more fulfilling than just being a nationalist drone. My pride doesn't rely on the accomplishments of others.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: loki8481
why build new things when we don't even have the money to maintain existing structures?

though I'd kill for better train service in the north east corridor. but there's probably no money in it, no matter how much I'd rather take a train out to penn state than drive 4 hours each way.

If anyone gets better train service it will be the NE corridor and/or California but only probably between the major cities DC-Baltimore-Philadelphia- NYC-Providence-Boston (with maybe a couple other stops along the way) where most of the market is.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: loki8481
why build new things when we don't even have the money to maintain existing structures?

though I'd kill for better train service in the north east corridor. but there's probably no money in it, no matter how much I'd rather take a train out to penn state than drive 4 hours each way.

If anyone gets better train service it will be the NE corridor and/or California but only probably between the major cities DC-Baltimore-Philadelphia- NYC-Providence-Boston (with maybe a couple other stops along the way) where most of the market is.

High speed train service for the NE makes sense, but not if it will cost $100 billion.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I think they could easily take this out of the military budget by scaling back a few dozen pointless deployments around the world.

What do you think?

First, quit WASTING MY MONEY. Its not yours to wish upon same fool hardy scheme to make a monument to some politician; it will be named after one.

Two, why not take it from Entitlement programs which have NO BASIS in the Constitution? At least the military is SUPPOSED to be there.

Three, Just whan in sam hell do you think they do with current taxes? THEY WASTE THEM.


Stupid, ignorant, and well, just stupid

 

[heyheybooboo]

Transportation, clean water, wastewater treatment, clean energy (see the German PV program), schools & public recreation on a priority basis. The highest rankings priorities recieve more credit based upon the local commitment to funding.

Instead of wasting the current surpluses in social security these funds are used for low-interest loans toward the infrastructure projects. (And PJ, stop your obsfucation on 'social' spending. . .)

10-30% Federal Grant
25-75% Federal Loan of SS Funds
Remaing percentage stae and local match

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I think they could easily take this out of the military budget by scaling back a few dozen pointless deployments around the world.

What do you think?

Two, why not take it from Entitlement programs which have NO BASIS in the Constitution? At least the military is SUPPOSED to be there.

Stupid, ignorant, and well, just stupid

Yup. I guess you are talking about things like the Social Security Trust Fund (running a surplus) which has been robbed of nearly $3 trillion to pay for your supply-side tax cuts and Bush War.