Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Infrastructure jobs do not provide long term job stability. As soon as that bridge is repaired the worker winds up right back in the unemployment line. Obviously we need to do some of these projects but they shouldn't be Obamas entire focus. We need job stability across all industries and constantly focusing on infrastructure just proves Obama is more interested in pacifying union leaders than he is actually helping the American people. In fact he just gave a speech about the transportation bill that's about to expire and guess who was at his side? ..... Trumpka
I'm not in a union and nor are most of my customers. And business is down dramatically and its not because some road has potholes in it.
Customers? I can't imagine what it is you sell.
Jmstile.com
And your site is posted on the Internet? That's "Broadband". Which is "infrastructure".
What good is a "dream house" without roads or bridges to get materials on site?
Or electricity to light all those bulbs?
All "infrastructure".
You might want to "rethink" your position. Because the one you have now seems awfully stupid.
Infrastructure jobs do not provide long term job stability. As soon as that bridge is repaired the worker winds up right back in the unemployment line. Obviously we need to do some of these projects but they shouldn't be Obamas entire focus. We need job stability across all industries and constantly focusing on infrastructure just proves Obama is more interested in pacifying union leaders than he is actually helping the American people. In fact he just gave a speech about the transportation bill that's about to expire and guess who was at his side? ..... Trumpka
I'm not in a union and nor are most of my customers. And business is down dramatically and its not because some road has potholes in it.
The Economist has a great article on the US infrastructure, Life in the slow lane. Contrary to the OP, the article points out several things.
One, the world is passing the US by regarding the state of this country's infrastructure. The US rates 23rd in the world in infrastructure quality.
"In 2005 Congress established the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. In 2008 the commission reckoned that America needed at least $255 billion per year in transport spending over the next half-century to keep the system in good repair and make the needed upgrades. Current spending falls 60% short of that amount."
"At the state and local level transport budgets will remain tight while unemployment is high. With luck, this pressure could spark a wave of innovative planning focused on improving the return on infrastructure spending. The question in Washington, apart from how to escape the city on traffic-choked Friday afternoons, is whether political leaders are capable of building on these ideas. The early signs are not encouraging.
Mr Obama is thinking big. His 2012 budget proposal contains $556 billion for transport, to be spent over six years. But his administration has declined to explain where the money will come from. Without new funding, some Democratic leaders have warned, a new, six-year transport bill will have to trim annual highway spending by about a third to keep up with falling petrol-tax revenues. But Republicans are increasingly sceptical of any new infrastructure spending. Party leaders have taken to using inverted commas around the word “investment” when Democrats apply it to infrastructure.
Roads, bridges and railways used to be neutral ground on which the parties could come together to support the country’s growth. But as politics has become more bitter, public works have been neglected. If the gridlock choking Washington finds its way to America’s statehouses too, then the American economy risks grinding to a standstill."
America's transport infrastructure: Life in the slow lane | The Economist
I think everyone should read this article, The Economist is a very conservative economic resource and is realistic in it's thinking.
The bottom-line, the US has NOT taken care of it's infrastructure. Funding for the US infrastructure is at historical lows. Not having a sound and up-to-date infrastructure costs lives. Not having a up-to-date infrastructure hurts the US economy and not solving this problem" the American economy risks grinding to a standstill".
China is building NEW infrastructure based on the need for it since they have to keep up with a massive population. Second I don't consider this a competition. We have to spend what money we have wisely. The feds distribute the money to the states and the states determine where the money will be spent. Thirdly I admit there are areas of concern but a one size fits all policy does not fit every states needs. As my state is proof. KC and St Louis absorbed much of the money alloted for infrastructure and wastes it yet rural areas are in decline. It's not a matter of lack of money in many cases so much as it is frivolously wasted.
Bottom line is this topics about our countrys desperate need for jobs not about the condition of our sewers. We need a well rounded jobs solution not jobs that expire when a certain project is done.
The Economist has a great article on the US infrastructure, Life in the slow lane. Contrary to the OP, the article points out several things.
One, the world is passing the US by regarding the state of this country's infrastructure. The US rates 23rd in the world in infrastructure quality.
"In 2005 Congress established the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. In 2008 the commission reckoned that America needed at least $255 billion per year in transport spending over the next half-century to keep the system in good repair and make the needed upgrades. Current spending falls 60% short of that amount."
"At the state and local level transport budgets will remain tight while unemployment is high. With luck, this pressure could spark a wave of innovative planning focused on improving the return on infrastructure spending. The question in Washington, apart from how to escape the city on traffic-choked Friday afternoons, is whether political leaders are capable of building on these ideas. The early signs are not encouraging.
Mr Obama is thinking big. His 2012 budget proposal contains $556 billion for transport, to be spent over six years. But his administration has declined to explain where the money will come from. Without new funding, some Democratic leaders have warned, a new, six-year transport bill will have to trim annual highway spending by about a third to keep up with falling petrol-tax revenues. But Republicans are increasingly sceptical of any new infrastructure spending. Party leaders have taken to using inverted commas around the word investment when Democrats apply it to infrastructure.
Roads, bridges and railways used to be neutral ground on which the parties could come together to support the countrys growth. But as politics has become more bitter, public works have been neglected. If the gridlock choking Washington finds its way to Americas statehouses too, then the American economy risks grinding to a standstill."
America's transport infrastructure: Life in the slow lane | The Economist
I think everyone should read this article, The Economist is a very conservative economic resource and is realistic in it's thinking.
The bottom-line, the US has NOT taken care of it's infrastructure. Funding for the US infrastructure is at historical lows. Not having a sound and up-to-date infrastructure costs lives. Not having a up-to-date infrastructure hurts the US economy and not solving this problem" the American economy risks grinding to a standstill".
China is building NEW infrastructure based on the need for it since they have to keep up with a massive population. Second I don't consider this a competition. We have to spend what money we have wisely. The feds distribute the money to the states and the states determine where the money will be spent. Thirdly I admit there are areas of concern but a one size fits all policy does not fit every states needs. As my state is proof. KC and St Louis absorbed much of the money alloted for infrastructure and wastes it yet rural areas are in decline. It's not a matter of lack of money in many cases so much as it is frivolously wasted.
Bottom line is this topics about our countrys desperate need for jobs not about the condition of our sewers. We need a well rounded jobs solution not jobs that expire when a certain project is done.
If the US were to fix it's infrastructure to safe levels, it would take years. It's not a quick fix at all.
From the previous link I posted from The Economists:
__________________________________________________________
Americas dependence on its cars is reinforced by a shortage of alternative forms of transport. Europes large economies and Japan routinely spend more than America on rail investments, in absolute not just relative terms, despite much smaller populations and land areas. America spends more building airports than Europe but its underdeveloped rail network shunts more short-haul traffic onto planes, leaving many of its airports perpetually overburdened. Plans to upgrade air-traffic-control technology to a modern satellite-guided system have faced repeated delays. The current plan is now threatened by proposed cuts to the budget of the Federal Aviation Administration.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that America needs to spend $20 billion more a year just to maintain its infrastructure at the present, inadequate, levels. Up to $80 billion a year in additional spending could be spent on projects which would show positive economic returns. Other reports go further. In 2005 Congress established the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. In 2008 the commission reckoned that America needed at least $255 billion per year in transport spending over the next half-century to keep the system in good repair and make the needed upgrades. Current spending falls 60% short of that amount.
And from the same article:
_________________________________________________________
The Census Bureau expects the population to grow by 40% over the next four decades, equivalent to the entire population of Japan.
_________________________________________________________
Any sane person would know that the US would never spend $255 billion a year for infrastructure repair, this country just plain can't afford it. BUT, this article clearly shows that with all the needed repair and with the US population growing at 40% (which means more usage, infrastructure repair is a decades long project.
More and more, private investment is making it's mark in infrastructure repair, this is great for the US economy and the taxpayer and it provides new longterm jobs.
We're talking about more jobs and improving our infrastructure saves life and makes the US more for a sounder and deeper economy.
Here's the link about private investment in the US infrastructure:
http://www.irei.com/uploads/marketresearch/67/marketResearchFile/Opp_Priv_Infr_Inv.pdf
Infrastructure jobs do not provide long term job stability. As soon as that bridge is repaired the worker winds up right back in the unemployment line. Obviously we need to do some of these projects but they shouldn't be Obamas entire focus. We need job stability across all industries and constantly focusing on infrastructure just proves Obama is more interested in pacifying union leaders than he is actually helping the American people. In fact he just gave a speech about the transportation bill that's about to expire and guess who was at his side? ..... Trumpka
I'm not in a union and nor are most of my customers. And business is down dramatically and its not because some road has potholes in it.
Infrastructure jobs do not provide long term job stability. As soon as that bridge is repaired the worker winds up right back in the unemployment line. Obviously we need to do some of these projects but they shouldn't be Obamas entire focus. We need job stability across all industries and constantly focusing on infrastructure just proves Obama is more interested in pacifying union leaders than he is actually helping the American people. In fact he just gave a speech about the transportation bill that's about to expire and guess who was at his side? ..... Trumpka
I'm not in a union and nor are most of my customers. And business is down dramatically and its not because some road has potholes in it.
Yeah, but there's lots of bridges. What can Obama do in the private sector, anyway? We didn't raise taxes, so where are the jobs that were promised? Raising taxes were supposed to hurt jobs, so are they just pocketing the money instead of using them for jobs?
China is building NEW infrastructure based on the need for it since they have to keep up with a massive population. Second I don't consider this a competition. We have to spend what money we have wisely. The feds distribute the money to the states and the states determine where the money will be spent. Thirdly I admit there are areas of concern but a one size fits all policy does not fit every states needs. As my state is proof. KC and St Louis absorbed much of the money alloted for infrastructure and wastes it yet rural areas are in decline. It's not a matter of lack of money in many cases so much as it is frivolously wasted.
Bottom line is this topics about our countrys desperate need for jobs not about the condition of our sewers. We need a well rounded jobs solution not jobs that expire when a certain project is done.
If the US were to fix it's infrastructure to safe levels, it would take years. It's not a quick fix at all.
From the previous link I posted from The Economists:
__________________________________________________________
America’s dependence on its cars is reinforced by a shortage of alternative forms of transport. Europe’s large economies and Japan routinely spend more than America on rail investments, in absolute not just relative terms, despite much smaller populations and land areas. America spends more building airports than Europe but its underdeveloped rail network shunts more short-haul traffic onto planes, leaving many of its airports perpetually overburdened. Plans to upgrade air-traffic-control technology to a modern satellite-guided system have faced repeated delays. The current plan is now threatened by proposed cuts to the budget of the Federal Aviation Administration.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that America needs to spend $20 billion more a year just to maintain its infrastructure at the present, inadequate, levels. Up to $80 billion a year in additional spending could be spent on projects which would show positive economic returns. Other reports go further. In 2005 Congress established the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. In 2008 the commission reckoned that America needed at least $255 billion per year in transport spending over the next half-century to keep the system in good repair and make the needed upgrades. Current spending falls 60% short of that amount.
And from the same article:
_________________________________________________________
The Census Bureau expects the population to grow by 40% over the next four decades, equivalent to the entire population of Japan.
_________________________________________________________
Any sane person would know that the US would never spend $255 billion a year for infrastructure repair, this country just plain can't afford it. BUT, this article clearly shows that with all the needed repair and with the US population growing at 40% (which means more usage, infrastructure repair is a decades long project.
More and more, private investment is making it's mark in infrastructure repair, this is great for the US economy and the taxpayer and it provides new longterm jobs.
We're talking about more jobs and improving our infrastructure saves life and makes the US more for a sounder and deeper economy.
Here's the link about private investment in the US infrastructure:
http://www.irei.com/uploads/marketresearch/67/marketResearchFile/Opp_Priv_Infr_Inv.pdf
And where do you propose we get the money for all this. In a perfect situation we could afford it, but we can't. Obama claimed his last stimulus was going to address this and what happened? It got wasted and the so called shovel ready jobs were just an illusion. You need to separate the two issues. Jobs and infrastructure are do not have the same needs. All the people looking for work are not ditch diggers or brick layers.
So....after the road has been built, the bridge repaired, the sewer line laid there's no long term benefit vis-a-vis job growth? Have you really thought this out, or are you parroting some DJ turned pundit?Infrastructure jobs do not provide long term job stability. As soon as that bridge is repaired the worker winds up right back in the unemployment line. Obviously we need to do some of these projects but they shouldn't be Obamas entire focus. We need job stability across all industries and constantly focusing on infrastructure just proves Obama is more interested in pacifying union leaders than he is actually helping the American people. In fact he just gave a speech about the transportation bill that's about to expire and guess who was at his side? ..... Trumpka
I'm not in a union and nor are most of my customers. And business is down dramatically and its not because some road has potholes in it.
And yet before the war, the spending gave us paved highways, bridges, dams, public libraries and museums, school houses and other academic buildings and facilities, public art, jobs, skills and a higher quality of living.WWII was temporary and the spending involved got us out of the Depression,
so we're told,
by the Right...