Why We're Going to Have to Raise Taxes On SOMEBODY...!

[CagedTroll]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now] at the time.

The ASCE (The American Society of Civil Engineers) studied and evaluated the status of America's infrastructure in twelve categories as indicated in the exhibit below. Although the U. S. seems to be doing better in some areas, the overall grade assigned by the civil engineering study was D+ (up from an overall D in 1998 ). According to the report, population growth and school enrollment are increasing faster than current investment and maintenance efforts. Local political opposition and red tape stymie the development of effective solutions. There is a growing obsolescence and an aging system evident in the breakdown of California's electric power system and the nation's decaying water infrastructure. According to Robert Bein, a civil engineer from Irvine California, "America has been seriously under-investing in its infrastructure for decades and this report reflects that." The ASCE estimates that it will take $1.3 trillion over the next five years to fix these problems. Bein adds "With a projected Federal budget surplus of 5.6 trillion dollars, our leaders in Congress have the funds needed to restore our ailing infrastructure.

Err, uhhh, ummmmm...? Not anymore we don't!!!

Without these resources, we gamble America's prosperity on an infrastructure whose pipes, schools, and airports are literally at the bursting point." According to ASCE Executive Director James Davis, "As a nation, we have taken for granted that our lights will turn on, our roads and bridges won't crumble beneath us and that we'll have clean and safe water when we're thirsty. Without adequate resources, we cannot implement appropriate solutions."

Or you could just say Rome fell because a lack of a "moral center" caused them to forget how to mix concrete... Yeah, that works!

You know, if we could just tax Bill Gates at 90% for the rest of his life--- (types the Troll into his beloved [Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]!!! )

[bobbcat]

Troll, you sound like Chicken Little.

A 2003 USA Today report:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

Exerpt:

The Bush administration in May proposed spending $247 billion on roads, bridges and mass transit, 13% more than the previous six-year plan.

Rep. Don Young, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has proposed a $375 billion spending plan, to be paid for by indexing the gasoline tax to inflation. Young, R-Alaska, said in a statement that the report reinforced his serious concerns about the state of the U.S. infrastructure.

It would appear that the Bush Administration is more concerned about this issue than the previous administration. Funniest thing.

[mrbowler]

Originally Posted by bobbcat

Troll, you sound like Chicken Little.

A 2003 USA Today report:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

Exerpt:

It would appear that the Bush Administration is more concerned about this issue than the previous administration. Funniest thing.

What Credit Card was used? j/k

[CagedTroll]

Collecting...my...thoughts...

[CagedTroll]

Originally Posted by bobbcat

It would appear that the Bush Administration is more concerned about this issue than the previous administration. Funniest thing.

Two years after the report comes out...?!? Bush gets credit when he signs off on something closer to Young's plan (another $100 billion, give or take). From what I've read before, I sorta like Young, and it's got nothing to do with the fact that he's a Republican.

Also, an idea of where the money would from, under the Bush proposal, that would be SO nice!

[mayor]

Let's face it. Bush is NOT the fiscal conservative that conservatives had hoped for. WAY too much spending. Too much government expansion.

Reagan proved that the answer was lower taxes and less government. Any anomolies during his Presidency were due to a Democrat controlled congress that could not control spending. Something to much akin to today's Republican controlled congress I fear.

Mayor

[mrbowler]

Originally Posted by mayor

Let's face it. Bush is NOT the fiscal conservative that conservatives had hoped for. WAY too much spending. Too much government expansion.

Reagan proved that the answer was lower taxes and less government. Any anomolies during his Presidency were due to a Democrat controlled congress that could not control spending. Something to much akin to today's Republican controlled congress I fear.

Mayor

Wow! Have to agree 100% with your statement about Bush not being the fiscal conservative.
I'd sure like to see more fiscal discipline. In your "lower taxes" -all depends on whom we are talking about IMO.