polifatts why would we cut welfare? Why don’t we cut military spending and stop sending money to other countries because we bombed them. I think we should fund programs to help people get off welfare or maybe just fund the infrastructure projects so we can create jobs which means less people on welfare. Makes no sense to stop funding Americans. Besides, I’m sure you’ve probably have benefited from a welfare program before
Ronald Hubbard that makes absolutely no sense what so ever. There’s no data that says increasing a military budget increases wealth for low income citizens😂
There is, actually. When the economy is doing well military recruitment falls to all time low points and when the economy is doing the worse it raises to extremely high points. I.E. at the moment due to the economy being the strongest in more than a decade army recruitment is at one of its lowest points in quite some time. The military provides reliable long-term employment with the only requirement being that you're physically fit and not of below average intelligence. Not to mention that the military actually pays well, compared to say minimum wage and also offers insurance and other benefits like retirement. And the key word in my previous comment was "earn". Welfare creates a reliance on the state that is unhealthy. When you teach people they have to work hard to survive they are more productive and the economy is better in turn whereas if you just give them money because they're on "hard times" (when in reality the economy is fantastic and the exclusive reason they're poor is because they're ignoring opportunities like the military for example) they become slaves to a system that's impossible to maintain.
Ronald Hubbard Has you still can’t cut welfare to people who actually need it. I don’t think people realize that welfare is more than food stamps and Medicaid. It’s unemployment benefits, Fafsa, FHA, WIC. It is helpful to those who can’t afford certain necessities. According to reports, people who are on welfare are actually working they just are in low earning jobs. Not everyone wants to be in the military. It’s not just something someone just gets up and do. Increasing our military budget right now sounds idiotic. Even though our economy is booming most of the jobs available are part-time jobs or low paid jobs with no benefits. No to mention cost of living has increased. A family of four in the San Francisco Bay Area is considered low income if their household income is less than $117,000. Trust me I believe less people should be on government assistance but your way is not the way to go. Our government waste so much money on the military to keep the pro war corporations happy. 96% of our countries history has been in war, that’s unacceptable. There’s so major changes that need to happen but the way you’re suggesting won’t work
Raise the gas tax, fix the roads, and invest in public transit. Do that, along with better city planning and zoning, and we'd see a revival of US Infrastructure. But nope, some go beyond simple frugality and cling to the status quo to the detriment of society :(
If our roads, particularly interstate, were built as they are in Europe and the more modern areas of Asia, South America and Australia, they would have road beds more than 2 feet below the surface. The deeper road bed supports more weight, endures bad weather conditions which means you don't get potholes. Also, contractors who put down roads are required to make all repairs FOR LIFE to the roads they build without any additional compensation. Result: the Autobahn and others that are well-maintained and make our system look like a 1920's dirt road.
You can't cheat for time by putting sand underneath that bed or you pay dearly. My family is from Southern India from the Thanjur, Aranthagi, and Manachai area. Notorious for those potholes of sand and low ties backing up.
I mean if we stopped spending almost half of our budget on military funding and instead focused on infrastructure, which would ultimately benefit EVERY aspect of the nation INCLUDING military. Think about it from this perspective: if there ever was a threat and we needed to move a large majority of military vehicles across country and our infrastructure prevented this... how does that help us? It doesn't.
But you realize that military spending does benefit the entire nation? This is exclusively unique to the U.S. since we still have preserved the military industry from World War 2 but essentially a massive portion of the economy relies on the military to buy their products so they can keep paying employees to do high-wage work. For example: SpaceX. They wouldn't exist right now if it wasn't for military funding being as high as it is. They were about to shut down until the military gave them a contract and as a result a massive amount of jobs have been preserved and new ones will be created in the field of Aerospace.
I know, I really miss my days in Europe where everything was top notch and first world....oh I miss the trams, the high speed trains, the nice airports, roads, culture and people who knew where Guyana is.
Public-private partnerships are obviously a bad idea. But beyond that, the type of transport infrastructure we have is the wrong kind TO have. The only way to get rid of grid lock to get rid of the car as the mainstay, and replace with with other forms of transit. Reserve the center of roads for new trolleys and buses. Profit has been destroying our infrastructure for decades already! In the beginning of the 20th century, American cities had a thriving transport network. And that spells disaster for profit driven corporate conglomerates. Why? Because am effective and efficient system DOES NOT PRODUCE PROFIT. All you have to do is maintain it, but auto companies and the highway building companies have nothing to sell to anybody. Destroying the infrastructure, while awful for most, is great for the most powerful in America. It makes them more money.
its better to spend money on roads than on a endless war. yeah the money could have gone to education but how would you feel if the road your kids school bus was on fell through a bridge or a road?
Roads don't create jobs, military spending does. That's why the military gets bonuses and infrastructure does not. Take for example SpaceX, they were about to shut down until the military gave them a contract that saved them. They can't have done that without military spending as high as it is.
@@ronaldhubbard577 "Roads don't create jobs, military spending does" No It Doesn't.If That's The Case Then Explain This *Madness* Here.."In all, at least a mind-boggling *$21 trillion of Pentagon financial transactions between 1998 and 2015* could not be traced, documented, or explained, concluded Skidmore. To convey the vastness of that sum, $21 trillion is roughly five times more than the entire federal government spends in a year. It is greater than the US Gross National Product, the world’s largest at an estimated $18.8 trillion. And that $21 trillion includes only plugs that were disclosed in reports by the Office of Inspector General, which does not review all of the Pentagon’s spending."
@ Ronald Hubbard No. The military does not create jobs, the government does by spending taxpayers money on the military, if you switched that to big infrastructure projects such as new buildings, improving roads, repairing bridges, improving airports, Improving dams and levies, building a high-speed rail network then jobs aren’t disappearing they’re just being reallocated to where the US needs to put them. The only reason the military hires people is due to your government putting the money there, it moves it somewhere else then that’s where the jobs are instead.
Lol toll roads? That can and will likely hurt economical growth if it gets out of hand, can't really blame the companies for wanting to do it, just know that it overall does not make for a sound economical choice in the long run, better to invest in ones own infrastructure
Seems to work in France. They have a public road network and a private road network (toll roads). Those toll roads are some of the best roads in the world, well maintained, smooth and affordable. The Millau Viaduct was privately built and toll cost around €10,00 (and it is frickin awsome)
I'd be more than happy to pay a marginal increase at the pump oppose to having to pay some outrages toll everytime I use a bridge, road, tunnel, etc. Private industry will always be in it for the profit, not just to get their money back. Do you really want corporate America to own our roads? You think the fees to take money out of an ATM are bad... wait until you see what they charge you to use infrastructure. Especially in Republican states where private industry profits make them wet. Taxes will always be much less of a burden than the ridiculous tolls private industry will charge you.
Ward413 Gas taxes aren't working anymore as they used to due to more fuel efficient and electric/hybrid vehicles on the road. There is already less money coming in from that tax.
Right but it hasn't been raised since the early 90's or something. It needs to be looked at again. Even if it brings in less money than it used to, which I agree with, there is much potential to pay for some basic and much needed infrastructure projects with a slight increase. Sure, it's not going to pay for a new 380 billion ten mile tunnel going underneath your city but it could at least pave some roads. The tax revenue from the increase would have to be earmarked specifically for projects otherwise you know those politicians are just going to use it for something else. Probably defense since our president seems to think our 700 billion dollar a year military is "depleted." Such a joke.
Right but that's the thing, if a private business is doing something you don't like you simply stop paying for that service. When that happens they have to change to serve the consumer. Of course unless the local government tries to bail them out, which does happen. In which case you should probably consider electing new officials, hm?
New York City is a union town as are several other places. THEN the Fed compounds by paying scale. And scale is parroted elsewhere. And getting a job with "union" prid pro quo is not an easy entry level hoop that many young men are willing to put up with. And women are usually the motivation behind both of those.
Individual transportation , cars , roads , freeways , suburbs - at some point in the future ; will be seen as a huge mistake and insane waste of resources
Seems like some efficiencies resulting from public-private infrastructure partnerships may be washed-out by the long-term administrative cost of low-income subsidies.
What I find funny is that US military does must of the heavy lifting keeping the oceans of trade open for the world(especially Europe). USA stops doing the heavy lifting Europe is going to have to invest in a massive Navy to protect its shipping cargo from Piracy and protectionism which means cutting social programs by 40%-60%. OR have Russia and China protect its Shipping Cargo which will give them a massive say in Europe's domestic and foreign policy. USA keeps the ocean of trade open which require a massive military budget and sacrifing a little infrastructure.
5:30 "this toll road in Denver didn't cost taxpayers a dime but costs drivers as much as $18 one way" Good, why should driving be subsidized? Driving is extremely inefficient but convenient, therefore you must pay.
Private funded infrastructure is ignorant and a quick fix for lazy politicians. I do not frequently visit anywhere where there are toll roads. While on a trip to florida we chose not to travel because of the toll highways around miami.
what 'they' don't offer is option to be like every other advanced society and NOT design cities around cars (extremely wasteful.. lol @ carpool lanes) you could learn from other countries design examples. there's NO need for cars.. remember 200 yrs ago when 'normal' was homesteading? (you hardly left your property)
Perhaps the people who use it more should pay for. Weight of vehicle has a differential impact as just one fact. Maybe a gas tax. Gas guzzler drivers would scream at that, but it also might eventually have a effect of slowing climate change.
Truck parking, for over the road truck drivers, is absolutely horrible. There is no where near enough truck parking. Nothing even close to reasonable. Horrible horrible horrible. Badly badly badly needed expansion of more rest areas and truckstops. I see this first hand on the road all the time. It's a really bad problem.
John Dyer Then more businesses should be shipping their products and supply lines by rail, at least between the Pacific and the Mississippi. If the truck stop capacity problems are primarily east of the Mississippi, then just ship more products by rail in those regions. Freight is less time-sensitive than people, so economics, rather than speed, should be the dominant factor in how a product or supply line is shipped.
Tolls are worse than taxes - with taxes, at least the government can spend it on something that will benefit everyone - social security, police, better roads etc. With tolls, the money only goes to corporate interests.
Our infrastructure is just more than great! We got the most beautiful wall on the Southern border! It is so beautiful ! Together with our President we will Make America Great Again!
Time has come to Raising taxes on the most profitable wealth generating entities who have benefited from a well functioning infrastructures in proportion to their profitability instead of the lowest what politicians can reduce it to has come
Cut the money that those in Washington make, and let them pay for their own benefits like most of the citizens of this country and put that money to good work!!
Tax corporate used the bast army siting in barricades used all the people taking benefits whom never worked ones and used locally owned companies for time consuming projects having them ready to connect to the main project
Stop building wasteful new highways and put that money towards fixing existing roadways. This applies to all three levels of gov't -- local, state, and federal. Highways in this context are limited-access highways with no signalized intersections, and access is by exit/entrance ramp. Stop expanding highways beyond 3 lanes in each direction and instead put a price on it to prevent excessive use (rural interstates should have a constant toll-rate; urban highways and interstates should have a changing price based on demand). The government has created a vast oversupply of roads by making them free and expanding them based on rush-hour demand and not on overall demand throughout the day and week. This also results in not many people wanting to take public transportation or intercity rail, which leads to funding cuts, which then lead to fare increases and service cuts, which then lead to lower ridership, leading to more funding cuts, and so on and so forth. In other words, the argument that public transportation and intercity rail are inferior, is invalid, because the government cherry-picked cars and planes and didn't pursue a balanced transportation network. This is why we haven't been able to raise enough revenue to properly maintain the amount of roads that we have now. Reduce the lane capacity of radial urban highways to 3 lanes per direction, non-radial highways to 3 lanes per direction and metropolitan beltways to 3 lanes per direction. Then charge dynamic tolls on those urban highways to raise the revenue needed to fix them. Rural highways should be tolled, but at a static rate per-mile. Most rural highways should be 2 lanes per direction. Most U.S. airports currently don't support themselves financially and need taxpayer funds to cover the difference. JFK, LaGuardia, Newark-Liberty, Boston-Logan, Chicago-O'Hare, Chicago-Midway, LAX, San Francisco, Seattle-Tacoma, Portland (Oregon), Atlanta-Hartsfield/Jackson, Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Orlando (MCO), Minneapolis/Saint Paul, Denver, Dallas/Fort Worth, Dallas-Love, Houston-George Bush, Houston-Hobby, Austin-Bergstrom, San Diego, Philadelphia, BWI, DCA, Washington-Dulles, Charlotte-Douglas, Memphis, Louisville, Indianapolis, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky, Cleveland-Hopkins, Salt Lake City, Kansas City, St. Louis-Lambert, Oklahoma City-Will Rogers, Tampa, St. Petersburg/Clearwater, Jacksonville (FL), Palm Beach (FL), Columbus (OH), Detroit-Wayne County, Nashville, Las Vegas-McCarran, Albuquerque, San Antonio (TX), Milwaukee-Mitchell, San Jose (CA), Oakland (CA), Long Beach (CA), Santa Ana-John Wayne (CA), Hollywood-Burbank (CA), Sacramento, and Little Rock airports should cover all of their costs through fees charged to aircraft. If any of those airports can't survive financially by doing that, then close such airports. Building a high speed rail system from scratch without the connecting rail network to support additional trains to towns and cities not on the high-speed rail line is folly. Before we can invest in a true high-speed network, we have to establish passenger rail routes on existing tracks. When creating a passenger rail service, frequency can often be a more important factor than speed (at least on shorter routes). There must be a sizable network of conventional passenger trains before a high-speed rail system can be established. Transit buses are often viewed as only for the poor. That's not true at all -- in fact, transit buses running every 6-12 minutes in their own dedicated curbside lanes can attract riders from all sorts of socioeconomic standpoints. Frequency is key, and reliability is key. Buses in their own lanes can be just as effective as new light rail.
But you realize that military spending does benefit the entire nation? This is exclusively unique to the U.S. since we still have preserved the military industry from World War 2 but essentially a massive portion of the economy relies on the military to buy their products so they can keep paying employees to do high-wage work. For example: SpaceX. They wouldn't exist right now if it wasn't for military funding being as high as it is. They were about to shut down until the military gave them a contract and as a result a massive amount of jobs have been preserved and new ones will be created in the field of Aerospace.
You typed,"When you need to increase the military budget by 600 billion each year" Increase? On March 16, 2017 President Trump submitted his request to Congress for $639 billion in military spending-$54 billion-which represents a 10 percent increase-for FY 2018 as well as $30 billion for FY2017 which ends in September.
I know, right? I actually wish Obama had done something similar and really try to emulate the same spirit of "we are putting the American Worker back to work through infrastructure investment!", but that probably wouldn't have gone through congress :( we need another WPA or CCC.
$20 trillion in debt. Where's the money? He may be able to write off bankruptcy in his personal financial failure, but the nation can't. Larry Sommers is Kensyian crank who would drive us further into debt and closer to our inevitable financial collapse. Tolls would give us the option to drive or not drive and would get cars off the road.
You realize that military spending in the U.S. creates the most jobs, right? Not to mention flows into other fields as well, take SpaceX. They almost went bankrupt and then the military gave them a contract that saved their business and in turn is now resulting in a space age being upon us again. That military contract wouldn't have been possible without increased spending.
How does SpaceX help us as a human race? Going to Mars? Get real. Why not save our planet (recover from what the past generations destroyed in the last 100 years) first.
Cut funding from Defense (no more blood for oil) and allocate towards investing in Education (doctors and teachers), Transportation (roads/railroads/airports improvements), Environment (alternative energies and harvesting our natural resources). That's the future my friend!
Dancing With Alpacas, at any given moment half of the world could be annihilated. Yellowstone isn't dormant anymore. There are numerous other crises that could happen that threaten the survival of the Human species, preventing that is the goal of SpaceX. And unless your incompetent its easy to see why we should go into space. 100 years ago if you told someone that in the near future we'd be able to fly around the earth in a day for low costs they'd call you insane. 200 years ago if you told someone everyone in America would be able to travel the entire width of the country in a matter of days in their own personal vehicle they'd call you insane. Etc. Now, I know you care *deeply* about the environment. So do tell, what's your plan to "fix the Earth"? Because you realize that the largest polluters in the world don't agree to any of your wonderful ideas, right? Not everyone in the world can afford to go to natural fuels, even countries in Europe have the bulk of their economy and livelihood in nonrenewable fuels like coal and natural gas. Should they go starving because "we must take action now!" or can we improve technologically and generate a natural reason for people to convert, like we've always done? (Forgot to mention that Tesla benefited from the same military contract SpaceX got too, do you still hate the military for encouraging clean energy?)
![Stroads are Ugly, Expensive, and Dangerous (and they're everywhere) [ST05]](/img/1.gif)
cut down on military spending and fund the infrastructure project
polifatts why would we cut welfare? Why don’t we cut military spending and stop sending money to other countries because we bombed them. I think we should fund programs to help people get off welfare or maybe just fund the infrastructure projects so we can create jobs which means less people on welfare. Makes no sense to stop funding Americans. Besides, I’m sure you’ve probably have benefited from a welfare program before
Or end welfare and spend that money on the military so the poor can earn money again?
Ronald Hubbard that makes absolutely no sense what so ever. There’s no data that says increasing a military budget increases wealth for low income citizens😂
There is, actually.
When the economy is doing well military recruitment falls to all time low points and when the economy is doing the worse it raises to extremely high points.
I.E. at the moment due to the economy being the strongest in more than a decade army recruitment is at one of its lowest points in quite some time.
The military provides reliable long-term employment with the only requirement being that you're physically fit and not of below average intelligence.
Not to mention that the military actually pays well, compared to say minimum wage and also offers insurance and other benefits like retirement.
And the key word in my previous comment was "earn". Welfare creates a reliance on the state that is unhealthy. When you teach people they have to work hard to survive they are more productive and the economy is better in turn whereas if you just give them money because they're on "hard times" (when in reality the economy is fantastic and the exclusive reason they're poor is because they're ignoring opportunities like the military for example) they become slaves to a system that's impossible to maintain.
Ronald Hubbard Has you still can’t cut welfare to people who actually need it. I don’t think people realize that welfare is more than food stamps and Medicaid. It’s unemployment benefits, Fafsa, FHA, WIC. It is helpful to those who can’t afford certain necessities. According to reports, people who are on welfare are actually working they just are in low earning jobs. Not everyone wants to be in the military. It’s not just something someone just gets up and do. Increasing our military budget right now sounds idiotic. Even though our economy is booming most of the jobs available are part-time jobs or low paid jobs with no benefits. No to mention cost of living has increased. A family of four in the San Francisco Bay Area is considered low income if their household income is less than $117,000. Trust me I believe less people should be on government assistance but your way is not the way to go. Our government waste so much money on the military to keep the pro war corporations happy. 96% of our countries history has been in war, that’s unacceptable. There’s so major changes that need to happen but the way you’re suggesting won’t work
Raise the gas tax, fix the roads, and invest in public transit. Do that, along with better city planning and zoning, and we'd see a revival of US Infrastructure. But nope, some go beyond simple frugality and cling to the status quo to the detriment of society :(
lets not forget, some pocket the money from lobby groups or 3rd parties to takeover those projects in exchange the other company keeps the revenue
If our roads, particularly interstate, were built as they are in Europe and the more modern areas of Asia, South America and Australia, they would have road beds more than 2 feet below the surface. The deeper road bed supports more weight, endures bad weather conditions which means you don't get potholes. Also, contractors who put down roads are required to make all repairs FOR LIFE to the roads they build without any additional compensation. Result: the Autobahn and others that are well-maintained and make our system look like a 1920's dirt road.
You can't cheat for time by putting sand underneath that bed or you pay dearly. My family is from Southern India from the Thanjur, Aranthagi, and Manachai area. Notorious for those potholes of sand and low ties backing up.
When you ignore little repairs they only become greater. When you needed an oil change you lost an engine.
I think my country, Philippines, has more improvement for infrastructure than USA.
I mean if we stopped spending almost half of our budget on military funding and instead focused on infrastructure, which would ultimately benefit EVERY aspect of the nation INCLUDING military. Think about it from this perspective: if there ever was a threat and we needed to move a large majority of military vehicles across country and our infrastructure prevented this... how does that help us? It doesn't.
But you realize that military spending does benefit the entire nation?
This is exclusively unique to the U.S. since we still have preserved the military industry from World War 2 but essentially a massive portion of the economy relies on the military to buy their products so they can keep paying employees to do high-wage work.
For example: SpaceX.
They wouldn't exist right now if it wasn't for military funding being as high as it is.
They were about to shut down until the military gave them a contract and as a result a massive amount of jobs have been preserved and new ones will be created in the field of Aerospace.
I know, I really miss my days in Europe where everything was top notch and first world....oh I miss the trams, the high speed trains, the nice airports, roads, culture and people who knew where Guyana is.
...The question is 'How did it get out of hand'? Like the 'recycle' thing, it became tedious
Public-private partnerships are obviously a bad idea. But beyond that, the type of transport infrastructure we have is the wrong kind TO have. The only way to get rid of grid lock to get rid of the car as the mainstay, and replace with with other forms of transit. Reserve the center of roads for new trolleys and buses. Profit has been destroying our infrastructure for decades already! In the beginning of the 20th century, American cities had a thriving transport network. And that spells disaster for profit driven corporate conglomerates.
Why? Because am effective and efficient system DOES NOT PRODUCE PROFIT. All you have to do is maintain it, but auto companies and the highway building companies have nothing to sell to anybody. Destroying the infrastructure, while awful for most, is great for the most powerful in America. It makes them more money.
then why are toll roads some of the best in the world?
Call Me Swivel Hips well PPP worked in Philippines, why not in America?
its better to spend money on roads than on a endless war.
yeah the money could have gone to education but how would you feel if the road your kids school bus was on fell through a bridge or a road?
Roads don't create jobs, military spending does.
That's why the military gets bonuses and infrastructure does not.
Take for example SpaceX, they were about to shut down until the military gave them a contract that saved them. They can't have done that without military spending as high as it is.
@@ronaldhubbard577 "Roads don't create jobs, military spending does" No It Doesn't.If That's The Case Then Explain This *Madness* Here.."In all, at least a mind-boggling *$21 trillion of Pentagon financial transactions between 1998 and 2015* could not be traced, documented, or explained, concluded Skidmore. To convey the vastness of that sum, $21 trillion is roughly five times more than the entire federal government spends in a year. It is greater than the US Gross National Product, the world’s largest at an estimated $18.8 trillion. And that $21 trillion includes only plugs that were disclosed in reports by the Office of Inspector General, which does not review all of the Pentagon’s spending."
@@ProudBM19 Yes I agree, that is madness. What kind of idiot quotes something without saying where it's from?
@ Ronald Hubbard
No. The military does not create jobs, the government does by spending taxpayers money on the military, if you switched that to big infrastructure projects such as new buildings, improving roads, repairing bridges, improving airports, Improving dams and levies, building a high-speed rail network then jobs aren’t disappearing they’re just being reallocated to where the US needs to put them.
The only reason the military hires people is due to your government putting the money there, it moves it somewhere else then that’s where the jobs are instead.
@@emilymcplugger agreed
Lol toll roads? That can and will likely hurt economical growth if it gets out of hand, can't really blame the companies for wanting to do it, just know that it overall does not make for a sound economical choice in the long run, better to invest in ones own infrastructure
Seems to work in France. They have a public road network and a private road network (toll roads). Those toll roads are some of the best roads in the world, well maintained, smooth and affordable. The Millau Viaduct was privately built and toll cost around €10,00 (and it is frickin awsome)
Four year later and nothing has changed, how long until something does?
I'd be more than happy to pay a marginal increase at the pump oppose to having to pay some outrages toll everytime I use a bridge, road, tunnel, etc. Private industry will always be in it for the profit, not just to get their money back. Do you really want corporate America to own our roads? You think the fees to take money out of an ATM are bad... wait until you see what they charge you to use infrastructure. Especially in Republican states where private industry profits make them wet. Taxes will always be much less of a burden than the ridiculous tolls private industry will charge you.
Ward413 Gas taxes aren't working anymore as they used to due to more fuel efficient and electric/hybrid vehicles on the road. There is already less money coming in from that tax.
Right but it hasn't been raised since the early 90's or something. It needs to be looked at again. Even if it brings in less money than it used to, which I agree with, there is much potential to pay for some basic and much needed infrastructure projects with a slight increase. Sure, it's not going to pay for a new 380 billion ten mile tunnel going underneath your city but it could at least pave some roads. The tax revenue from the increase would have to be earmarked specifically for projects otherwise you know those politicians are just going to use it for something else. Probably defense since our president seems to think our 700 billion dollar a year military is "depleted." Such a joke.
Technology is the product to tax ... not gas. An added 1% tax on smartphones, TV's etc.
Right but that's the thing, if a private business is doing something you don't like you simply stop paying for that service. When that happens they have to change to serve the consumer.
Of course unless the local government tries to bail them out, which does happen. In which case you should probably consider electing new officials, hm?
@@christiantamme8514 But smaller cars are lighter an in the long run tear up infrastructure to a far lesser degree.
sure sell the roadways so you can tax the citizens and put it in the pockets of friends of government.
I do love that sentence "Make America great again" to which the response in the rest of the world is "Was it ever great?'".
New York City is a union town as are several other places. THEN the Fed compounds by paying scale. And scale is parroted elsewhere. And getting a job with "union" prid pro quo is not an easy entry level hoop that many young men are willing to put up with. And women are usually the motivation behind both of those.
a good analysis
companies always want a surplus workers to easly replace others .
companies always want more worker than jobs
Individual transportation , cars , roads , freeways , suburbs - at some point in the future ;
will be seen as a huge mistake and insane waste of resources
Seems like some efficiencies resulting from public-private infrastructure partnerships may be washed-out by the long-term administrative cost of low-income subsidies.
Exposed rebar is a problem also.
The repair shop makes money when you need a repair, they buy parts from suppliers, etc. a pothole may actually help the economy
Ofc it does, if it is fixed lol
I may not like trump, but I do agree: FIX OUR INFRASTRUCTURE!
What I find funny is that US military does must of the heavy lifting keeping the oceans of trade open for the world(especially Europe). USA stops doing the heavy lifting Europe is going to have to invest in a massive Navy to protect its shipping cargo from Piracy and protectionism which means cutting social programs by 40%-60%. OR have Russia and China protect its Shipping Cargo which will give them a massive say in Europe's domestic and foreign policy. USA keeps the ocean of trade open which require a massive military budget and sacrifing a little infrastructure.
5:30 "this toll road in Denver didn't cost taxpayers a dime but costs drivers as much as $18 one way"
Good, why should driving be subsidized? Driving is extremely inefficient but convenient, therefore you must pay.
Private funded infrastructure is ignorant and a quick fix for lazy politicians. I do not frequently visit anywhere where there are toll roads. While on a trip to florida we chose not to travel because of the toll highways around miami.
Atlanta is too far behind to ever catch up on the traffic congestion
what 'they' don't offer is option to be like every other advanced society and NOT design cities around cars (extremely wasteful.. lol @ carpool lanes)
you could learn from other countries design examples. there's NO need for cars.. remember 200 yrs ago when 'normal' was homesteading? (you hardly left your property)
Perhaps the people who use it more should pay for. Weight of vehicle has a differential impact as just one fact. Maybe a gas tax. Gas guzzler drivers would scream at that, but it also might eventually have a effect of slowing climate change.
European viewers - rolling on the floor holding their bellies!!!!
No not really, it's kind of sad if anything.
Tariffs fair and equal trade and stop giving away our money to other countries.
Truck parking, for over the road truck drivers, is absolutely horrible. There is no where near enough truck parking. Nothing even close to reasonable. Horrible horrible horrible. Badly badly badly needed expansion of more rest areas and truckstops. I see this first hand on the road all the time. It's a really bad problem.
John Dyer
Then more businesses should be shipping their products and supply lines by rail, at least between the Pacific and the Mississippi. If the truck stop capacity problems are primarily east of the Mississippi, then just ship more products by rail in those regions. Freight is less time-sensitive than people, so economics, rather than speed, should be the dominant factor in how a product or supply line is shipped.
Tolls=taxes!
Tolls are worse than taxes - with taxes, at least the government can spend it on something that will benefit everyone - social security, police, better roads etc.
With tolls, the money only goes to corporate interests.
Tolls are almost always outsourced. Private companies benefit way more than the government does when this happens.
ratchet500000 the private money gets invested in some tropical island paradise and yacht that only belongs to one dude, and we ain’t invited.
Our infrastructure is just more than great! We got the most beautiful wall on the Southern border! It is so beautiful ! Together with our President we will Make America Great Again!
Time has come to Raising taxes on the most profitable wealth generating entities who have benefited from a well functioning infrastructures in proportion to their profitability instead of the lowest what politicians can reduce it to has come
Our infrustructure in the so called third world is new efficient and beautiful.
Well he lied about that too like most everything else he promised..What a joke he was!!
Building more roads isn’t the answer fixing the roads we already have that’s the answer
Cut the money that those in Washington make, and let them pay for their own benefits like most of the citizens of this country and put that money to good work!!
the roads in WV are so bad.
Andrew Hollis
And high gas taxes too.
Never did a thing
Tax corporate used the bast army siting in barricades used all the people taking benefits whom never worked ones and used locally owned companies for time consuming projects having them ready to connect to the main project
Someone needs to stop ⛳️ and it could be paid for.
now america seems like a 3rd world country
seems like.... lol.
What happened to Obama's "Shovel ready jobs" designed to fix the infrastructure????
If you listened well it was the Republicans who blocked it.
Go to Miami and have the women do it.
Stop building wasteful new highways and put that money towards fixing existing roadways. This applies to all three levels of gov't -- local, state, and federal.
Highways in this context are limited-access highways with no signalized intersections, and access is by exit/entrance ramp.
Stop expanding highways beyond 3 lanes in each direction and instead put a price on it to prevent excessive use (rural interstates should have a constant toll-rate; urban highways and interstates should have a changing price based on demand).
The government has created a vast oversupply of roads by making them free and expanding them based on rush-hour demand and not on overall demand throughout the day and week. This also results in not many people wanting to take public transportation or intercity rail, which leads to funding cuts, which then lead to fare increases and service cuts, which then lead to lower ridership, leading to more funding cuts, and so on and so forth.
In other words, the argument that public transportation and intercity rail are inferior, is invalid, because the government cherry-picked cars and planes and didn't pursue a balanced transportation network.
This is why we haven't been able to raise enough revenue to properly maintain the amount of roads that we have now. Reduce the lane capacity of radial urban highways to 3 lanes per direction, non-radial highways to 3 lanes per direction and metropolitan beltways to 3 lanes per direction. Then charge dynamic tolls on those urban highways to raise the revenue needed to fix them.
Rural highways should be tolled, but at a static rate per-mile. Most rural highways should be 2 lanes per direction.
Most U.S. airports currently don't support themselves financially and need taxpayer funds to cover the difference. JFK, LaGuardia, Newark-Liberty, Boston-Logan, Chicago-O'Hare, Chicago-Midway, LAX, San Francisco, Seattle-Tacoma, Portland (Oregon), Atlanta-Hartsfield/Jackson, Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Orlando (MCO), Minneapolis/Saint Paul, Denver, Dallas/Fort Worth, Dallas-Love, Houston-George Bush, Houston-Hobby, Austin-Bergstrom, San Diego, Philadelphia, BWI, DCA, Washington-Dulles, Charlotte-Douglas, Memphis, Louisville, Indianapolis, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky, Cleveland-Hopkins, Salt Lake City, Kansas City, St. Louis-Lambert, Oklahoma City-Will Rogers, Tampa, St. Petersburg/Clearwater, Jacksonville (FL), Palm Beach (FL), Columbus (OH), Detroit-Wayne County, Nashville, Las Vegas-McCarran, Albuquerque, San Antonio (TX), Milwaukee-Mitchell, San Jose (CA), Oakland (CA), Long Beach (CA), Santa Ana-John Wayne (CA), Hollywood-Burbank (CA), Sacramento, and Little Rock airports should cover all of their costs through fees charged to aircraft. If any of those airports can't survive financially by doing that, then close such airports.
Building a high speed rail system from scratch without the connecting rail network to support additional trains to towns and cities not on the high-speed rail line is folly. Before we can invest in a true high-speed network, we have to establish passenger rail routes on existing tracks. When creating a passenger rail service, frequency can often be a more important factor than speed (at least on shorter routes). There must be a sizable network of conventional passenger trains before a high-speed rail system can be established.
Transit buses are often viewed as only for the poor. That's not true at all -- in fact, transit buses running every 6-12 minutes in their own dedicated curbside lanes can attract riders from all sorts of socioeconomic standpoints. Frequency is key, and reliability is key. Buses in their own lanes can be just as effective as new light rail.
When you need to increase the military budget by 600 billion each year, it's hard to make anything else happen. Shock, right?
But you realize that military spending does benefit the entire nation?
This is exclusively unique to the U.S. since we still have preserved the military industry from World War 2 but essentially a massive portion of the economy relies on the military to buy their products so they can keep paying employees to do high-wage work.
For example: SpaceX.
They wouldn't exist right now if it wasn't for military funding being as high as it is.
They were about to shut down until the military gave them a contract and as a result a massive amount of jobs have been preserved and new ones will be created in the field of Aerospace.
You typed,"When you need to increase the military budget by 600 billion each year" Increase? On March 16, 2017 President Trump submitted his request to Congress for $639 billion in military spending-$54 billion-which represents a 10 percent increase-for FY 2018 as well as $30 billion for FY2017 which ends in September.
This is a two-year-old video any new ones
As we revisit this program, can we ask how much Trump had delivered and how much was just GAS?
America doesn't need Trump, it needs a new FDR!
I know, right? I actually wish Obama had done something similar and really try to emulate the same spirit of "we are putting the American Worker back to work through infrastructure investment!", but that probably wouldn't have gone through congress :( we need another WPA or CCC.
$20 trillion in debt. Where's the money? He may be able to write off bankruptcy in his personal financial failure, but the nation can't. Larry Sommers is Kensyian crank who would drive us further into debt and closer to our inevitable financial collapse. Tolls would give us the option to drive or not drive and would get cars off the road.
$21 trillion.
I’m done with Trump. All words and no action. Vote Bernie, he’ll get rid of the billionaire tax cut and build our infrastructure
We have better highways in India
i think i'm going to church right away! In GOD we trust, good luck with that. XD
signs America is not the Greatest country on Earth anymore👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎
Pave the roads with bald eagles
Trump2020
When you need to increase the military budget by 600 billion each year, it's hard to make anything else happen. Shock, right?
You realize that military spending in the U.S. creates the most jobs, right?
Not to mention flows into other fields as well, take SpaceX.
They almost went bankrupt and then the military gave them a contract that saved their business and in turn is now resulting in a space age being upon us again.
That military contract wouldn't have been possible without increased spending.
How does SpaceX help us as a human race? Going to Mars? Get real.
Why not save our planet (recover from what the past generations destroyed in the last 100 years) first.
Cut funding from Defense (no more blood for oil) and allocate towards investing in Education (doctors and teachers), Transportation (roads/railroads/airports improvements), Environment (alternative energies and harvesting our natural resources). That's the future my friend!
Cutting money from defense is cutting money for Transportation and Environmental research. That's what defense money goes towards.
Dancing With Alpacas, at any given moment half of the world could be annihilated. Yellowstone isn't dormant anymore. There are numerous other crises that could happen that threaten the survival of the Human species, preventing that is the goal of SpaceX. And unless your incompetent its easy to see why we should go into space.
100 years ago if you told someone that in the near future we'd be able to fly around the earth in a day for low costs they'd call you insane.
200 years ago if you told someone everyone in America would be able to travel the entire width of the country in a matter of days in their own personal vehicle they'd call you insane.
Etc.
Now, I know you care *deeply* about the environment. So do tell, what's your plan to "fix the Earth"? Because you realize that the largest polluters in the world don't agree to any of your wonderful ideas, right? Not everyone in the world can afford to go to natural fuels, even countries in Europe have the bulk of their economy and livelihood in nonrenewable fuels like coal and natural gas. Should they go starving because "we must take action now!" or can we improve technologically and generate a natural reason for people to convert, like we've always done?
(Forgot to mention that Tesla benefited from the same military contract SpaceX got too, do you still hate the military for encouraging clean energy?)