| Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| $3.3 Trillion Needed for Infrastructure Over Next Decade, Says Society of Civil Engineers | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 11 2016, 07:10 PM (1,102 Views) | |
| Member013 | May 11 2016, 07:10 PM Post #1 |
|
http://www.ttnews.com/articles/basetemplate.aspx?storyid=41914&t=%2433-Trillion-Needed-for-Infrastructure-Over-Next-Decade-Says-Society-of-Civil-Engineers |
![]() |
|
| Demagogue | May 11 2016, 07:21 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Administrator
|
That is a whole lotta pork right there. Regardless of who wins the presidency that person needs the line item veto if we are going to invest anywhere near this kind of money on infrastructure. |
| People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm. | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | May 11 2016, 07:27 PM Post #3 |
|
Deleted User
|
These numbers are from the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, they should be taken with at least one grain of salt ... (also note the date )Analysis: 61,000 U.S. bridges 'structurally deficient' April 1, 2015 More than 61,000 American bridges are structurally deficient, according to a new analysis by the American Road & Transportation Builders Association. While U.S. road infrastructure continues to be in dire straits, the health of the USA's bridges has shown a slight improvement from last year when ARTBA found more than 63,000 of the country's bridges were structurally deficient, according to their review of U.S. Department of Transportation records. The report on the state of American bridges comes with federal highway and transit funding set to expire on May 31, absent congressional action. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/04/01/61000-bridges-structurally-deficient/70730956/ |
|
|
| clone | May 11 2016, 07:39 PM Post #4 |
|
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
|
"We've spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people," Trump said. "If we could've spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges and all of the other problems -- our airports and all of the other problems we've had -- we would've been a lot better off. I can tell you that right now." link
|
|
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence. | |
![]() |
|
| Opinionated | May 11 2016, 07:43 PM Post #5 |
|
You can't have a line item veto unless the Constitution is amended. The process for passing a bill into law is expressly stated in the Constitution and no where does it mention the President being able selectively veto portions of a bill while signing other portions into law. It's all or nothing. |
![]() |
|
| Right-Wing | May 11 2016, 08:27 PM Post #6 |
![]()
|
Yeah, I don't like the idea of a line item veto either...but damnit, the other option is incredibly expensive. How do we get some sense of fiscal responsibility in DC? The pols left and right only care about lining their own pockets, their buddies pockets or bringing home the bacon for their constituents...
Edited by Right-Wing, May 11 2016, 08:27 PM.
|
| Donald Trump is Barack Obama's President! | |
![]() |
|
| jeffersonCarter | May 13 2016, 04:23 AM Post #7 |
|
No. Democrats have been screaming for infrastructure construction projects for years and Repubs have been blocking them for years. |
![]() |
|
| Demagogue | May 13 2016, 09:33 AM Post #8 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Actually there is a way to do it constitutionally. The line item veto that Bill Clinton had (given to him by a republican congress and a big reason why he and they were able to get the budget in line) did not allow for congress to overturn the line item veto. If a new line item veto law were passed allowing for congress to override any single line item veto (basically a "line item override" along with a line item veto) it would be constitutional. Back when GWB was in office the republicans had a bill that would have been constitutionally acceptable but they could not get it past the democrat controlled senate. Then, once Obama was in office that bill conveniently disappeared from their agenda. I think we need to get it back regardless of who is president. |
| People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm. | |
![]() |
|
| Opinionated | May 13 2016, 09:39 AM Post #9 |
|
The problem here is this. Let's say that you and I are the leaders of our respective parties in the Senate. We've hashed out a budget for the coming year, and it was a difficult process, but we've managed to reach a number of compromises that give our parties both enough of what they want that we're able to get the 60 votes necessary to override a filibuster and to get the House on board as well. And the budget is passed on to the President, who happens to be a member of your party. And he goes through and vetoes every single item in the budget that was something my party wanted, leaving us at the end of it all with what is effectively a budget desired by your party alone. Now, where is my incentive to ever work with you to pass a budget ever again? Edited by Opinionated, May 13 2016, 09:41 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Demagogue | May 13 2016, 09:54 AM Post #10 |
![]()
Administrator
|
That did not seem to be a problem for the DNC when Clinton was in office? Seriously, I don't think I ever heard a democrat complain about his having that ability. The line item veto is not a tool that most presidents use too much. Many governors currently have the line item veto and even they don't use it excessively and it is usually used to cut pork rather than some real tangible item that was needed. Edited by Demagogue, May 13 2016, 09:55 AM.
|
| People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm. | |
![]() |
|
| Opinionated | May 13 2016, 10:10 AM Post #11 |
|
The fact that you seem to expect everyone involved to behave rationally and with constraint shows that either you're either very naive or haven't fully considered the likely consequences. We are living in the most politically polarized age in living memory, where individual Senators have acted to block everything from the passing of a national budget to the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices. Where Congressional members of particular parties have done everything reasonably possible, and more than a few things not particularly reasonable, to undercut and eliminate things like Obamacare and various actions by the President. The age of expecting people to behave rationally and with constraint is way, way behind us. I can easily see a President Trump penciling out everything the Democrats wanted in a budget. Even more a President Cruz, if such were to ever happen. No, I don't really see how any rational person could expect that a line item veto would always be used with restraint and care. |
![]() |
|
| Demagogue | May 13 2016, 10:23 AM Post #12 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Lol, the only difference between today and the 1990's is the fact that we have far more intensive coverage of the things that go on in DC. Frankly, politicians today are really not any worse or any better than they were in the time of Mark Twain. The fact that you seem to think that today's politician is a special breed is kind of funny. Edited by Demagogue, May 13 2016, 10:24 AM.
|
| People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm. | |
![]() |
|
| Opinionated | May 13 2016, 10:28 AM Post #13 |
|
And the fact that you think that what is happening today is just "business as usual" is even more funny. |
![]() |
|
| Demagogue | May 13 2016, 10:44 AM Post #14 |
![]()
Administrator
|
it pretty much is. There are always those few idiots who want to push one agenda or another. You pointed out Obamacare and frankly, it is probably a bad example. It is one of the worst written pieces of legislation to pass in our history. No legislation should ever be passed when the speaker of the house states that "you have to pass it to find out what is in it". Certainly there are portions of the ACA that were absolutely needed and I am not wholly against even some portions that the right traditionally does not like but the law itself was badly done and rammed through in a hurry and it should not have been. With that said, certain presidents throughout our history have faced greater opposition from their congress than others. Off the top of my head I would say that Andrew Johnson certainly had a worse time of it, same goes for John Adams and possibly even George Washington. There are certainly others. Obama just happens to be near and dear to your heart and the opposition he has faced seems greater to you due to it being recent and personal to you. |
| People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm. | |
![]() |
|
| Opinionated | May 13 2016, 10:55 AM Post #15 |
|
Perhaps Obamacare is not all that and a bag of chips. But when House Republicans vote more than 62 times to repeal a program that they know will not be repealed, and hold not a single vote on trying to improve that program, which might have a chance at success, and have yet to provide a viable alternative to the program they want to repeal, it's not a stretch to conclude that we've left "rational and constrained" territory far behind us. |
![]() |
|
| edro14 | May 13 2016, 11:09 AM Post #16 |
|
How much did GWB spend in Iraq? |
![]() |
|
| Demagogue | May 13 2016, 11:20 AM Post #17 |
![]()
Administrator
|
There have been several alternatives suggested. Obviously none of them are as comprehensive as the ACA because the comprehensive nature of the ACA is the problem with the ACA. Sadly, the way that it is written to fix the ACA you will indeed probably have to scrap the entire thing. It was written that way to make it difficult to remove. The people who wrote the ACA wanted it to be so big that it was like a brain tumor that you could not remove without killing the patient or leaving him brain dead. The probably succeeded. Even if someone like Cruz had been the nominee and gotten elected I don't think that a repeal would truly be possible unless there is a finding that the way it is funded is unconstitutional. As for the House having multiple votes to repeal, they actually should be doing that. The House is the side of Congress that represents the people. Those men and women were elected after the ACA passed with a mandate to repeal it if possible. A great many of them campaigned with one of their promises to their constituents that they would vote to repeal the ACA. How can you complain about a politician who actually follows through on a campaign promise? I don't like the ACA but I can't fault Obama for pushing it through when he had a rubber stamp house and senate. It was one of the very few campaign promises that he actually followed through on. This topic is not about the ACA though and honestly I am guilty of bringing us off topic by talking about the need for a line item veto in order to spend 3 trillion on infrastructure properly. Sorry about that Sunshine Superman. |
| People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm. | |
![]() |
|
| Opinionated | May 13 2016, 11:24 AM Post #18 |
|
Voting once to repeal Obamacare, fine. Voting once a year to repeal Obamacare, also fine. Once you start voting 62 times, and counting, to repeal Obamacare, you're moving into obsession territory. And my point was that giving the line item veto to the President would in no way ensure that it was used rationally and with constraint. Nothing you've said really supports that it would be. |
![]() |
|
| estonianman | May 13 2016, 01:36 PM Post #19 |
![]()
|
face it - government has built too many roads and now is bawing because they can't maintain them. The roads that are worth a s**t need to be sold off. |
| MEEK AND MILD | |
![]() |
|
| jake58 | May 13 2016, 05:27 PM Post #20 |
|
Engineers think the govt should pay for more engineering, film at 11. |
| That which can be asserted without evidence; can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · UnitedStates.com DOMESTIC U.S. news · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2







)


8:38 PM Jul 10