|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 24, 2014 17:26:50 GMT -6
Bryce the problem with infrastructure these days is where does the money come from? Do we really go through the budget and make cuts in every dept like Obama and others say they will do to get elected? Do we finally do that now and cut things across the board in order to have money for roads and bridges in more mass? or do we raise even more taxes and keep all the pork spending to do such work?
We have bridges here getting rebuilt and replaced in my county alone 2 have been total re hauls in the last year and in the spring 2 more are getting done by MO DOT in this area, these are way past due as they have exposed rusty rebar showing through in many places, but to do more states and or fed govt needs funding from somewhere to do these things, many president elects talk about helping public education and then they get elected and well the help and funding is a joke and they want states and school districts to implement bogus polices, like Obama's plan to create more pre schools in states, the point he fails to mention is for those new ones to be funded the older ones either get cut or local taxation needs to pick up the shift in funding, not new funding but robbing peters to pay Paul to make a half butt attempt at a campaign promise.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Nov 24, 2014 21:35:04 GMT -6
If we are unwilling to maintain a transportation system then why do we need speedier ways to transport oil we won't be able to use here? Sell it so we can use the funds to police the World and design new weapons? That seems to be where we prefer to spend our funds. We are so tax adverse here that we will allow our other great attributes to become unusable and thus will not be attractive to any large production business that needs superior transportation options.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 25, 2014 5:41:43 GMT -6
Bryce so where will the money come from?
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Nov 26, 2014 2:51:53 GMT -6
How about if we get out of the Middle East and use the money here :-) I wonder where the money came for the CCC back in the day.
Pam
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 26, 2014 5:36:36 GMT -6
You mean Pam when this country wasn't 17 trillion in debt?
A time people worked because that is what you did , they didn't worry about govt aid back then if they needed to provide for their families they worked anywhere,anytime for any pay they could get..........
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Nov 26, 2014 7:27:15 GMT -6
If we raised the gas tax 10 cents per gallon how much would that lower our economic growth rate? We are just chicken to do it as we know that if I support a tax my political career is winding down. That needs to change. We also have billions of dollars of opportunities to shave current expenditures and not really productive uses in our state and federal budgets already. The federal gas tax was a lot higher percentage of the price of gas 30 years ago and of income and wages and we survived and grew so I don't see taxes as a huge negative cost if spent correctly.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 26, 2014 17:59:42 GMT -6
Raise a gas tax that is already 1/6th the price or more of a gallon of gasoline? By the time you add in state and local and federal on avg gas sits at 49.9 cents per gallon on gas and over .55 cents on diesel fuel. Don't forget every .10 a gallon will also raise food cost and every other thing hauled down the road and sold to people. You might find this interesting Bryce and pay close attention to figure one the graph on how gasoline tax has risen and what has been done with the money through the years and also payroll,taxes have become a massive chunk so as you add even more taxation the amount taken home gets less and less meaning less expendable income, meaning loss of sales as well. financecommission.dot.gov/Documents/Tax%20Foundation%20paper%20on%20Gas%20Tax.pdf
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Nov 26, 2014 19:53:05 GMT -6
Well if you can't drive then walking will really change our life style a lot. We borrow more per year than a dime a gallon will cost and it does not go for infrastructure either. It will be the rural areas that will really suffer if we don't keep up our infrastructure there is far more wealth to tax in the urban areas to create the infrastructure. We losing some shipping, train and road infrastructure and food will really get expensive and exports will be a challenge. Farmers will be hurt by undependable transportation as well.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 26, 2014 21:06:07 GMT -6
Rail car and barge traffic make up a large portion of moving raw grains. In fact a few years ago rail car was a major mover of many things, I live close to a large railroad area and I see even semi truck trailers being transferred by rail 100's of them at a time. grain,coal from the west, autos etc all on rail car, ADM uses a lot of rail cards to move many,many tons of corn syrup across this country.
Infrastructure is important but why don't we use the tax money meant for such ie fuel taxes solely for those reasons? Why not cut pork from a very large budget and fund it with money in and out? Many people would be more apt to see a .10 raise in gas tax IF that money and all others where being used in a majority of wise matters, instead of out congressional people spending million and millions on wasteful things.
We can have a talk about taxation and where to spend money only after we get our federal budget in order. When I lived in SD sure certain things didn't get done like some other states and you lost out on some things I could name, but the state also had to make the budget match the incoming money, it was in the state constitution that SD ran on a balanced budget so some years it meant cutting here and there, but had to be done to be within the confines of the law.
I wish more states and our federal budget would be under the same guidelines.......... Then and only then can one have a serious talk on taxing people more and knowing they will take home less and why.
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Nov 27, 2014 2:16:41 GMT -6
"You mean Pam when this country wasn't 17 trillion in debt? You do realize that only once in history(1835) did the US not have any national debt? It's a fact of life. Since the US is always going to be in debt, why not have that debt be for something that has an affect on our lives every day?
Cheers, Pam
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 27, 2014 8:39:28 GMT -6
Pam yes I know we have incurred debt in the past but NEVER, ever anything close to 17 trillion and how is it to be paid off? we worry about our kids and grand kids but then say well we always have had debt so what does it matter? 17 trillion dollars has an effect on our position in the world to say otherwise is not factual IMO.
Why Pam? WOW because those things you and other sees as positive effects will keep costing more and more money so we just keep adding to the debt for the perks?
At what point does it get to be too much debt then?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 27, 2014 8:42:02 GMT -6
I could go out and max out my credit cards and take out a pile of even low interest loans to make my life better for a period of time, but in the end the principal still needs to be paid let alone the interest.......
This is how our leaders are thinking? WOW scary stuff.........
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Nov 27, 2014 9:04:43 GMT -6
Yes I am totally aware of the importance of barge and rail and those two modes of transportation are in desperate need of funds for dredging, lock repair plus tracks etc. Both are far, far less expensive per ton of cargo than truck but they are easy to forget too until we have something like a major flood etc. and the system does not function. About the only way we are going to every pay down on our debt and or grow our economy is to invest in the future and plan for growth. We sure are not going to pay off anything with 2-3% growth and mostly service growth and minimal to know wage or income growth to the majority of citizens. We have now had a record number of years with the very few getting the majority of the wealth with not much if any economic growth, slow improvement in UE and continued increase in debt. A few rich folks can't or won't pay down debt they have proven they will not. In fact they buy our debt as a secure investment in many cases.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 27, 2014 11:05:32 GMT -6
The dams are controlled by the army corp of engineers which is a federal program and comes back to the fed govt and how they choose to spend money and write up laws pertaining to navigation on those rivers.
Wage growth come with job creation and we have had little of that I will agree, technology has been great in some areas but in others has cost us a ton of jobs as well.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Nov 27, 2014 11:47:04 GMT -6
raise the damn gas tax- with more efficient cars and less miles driven, its something long overdue
or- stop the billions in oil company welfare
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 27, 2014 12:53:23 GMT -6
You see when people have more disposable income they have a want or need to travel further and do more things, so even with better fuel efficient vehicles in many people's mind gas gets to 3.50 or so they travel less because that 3.50 sticks in their heads. By keeping gas cheaper and other needed items people have more disposable,income to spend money on other things that are important to our economy, we are not a nation of just substance.........
I am all for stopping the welfare across the board for anyone who is not truly in need.
But let us not forget congress had approved of the 1.00 per gallon subsidy on ethanol and that in turn artificially raised corn prices and set us up for something I see not good in the AG sector today. The 1.00 subsidy is gone and many ethanol plants are running at much reduced rates or closed costing jobs. This was a bad idea from the get go as we plant more productive corn crops and ethanol production dropping off the AG sector will feel a real pinch in the coming years.
raising the gas tax is something to think about once we keep all of which is raised for roads:
In 1957 about 67 percent of highway funds came from user fees. Forty years later the revenue from user fees has shrunk to just 50 percent of total highway funds. Indeed, user fee revenue as a share of total highway-related funds is now at its lowest point since the Interstate Highway System was created.
And the difference is now made up by taxes and fees not directly related to highway use. These include revenue generated by sales and property taxes, general fund appropriations, investment income, and various bond issues.
This growing proportion of non-user revenue reveals a profound shift in the nature of highway funding, and has consequently led to increasing debate about the future of America’s highways. This discussion has also been fueled by the approaching expiration date this September for an important Highway Trust Fund law.
Which means that now is the time to think outside of the box and to consider privatizing America’s highways.
Myth 2: Proceeds from the federal gas tax are used to build and maintain the interstate highway system.
Fact 2: That was the promise made to taxpayers in 1956. Today, however, at least 25 percent of federal gas tax funds are diverted to non-highway uses including maintaining sidewalks, funding bike paths, and creating scenic trails.
Fuel tax revenues are now insufficient to maintain the current level of highway spending. As the Congressional Budget Office noted in its discussion of the weaknesses of the fuel tax system: It does not account for the costs of congestion, it is a fixed cost per gallon (meaning it does not adjust with inflation), and it provides insufficient revenues to pay for the costs that users impose on the system. Moreover, it is clear that the diversion of gas tax funds to non-highway projects is the biggest cause of the underfunding problem.
As Reason Foundation Director of Transportation Policy Robert Poole has explained:
The federal HTF was invented in 1956, promising motorists and truckers that all proceeds from a new federal gas tax would be spent on building the interstate system. They aren't. Congress has expanded federal highway spending beyond interstates to include all types of roadways. And since 1982, a portion of "highway user taxes" have been diverted to urban transit (non highway use). Today, the federal role in transportation includes maintaining sidewalks, funding bike paths, and creating scenic trails.
Poole estimates that some 25 percent of the gas tax goes to non-highway use. As the Federal Highway Administration’s “Highway Authorizations” table indicates, Congress allocates highway money to truck parking facilities, safety incentives to prevent operation of motor vehicles by intoxicated persons, grants for anti-racial profiling programs, magnetic levitation trains, and dozens of other non-road activities. The main diversion is to rail and public transit, which leads us to the next myth.
Myth 3: Increased spending on public transit will boost ridership. Therefore we need to transfer highway dollars to transit programs and increase state and local taxes to fund transit agencies.
Fact 3: There is no visible relation between transit funding and transit ridership. Despite huge increases in public transit funding over the past two decades, ridership has barely increased.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Nov 27, 2014 16:29:32 GMT -6
We know that the feds control the lock and dam system it is just about making infrastructure a priority which both houses have not and there is a cost now and later for our unwillingness to fund the infrastructure. Our fathers and grandfathers were taxed at far higher rates of income and wealth and did well we are now just to selfish to be willing to pay for the things we need because it means we need to share with others. We think that filling the red buckets during the Holidays is our portion of being part of a democratic society that now wants to define democracy by income levels instead of value to our society and or contributions to helping our economy grow. One of the main reasons we don't have major overhaul of our welfare and assistance system is that it would eliminate the battle cry for the nationalistic Neo Cons that want the contributions for their campaigns.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 27, 2014 20:26:57 GMT -6
Bryce the army corp and congress and how they manage the two large river systems in the US is well a joke especially the a Missouri River, almost as bad as the ESA We would have never had the massive flooding we did back in 2011 if not for the red tape and plain silliness that took place in that deal. So how can we test them to spend the money where we need it the most? Plenty of other easy ways for both sides to raise campaign dollars they all do a great job of it, none of them go broke in that regard
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Nov 27, 2014 21:27:53 GMT -6
We could state how bad many things the government runs or manages are done but the reality is the government built a system that no private citizens or firms would have done and it has opened doors and markets that were not even dreamed of before these systems were in place. I am very familiar with a lot of the Mississippi system as I worked with many large grain elevators and getting product to the barge terminals. I don't know anything about the MO River but we can blast the feds all we want but they built a system that they need to manage and we are better for the system than without it that is for sure. We also need to understand that when the government owns or builds something they are the ones that manage it and there are no private firms to measure management by or with. At least our government still owns our Interstate system unlike a lot of the privately owned turnpikes that have been sold to foreign investors. I will take my chances with our government and the management that they perform. There are a whole host of concerns and issues that need to be factored into the management of a water retention system that covers nearly 4,000 miles on two major rivers and the resulting flood plains. Management of a system does not address the funding and upkeep of the system directly either.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 27, 2014 21:47:36 GMT -6
If someone ran the Missouri River system they would be bankrupted after the flooding in 2011. It cost billions of dollars because a portion managed for recreation, And agriculture. Because the laws in place concerning such no one was a winner they all lost big, foresight and flowsrates early on could have helped a lot. You had inaurence not paying out because their claim of it not being an act of nature, but a man made mistake. Now flood inaurence has gone up a lot due to lack of actions. Yep congress at their best www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/us/24missouri.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
|
|