9 ms·

> it just never gets fixed. Its because public spending on infrastructure is "socialism" and it is better to give loans to private companies and let "the free

> it just never gets fixed. Its because public spending on infrastructure is "socialism" and it is better to give loans to private companies and let "the free market" fix the infrastructure; any day now. Its an unexplained miracle the US hasn't collapsed yet.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
swearwolf 4y ago
It’s starting to. Remember that bridge in Pittsburgh that spontaneously collapsed? I’m sure there are many other lesser known examples.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  The PA bridge collapsed despite a recent (couple years prior) gas tax hike that was supposedly going to be used to prevent exactly that kind of outcome. Throwing money at the problem doesn't work if you suck at throwing and can't hit the problem.
phkahler 4y ago
>> Its because public spending on infrastructure is "socialism" and it is better to give loans to private companies and let "the free market" fix the infrastructure; any day now. nonsense. It's the governments job to do this maintenance. There are entire departments dedicated to it. The problem is that they are underfunded, in part because the money goes ummm somewhere else, and because for some reason taxing people or business enough to cover state expenses is considered bad practice.
- xtian 4y ago
  Our "state expenses" in no way reflect the immediate needs of the people or any kind of popular democratic will. The average citizen in the US gets extremely little from the state relative to the taxes they pay, so opposing higher taxes is very rational.
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    Agreed. It's not the amount of taxes per se, it's the (perception of) value. Few are favor of higher taxes because they currently feel that they get (next to) nothing from what they pay now. Who wants to pay more for more nothing??
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      > Few are favor of higher taxes because they currently feel that they get (next to) nothing from what they pay now. Who wants to pay more for more nothing?? Interestingly, a lot of these people also aren't in favor of paying less for less nothing.
      - chiefalchemist 4y ago
        You're going to have to unpack that please. Where are ppl against lower taxes?
- SkittyDog 4y ago
  The post you're responding to was pretty obviously sarcastic... Note their use of quotes around "socialism" and "the free market, and the phrase "any day now". So the other poster was making the exact same point that you made (unsarcastically), but it sounds like you may not have realized that? At any rate, you both seem to be largely in agreement about the current state of affairs.
- zip1234 4y ago
  Yes, introduce use taxes that fully pay for such infrastructure. Stop overbuilding everything--no reason to make a 4 lane overpass when 2 is sufficient.
  - brianwawok 4y ago
    What’s the cost difference in % from building 2 vs 4? What happens if in 10 years you really do need 4? Sometimes it’s smart to overbuild things with a long lifespan.
    - zip1234 4y ago
      All good questions that are not actually answered when they make those decisions. What does 'need' mean? What is the maintenance cost of maintaining two lanes of road that might be needed in 10 years? Often road widening is based on projections (which are almost universally wrong): https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2021/09/09/every-traffic-projection-wrong https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2021/09/09/every-traffic-pr...
throwaway0a5e 4y ago
If public spending is socialism then why don't states that don't the one party blue states that don't get antsy about "socialism" have great infrastructure?
- x86_64Ubuntu 4y ago
  Are interstates recipients of Federal funding or only state funding?
- kevingadd 4y ago
  No blue state is actually okay with socialism at any higher level. The Democrat party leadership hates left-wing politics. Just the other day Pete Buttigieg was trying to explain how we can't solve baby formula problems the socialist way so children have to starve for the sake of factory owners: > Biden’s secretary of transportation, Pete Buttigieg, has argued that this kind of socialist experiment would be unacceptable — even to stop babies from starving to death. “Let’s be very clear,” Buttigieg told CBS, “This is a capitalist country. The government does not make baby formula, nor should it. Companies make baby formula.” (For the record, "Socialism" would not fix the US's bridge or baby formula woes because they are both the results of decades of neglect and bad policy that can't be undone in a year.)
  - uoaei 4y ago
    I'm also a bit confused why that came up, considering he's head of transportation. Do they also concern themselves with manufacturing?
    - munk-a 4y ago
      Biden's approval numbers are absolute garbage - I suspect he'll have a contested run in 2024 (or "voluntarily" decline to run) and all the sharks want to start getting their names in the headlines.
      - justbaker 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

swearwolf 4y ago

It’s starting to. Remember that bridge in Pittsburgh that spontaneously collapsed? I’m sure there are many other lesser known examples.

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
The PA bridge collapsed despite a recent (couple years prior) gas tax hike that was supposedly going to be used to prevent exactly that kind of outcome. Throwing money at the problem doesn't work if you suck at throwing and can't hit the problem.

phkahler 4y ago

>> Its because public spending on infrastructure is "socialism" and it is better to give loans to private companies and let "the free market" fix the infrastructure; any day now. nonsense. It's the governments job to do this maintenance. There are entire departments dedicated to it. The problem is that they are underfunded, in part because the money goes ummm somewhere else, and because for some reason taxing people or business enough to cover state expenses is considered bad practice.

xtian 4y ago
Our "state expenses" in no way reflect the immediate needs of the people or any kind of popular democratic will. The average citizen in the US gets extremely little from the state relative to the taxes they pay, so opposing higher taxes is very rational.
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  Agreed. It's not the amount of taxes per se, it's the (perception of) value. Few are favor of higher taxes because they currently feel that they get (next to) nothing from what they pay now. Who wants to pay more for more nothing??
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    > Few are favor of higher taxes because they currently feel that they get (next to) nothing from what they pay now. Who wants to pay more for more nothing?? Interestingly, a lot of these people also aren't in favor of paying less for less nothing.
    - chiefalchemist 4y ago
      You're going to have to unpack that please. Where are ppl against lower taxes?
SkittyDog 4y ago
The post you're responding to was pretty obviously sarcastic... Note their use of quotes around "socialism" and "the free market, and the phrase "any day now". So the other poster was making the exact same point that you made (unsarcastically), but it sounds like you may not have realized that? At any rate, you both seem to be largely in agreement about the current state of affairs.
zip1234 4y ago
Yes, introduce use taxes that fully pay for such infrastructure. Stop overbuilding everything--no reason to make a 4 lane overpass when 2 is sufficient.
- brianwawok 4y ago
  What’s the cost difference in % from building 2 vs 4? What happens if in 10 years you really do need 4? Sometimes it’s smart to overbuild things with a long lifespan.
  - zip1234 4y ago
    All good questions that are not actually answered when they make those decisions. What does 'need' mean? What is the maintenance cost of maintaining two lanes of road that might be needed in 10 years? Often road widening is based on projections (which are almost universally wrong): https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2021/09/09/every-traffic-projection-wrong https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2021/09/09/every-traffic-pr...

throwaway0a5e 4y ago

If public spending is socialism then why don't states that don't the one party blue states that don't get antsy about "socialism" have great infrastructure?

x86_64Ubuntu 4y ago
Are interstates recipients of Federal funding or only state funding?
kevingadd 4y ago
No blue state is actually okay with socialism at any higher level. The Democrat party leadership hates left-wing politics. Just the other day Pete Buttigieg was trying to explain how we can't solve baby formula problems the socialist way so children have to starve for the sake of factory owners: > Biden’s secretary of transportation, Pete Buttigieg, has argued that this kind of socialist experiment would be unacceptable — even to stop babies from starving to death. “Let’s be very clear,” Buttigieg told CBS, “This is a capitalist country. The government does not make baby formula, nor should it. Companies make baby formula.” (For the record, "Socialism" would not fix the US's bridge or baby formula woes because they are both the results of decades of neglect and bad policy that can't be undone in a year.)
- uoaei 4y ago
  I'm also a bit confused why that came up, considering he's head of transportation. Do they also concern themselves with manufacturing?
  - munk-a 4y ago
    Biden's approval numbers are absolute garbage - I suspect he'll have a contested run in 2024 (or "voluntarily" decline to run) and all the sharks want to start getting their names in the headlines.
    - justbaker 4y ago