Is nation building progressive or conservative?

[uscitizen]

Show me in the constitution where it says dead people cannot vote?

 

[Sallow]

Show me in the constitution where it says dead people cannot vote?

Long as they aren't eating my brains..it's all good.

 

[LibertyForAll]

We have a grid that is an antique, and wastes huge amounts of energy, energy that we need. It no longer goes to where the energy is at, and is extremely vulneble to natural disasters. Our system of pipelines, oil and gas, has a high percentage of pipes that are currently being ran at one half capacity or less because of age and weakness, and explosians and fatalities because of that seem to be an almost monthly occurance.

We need to be doing some major nation building right here at home.

Are you suggesting that the government replace these pipes and energy grids? How is government subsidation of private industries not socialism? Shouldn't the government just get out of the way and let companies invest in their own infrastructure? The costs will still be passed onto consumers in the end but at least it will be fair because only the people who use their services will be charged for it with the charge being based on their rate of use. The way you state it, If I don't drive then I will still have to pay for oil pipelines.

The same with the roads and bridges with my opinion. If you want to use tax dollars to fix roads and bridges that's fine but make it so that its a tax on those that use the roads by having it come from a gasoline tax. This way those that drive pay for the ability to drive while those that don't won't have to pay.

The argument for that, and you know I'm a free market libertarian, is what happens when at some point you travel through that area and use that road or bridge? How do you apportion the taxes accordingly so that those who use it most pay the most, while those that use it only when convenient still pitch in?

Well there will be areas that will not be heavily populated but might have a high rate of travel because people pass through there on their way to somewhere else. In cases like this I think tolls could be used to supplement the gas tax and you would have other areas where the revenue would exceed the need. There would have to be some governmental oversight. I am opposed to a general fund that would apportion money out to states at a federal level because it opens the door to lobbing and corruption. It might be the only way to make sure money gets to where it needs to go though so I would be in favor of it if there was a set formula in place with no room for manipulation.

 

[Old Rocks]

Depends on which nation you are building. If it is somebody else's nation, not progressive at all. If it is our own, yes, that is progressive.

In this nation, we have neglected our infrastructure in a manner that borders on insane. From the water systems that our urban areas depend on, to the bridges on our great interstate system, the state of disrepair is a shame to our nation.

We have a grid that is an antique, and wastes huge amounts of energy, energy that we need. It no longer goes to where the energy is at, and is extremely vulneble to natural disasters. Our system of pipelines, oil and gas, has a high percentage of pipes that are currently being ran at one half capacity or less because of age and weakness, and explosians and fatalities because of that seem to be an almost monthly occurance.

We need to be doing some major nation building right here at home.

That's incorrect.

It initially was a progressive idea. You'll find many more liberal presidents in this country trying it.

It was well intended..but wrong.

Sallow, it may have been a Progressive Idea, but it is not progressive. When something is tried repeatedly, and fails, then implementing that idea again, is conservative. Same old thing, over and over again, irregardless of results. Ideology stuck on repeat.

 

[Old Rocks]

We have a grid that is an antique, and wastes huge amounts of energy, energy that we need. It no longer goes to where the energy is at, and is extremely vulneble to natural disasters. Our system of pipelines, oil and gas, has a high percentage of pipes that are currently being ran at one half capacity or less because of age and weakness, and explosians and fatalities because of that seem to be an almost monthly occurance.

We need to be doing some major nation building right here at home.

Are you suggesting that the government replace these pipes and energy grids? How is government subsidation of private industries not socialism? Shouldn't the government just get out of the way and let companies invest in their own infrastructure? The costs will still be passed onto consumers in the end but at least it will be fair because only the people who use their services will be charged for it with the charge being based on their rate of use. The way you state it, If I don't drive then I will still have to pay for oil pipelines.

The same with the roads and bridges with my opinion. If you want to use tax dollars to fix roads and bridges that's fine but make it so that its a tax on those that use the roads by having it come from a gasoline tax. This way those that drive pay for the ability to drive while those that don't won't have to pay.

That is exactly right. If you don't drive, you still have to pay for the pipelines. Because you buy food that was delivered to the store with fuel that went through those pipelines. We either create regulations forcing the companies to upgrade the system, and if they do not have the money, then we build it ourselves, taxpayer money, and charge the companies enough to pay for the construction, maintenance, and a profit to go back into the general fund.

Rebuilding and extending the grid is far too big a task for private enterprise. As was the Interstate Highway System. We will have to build it ourselves, then charge the utilities what it takes to pay for it and the maintenance of it. As with the highways, and goods delivered over those highways, the energy used from the grid will impact every facet of all of our lives, therefore the idea of anyone stating that they don't use the grid is ridicoulous.
In case you have forgotten,

I Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.

 

[rdean]

Seems pretty progressive to me.

Oh, this is a simple one.

Building THIS nation is "progressive".

This nation building other nations we bombed the shit out of is "conservative".

It really is just that simple.

 

[LibertyForAll]

We have a grid that is an antique, and wastes huge amounts of energy, energy that we need. It no longer goes to where the energy is at, and is extremely vulneble to natural disasters. Our system of pipelines, oil and gas, has a high percentage of pipes that are currently being ran at one half capacity or less because of age and weakness, and explosians and fatalities because of that seem to be an almost monthly occurance.

We need to be doing some major nation building right here at home.

Are you suggesting that the government replace these pipes and energy grids? How is government subsidation of private industries not socialism? Shouldn't the government just get out of the way and let companies invest in their own infrastructure? The costs will still be passed onto consumers in the end but at least it will be fair because only the people who use their services will be charged for it with the charge being based on their rate of use. The way you state it, If I don't drive then I will still have to pay for oil pipelines.

The same with the roads and bridges with my opinion. If you want to use tax dollars to fix roads and bridges that's fine but make it so that its a tax on those that use the roads by having it come from a gasoline tax. This way those that drive pay for the ability to drive while those that don't won't have to pay.

That is exactly right. If you don't drive, you still have to pay for the pipelines. Because you buy food that was delivered to the store with fuel that went through those pipelines. We either create regulations forcing the companies to upgrade the system, and if they do not have the money, then we build it ourselves, taxpayer money, and charge the companies enough to pay for the construction, maintenance, and a profit to go back into the general fund.

Rebuilding and extending the grid is far too big a task for private enterprise. As was the Interstate Highway System. We will have to build it ourselves, then charge the utilities what it takes to pay for it and the maintenance of it. As with the highways, and goods delivered over those highways, the energy used from the grid will impact every facet of all of our lives, therefore the idea of anyone stating that they don't use the grid is ridicoulous.
In case you have forgotten,

I Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.

The problem with having it come out of taxes is that not everyone pays taxes so the system isn't fair. Those that use it should pay for it. Not to mention the fact that if we pay for it first and then later they try and get it back through regulation the money just goes back to the government not to the tax payer. What will it be spent on then?

 

[trickydickyUK]

Seems pretty progressive to me.

Nation building is what makes people hate America. Your establishment foreign policy of the like of Obama, Romney and Gingrich are a joke.

 

[Lakhota]

Is nation building progressive or conservative?

I would say progressive. Nation building seems very socialist to me.

 

[editec]

Is nation building progressive or conservative?

Neither.

The fact that you couch the question like you do indicates that you are completely clueless about this issue.

Go read a book.