Super Highways

Discussion in 'Congress' started by Navy1960, Oct 28, 2008.

  1. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    The Interstate Highway System was authorized by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956[8] – popularly known as the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956 – on June 29. It had been lobbied for by major U.S. automobile manufacturers and championed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was influenced by his experiences in 1919 as a young Army officer crossing the country in a truck convoy (following the route of the Lincoln Highway), and his appreciation of the German Autobahn network as a necessary component of a national defense system.[9] In addition to facilitating private and commercial transportation, it would provide key ground transport routes for military supplies and troop deployments in case of an emergency or foreign invasion. (Memories were still strong of reported Japanese threats to invade the West Coast of the U.S. during WW II.)

    The initial cost estimate for the system was $25 billion over 12 years; it ended up costing $114 billion (adjusted for inflation, $425 billion in 2006 dollars[14]) and taking 35 years to complete.[15] Additional spurs and loops/bypasses remain under construction, such as Interstate 485 in North Carolina. A few main routes, not part of the original plan, remain under construction, such as Interstate 22 in Alabama and Tennessee.

    Interstate Highway System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    No question, the United States has the preeminent surface transportation system in the world. In fact, China, India, Russia and the U.K. are in the process of building their own infrastructure system. In fact, China is in the process of doing a 53,000–mile interstate highway system. Ours is 57,000 miles. And they're spending hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars, trillions of dollars in infrastructure. (Vladimir) Putin in Russia said he was going to spend $2 trillion over the next 10 years in infrastructure. They're all realizing the economic backbone of the United States has been our transportation infrastructure system. While it was originally designed for military mobilization, it has become the economic lifeline to our country, both Class 1 (freight) rail and our highway infrastructure. What we haven't done is we've not kept up with the growth and so we've got deteriorating highways. If we don't keep up, if we don't have leaders that have the courage and intestinal fortitude to step forward and say, "This is a problem," then we'll be No. 3 to China and India, and we won't be the economic superpower that we are today.

    In Business Las Vegas


    Is transporation strategic? yes it is, is it good for the economy, yes it is, there are many estimates that place employment figures over the half century of construction of the Interstate highway system at over a million according to USDOT. So I ask perhaps this over simple question, or perhaps not, when our government has set aside 700 billion dollars to bail out mismanagement that will not create one single job, or has been seen do nothing to stem the tide of this economic meltdown, How then could 400 plus billion not been of an even better benefit to this country in terms of both strategic value and economic value.
     
  2. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    How about borrowing $700 billion from China to invade Iraq?

    Why not use our money to fund American energy independence?

    The most important security issue will always be the American economy, because without a strong economy we have no military power. The Bush's bogus "war on terror" hurt the American economy worse than anything 50 guys in a cave in Pakistan could ever have.
     
  3. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189

    Well as your statement are a little off topic Chris, I will try and address them anyway. I'm all for Energy Independence and comepletely agree that the money used in this bailout could have been better spent even towards that goal.
     
  4. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    I think that we would both agree that our money is quite often wasted.

    American energy independence is the biggest security problem we face. It is an infrastructure problem just like the interstate highway system.
     
  5. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    But understand, if we're serious about strengthening our economy, we've got to invest in long-term job growth as well. Now, back in the 1950's, Americans were put to work building the Interstate Highway system and that helped expand the middle class in this country. We need to show the same kind of leadership today. That's why I've called for a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years and generate nearly two million new jobs - many of them in the construction industry that's suffered during this housing crisis. Barack Obama In.

    The creation of a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank was first proposed by Senator Christopher J. Dodd and Senator Chuck Hagel in 2007. Barack Obama backed this act in February 2008. Obama suggests that the Bank would receive US$ 60 billion of federal funding to invest in infrastructure over 10 years, while leveraging "up to US$ 500 billion" of private investment.[1] It would invest in high-speed trains to provide an alternative to air travel, energy efficiency and clean energy, among others. According to Obama, the Bank's "work will be determined by what will maximize our safety and security and ability to compete" and it would "create nearly two million new jobs", mainly in the construction industry. It would be funded partly by reducing the defense budget while US troops would withdraw from Iraq.

    So we can find 700 billion to help out Wall Street without hurting the warfighter, however to find an additional 60 billion we need to cut the Defense budget? I have an even better idea, why not let the companies that could not manage themselves walk into a banruptcy court and take that 700 billion dollars and pay off some of our debt to the Chinese and hold back 90 billion for this Act?
     
  6. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    laughs, I think everyone by now has gotten the message I don't like waste in govt. no matter who is doing it. IMHO Chris the things that need to be done in this country can be done if we held our own government to basic standards of business and ethics. Starting with putting road blocks on K Street.
     

Share This Page