Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This country has all sorts of infrastructure needs that could be addressed by government spending, which would also put people to work. Republicans have been captured by rich donors, who don't want to pay taxes, and so they have invented all sorts of reasons to pretend that it's a bad idea. The same thing is true with education. Democrats would spend more money on these things, which create jobs. Republicans won't.

There's an easy fix for that, at least in infrastructure.

Without a need for privatization of public assets, or tolls, or any other fees to the public. Without raising taxes. And it helps community and regional banks.

Wall Street is entirely cut out of the equation.

There's a way to do all of the infrastructure using partnerships between private and public entities. Europe's done it for years, and it works quite well.

It has not worked as well here because Wall St assholes lard the deals up with unnecessary financing costs, giving them a bad name, and most govt officials here can't understand the way the deals work, or how to do them sans capital markets involvement.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

What was the D plan other than more robust safety nets and the "education will solve all!" panacea? Crickets.

What was the plan other than the plan? That's one sick burn, dude.

The Ds and Rs - equally - embraced neoliberal economic policies. Which makes sense.

Of course they did, because there's no meaningful alternative.

The Ds moved to the center long ago

The Ds moved to the center in the '90s, abandoning populism in favor of a search for policies that actually work.

What have the Rs done in that time?

and happily joined Rs in supporting policies which have savaged the middle and lower classes.

Please propose whatever you think is a viable alternative.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This country has all sorts of infrastructure needs that could be addressed by government spending, which would also put people to work. Republicans have been captured by rich donors, who don't want to pay taxes, and so they have invented all sorts of reasons to pretend that it's a bad idea. The same thing is true with education. Democrats would spend more money on these things, which create jobs. Republicans won't.

See also research.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There's an easy fix for that, at least in infrastructure.

Without a need for privatization of public assets, or tolls, or any other fees to the public. Without raising taxes. And it helps community and regional banks.

Wall Street is entirely cut out of the equation.

There's a way to do all of the infrastructure using partnerships between private and public entities. Europe's done it for years, and it works quite well.

It has not worked as well here because Wall St assholes lard the deals up with unnecessary financing costs, giving them a bad name, and most govt officials here can't understand the way the deals work, or how to do them sans capital markets involvement.

Sebby, put down the Kool Ade.

Surely there is some infrastructure that can pay for itself. For example, famously, the toll bridges into Manhattan.

But there is other infrastructure that can't be supported through use fees and public/private partnerships. City streets, for example. Europe does "all of the infrastructure" this way? I. Don't. Think. So.

If these magical ponies are so great, why can't we have some without the Wall-Street-assholes part? I don't buy "most government officials are stupid" as an explanation.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

The Ds moved to the center in the '90s, abandoning populism in favor of a search for policies that actually work.

Since 2007, it's important to emphasize "search" in that sentence.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sebby, put down the Kool Ade.

Surely there is some infrastructure that can pay for itself. For example, famously, the toll bridges into Manhattan.

But there is other infrastructure that can't be supported through use fees and public/private partnerships. City streets, for example. Europe does "all of the infrastructure" this way? I. Don't. Think. So.

If these magical ponies are so great, why can't we have some without the Wall-Street-assholes part? I don't buy "most government officials are stupid" as an explanation.

This stuff will be the favored structure soon enough. It's not if, but when.

Roads, bridges, buildings, any structure can be done.

People say the same thing over and over: "But we need tolls, or ownership!" Untrue. The margin can accrue from moderate financing costs added by developer, efficiencies, front loading payments, and maintenance.

No ownership needed.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This country has all sorts of infrastructure needs that could be addressed by government spending, which would also put people to work. Republicans have been captured by rich donors, who don't want to pay taxes, and so they have invented all sorts of reasons to pretend that it's a bad idea. The same thing is true with education. Democrats would spend more money on these things, which create jobs. Republicans won't.

As we automate more and more of the construction process, infrastructure projects will produce fewer and fewer jobs. Automated building is a big thing that is going to be bigger quickly.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This stuff will be the favored structure soon enough. It's not if, but when.

Roads, bridges, buildings, any structure can be done.

People say the same thing over and over: "But we need tolls, or ownership!" Untrue. The margin can accrue from moderate financing costs added by developer, efficiencies, front loading payments, and maintenance.

No ownership needed.

Setting aside the question of ownership, how is this new model going to result in infrastructure improvements without the spending of additional government funds?

If it isn't, how does it solve the problem that Republicans don't want to spend government money on these things because the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelsons of the world don't want them to?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by tyrone slothrop

Kool Ade.

WTActualF?

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Setting aside the question of ownership, how is this new model going to result in infrastructure improvements without the spending of additional government funds?

If it isn't, how does it solve the problem that Republicans don't want to spend government money on these things because the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelsons of the world don't want them to?

It doesn't avoid spending entirely. But it saves approximately 25-33% through efficiencies.

You don't sell it to Rs or Ds at a national level. You sell it in the form of mid-sized projects at the state/local levels. Creates good jobs, puts local/regional capital to good use at low risk, and saves $$$.

Fuck the national Rs. Hell, fuck national politics entirely. If you're going to rebuild the country waiting for fed grants/funding, we'll have potholes big enough to swallow school buses in a few years. Think state/local.

ETA: Koch and Adelson won't be enemies. Adelson needs infra to get buses of poor people in his casinos. Kochs profit, I'm sure, from sales of myriad hazardous chemical products involved in construction of roads. (If it's made with oil or tar, they've got a piece of it.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

WTActualF?

TM

Kool Ade is the kid of King Sonny Ade.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It doesn't avoid spending entirely.

So it isn't happening then.

You sell it in the form of mid-sized projects at the state/local levels.

What makes you think that state/local Rs are any more willing to spend money?

Hell, fuck national politics entirely.

Here's the problem: state and local governments do not have the same access to funds as the feds.

If you're going to rebuild the country waiting for fed grants/funding

You have no idea how transportation funding works in this country, do you?

Also, just sort of a macro issue for you. State and local governments will invest in their own infrastructure where Dems are in control. (They don't really need you for that). They will not where the Rs are in control. Without federal involvement, how is that going to create any jobs in red states?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Kool Ade is the kid of King Sonny Ade.

Ha. It's "Sunny" but whatev:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhD-xfwvGao

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It doesn't avoid spending entirely. But it saves approximately 25-33% through efficiencies.

You don't sell it to Rs or Ds at a national level. You sell it in the form of mid-sized projects at the state/local levels. Creates good jobs, puts local/regional capital to good use at low risk, and saves $$$.

Fuck the national Rs. Hell, fuck national politics entirely. If you're going to rebuild the country waiting for fed grants/funding, we'll have potholes big enough to swallow school buses in a few years. Think state/local.

If Republicans have a principled objection to government spending on infrastructure, finding a way to make it more efficient doesn't really change anything. I brought up infrastructure because you said Democrats don't have any ideas. They do. Spending government money on things that create long-term value, like infrastructure and education. There you go. If your response to that is, Fuck the Rs, well OK then.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

You have no idea how transportation funding works in this country, do you?

Hard to explain just how obnoxious you sound when you get like this.