matilda

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:38:12 -0600

Smussy: Sort of. The way wars typically are paid for--massive borrowing and then massive refinancing of that borrowing--does not preclude having a long-term infrastructure repair plan, something this country has neglected since most of us were probably in grade school. As for the war: Well, yeah, it's a monstrous waste of money, and the bill will not be paid off for at least a couple of generations (The UK took some 60 years to pay back a loan from the USA that helped save Britian from going bankrupt in 1945-46, right after Hitler's defeat). But that does not excuse this country from fashioning a revenue plan for needed repairs or--god forbid--raising taxes (gas taxes? some other taxes?) relativey modestly over the past two decades to pay for much need infrastructure, whether bridges, road repairs or trains and buses. I know it is tempting to blame our gaping domestic needs on wasteful war spending, but when it comes to federal budgets and financing, it is not usually a simple cause-and-effect relationship. One could argue that war spending has played a role in limiting other discretionary spending at the federal level, and that's a strong point, but it still does not explain our infrastructure neglect during the 1990s, for instance. Bridges don't detoriate overnight; mass transit systems take a long time to decay. The warnings about our sorry state of infrastructure in the USA were being sounded by far-seeing people at least since the late 1980s. I remember the warnings in various journals, newspapers, etc. As well, war spending by the federal government does not let the states off the hook. Yes, they want federal matching dollars, but states also can create their own revenue sources and repair plans. As we have seen in Illinois, the lack of a capital plan-which would enjoy billions in federal matching funds-has really nothing to with the Iraq War, but rather the stupidity of our leaders and of the voters who keep electing these fools. The Iraq War is only one of many, many factors in this story. Sure, it's an easy scapegoat, but it is just not the full picture. (Speaking of war spending, it's not even the main federal "program" contributing to our mounting debt, according to projections from all sides. Rather, our debt service--interest payments--as well as our other non-discretionary spending--think Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security-are quickly leading us into a financial black hole. Even if we stopped the war next week, we would still have massive budget problems at the federal level.) Sorry to be such a rambling idiot, but I think it is inaccurate and unwise to pin every problem of spending on the Iraq War.

smussy

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:27:58 -0600

terrible wording. *that is badly needed for domestic problems ...

smussy

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:26:56 -0600

matilda, are you denying that we're hemorraghing money over there that could be used for badly needed domestic problems?

Von Erich

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:13:23 -0600

The viaduct over Lawrence Av. just off the Kennedy is a sight to behold. The steel rebar has been visible in most spots for over 10 years. Other spots, the rebar is the piling. And this thing carries Metra trains on it!

matilda

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:54:55 -0600

Seriously, this problem about funding predates the war by a significant margain. Please stop pretending history started when Bush took office or when we invaded Iraq. This is a problem that has been building for nearly a generation.

Navin

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:51:37 -0600

Seriously, American's safety can wait. We've got military contractors, oil men, and war profiteers to enrich. Quit being so selfish America.

smussy

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:17:04 -0600

but we're funding a war no one wants, though. that must count for something, right?

Chicagoist: Illinois Bridges Still Shitty

matilda

smussy

smussy

Von Erich

matilda

Navin

smussy