Literally why don't we upgrade it?
It's not even a partisan issue. Both left and right, from the extreme Maoists to the most radical fascist, all agree that we need to do it. So why hasn't it been done? PragerU says it was because of environmentalists and unions placing so much regulation on installing or repairing existing infrastructure that everything gets delayed and delayed until the idea eventually scrapped altogether. But PragerU is funded by kikes, so there's that.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
businessinsider.com
wsj.com
tn.gov
wreg.com
zerohedge.com
twitter.com
Contractors and consultants drag out and suck out everything they can. Look up the Big Dig. Despite that absolute multi decade disaster that's killed people, Bechtel continues to get contracts for US infrastructure. They've been "cleaning up" the Hanford nuclear enrichment site for almost over half a decade now.
Also foreign companies can't force US companies to compete because of:
en.wikipedia.org
> passed in 1933 by Congress and signed by President Hoover on his last full day in office (March 3, 1933),[1] required the United States government to prefer U.S.-made products in its purchases
en.wikipedia.org
>Transportation infrastructure projects built with iron, steel, and manufactured products must purchase materials in the United States. This applies to mass-transit related procurements valued over $150,000 and funded at least in part by federal grants. This includes highways, bridges, airports and tunnels.[4]
Gloompf and Demonrats both want to do this. I think it's a bad idea personally. Spending is already out of control. Despite what Dems tell you, our tax receipts went UP after the recent tax cuts, but it's still not going to be anywhere near enough to right the spending ship and "taxing the rich" historically always has a counterproductive effect and ends up bringing in less revenue than lower taxes (examples of this literally all over the damn world even in the modern day).
It actually is a partisan issue, considering the lack of massive infrastructure funding.
That money has to come from somewhere and I doubt either side wants to make cuts that makes them look bad -- even though infrastructure spending is one of the very, VERY few things that actually has a positive return on investment.
Invasion and civil war will destroy them all anyways so no need to waste money.
particularly the south will be spic hellzone when mexico and russian missiles begin their assault.
OH BOY THEY TOOK MORE MONEY FROM INDIVIDUALS TO SUBSIDIZE CORPORATE IRON TRIANGLES FUCKING WONDERFUL
Israel needs bridges, silly. Americans are willing to pay because jesus is coming back some day, real soon now!
Forcing contractors to use US-made materials isn't why our infrastructure is shit, you incompetent Chinese shill. The government takes every possible opportunity to cut funding from public works projects to direct it into the pockets of "consultants" and "research" instead of funding concrete solutions to products. This has two functions: it creates a reduction of public infrastructure resources, making them scarce and therefore increasing their value, and simultaneously makes the average member of the public (who naively trusts the government) desperate for any scraps of help the government can throw their way in terms of maintenance or construction of new infrastructure.
The government then takes this opportunity to blame the (entirely artificial) degradation of these resources on a nonexistent labor shortage, and increases immigration from third world countries. Like China.
This is a really myopic view of it. They cut corporate taxes, which allowed the economy to expand, markets to go up, unemployment to plummet. Every who works is doing better today than they were at any point under Obama and there's no question on that.
And IDK how people like you always shit on "muh low corporate tax rates" while presumably venerating the political system of places like Sweden, that have comparable or lower corporate tax rates in order to power their economy and fund all of those social programs you guys love so much.
Basically, the thing is that I know even as I explain this to you, the complexity and nuance is making your communist head spin. I know that you are just too genuinely stupid to understand that this is a cut and dry math equation with a clear "right answer" and not some nebulous humanities course essay where "whatever you believe can be true". Economics is mostly a hard science. It's not a debate, lol. Low corporate tax rates have helped everyone and help everyone all over the world where they are implemented.