Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

“The federal government cannot assume the cost for all of it,” Chao said Tuesday night in a Fox News interview after Trump’s address, reiterating a point she made during her Senate confirmation hearing. She told Fox host Sean Hannity that “new and innovative ways” were necessary to find funding.

She said the president had “exciting and novel ideas about how to finance” what independent authorities estimate is the need for $3.7 trillion to meet infrastructure needs by 2020.

“Public private partnerships are a very important part of a new way of financing our roads and bridges,” she said.

Asked whether that would require imposing new tolls, Chao responded “that is certainly one example of how that would work.”

“I have to say that there are some people who may not support toll roads,” Chao said, “but we have to take a look at all of these financing mechanisms, because once again, the needs of our infrastructure are so great that the federal government cannot and should not be the only source of funding to repair our bridges, our roads and our energy grids.”

andy7171 wrote:You can tell when somebody has never driven in the Northeast. Interstates are already heavily tolled. I travel along three every morning and afternoon. (I-95, I-695, I-83)
Is there any interstate in Eastern Washington?

kalm wrote:

andy7171 wrote:You can tell when somebody has never driven in the Northeast. Interstates are already heavily tolled. I travel along three every morning and afternoon. (I-95, I-695, I-83)
Is there any interstate in Eastern Washington?

Yes, we have two. No tolls. WC(b) FTW.

andy7171 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Yes, we have two. No tolls. WC(b) FTW.

Then stop trying to put it off on the 80% of the population this side of the Mississippi, and start chipping in. It costs me $4 to go under the Harbor and $8 to cross the Susquehanna.

andy7171 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Yes, we have two. No tolls. WC(b) FTW.

Then stop trying to put it off on the 80% of the population this side of the Mississippi, and start chipping in. It costs me $4 to go under the Harbor and $8 to cross the Susquehanna.

CID1990 wrote:One thing about tolls-

They are a lot like funding for entitlement programs.... politicians love to tamper with them. If they could put in a rule requiring that the tolls can go towards paying for road and bridge improvements only, then I'd be in favor. But they won't do that, and the tolls would remain in place after the improvements are paid for and ongoing maintenance is covered

One thing that I liked about El Salvador was their highways. In a brief surprising moment of sanity, functionality and pragmatism several years ago, the Salvadoran government established a fixed budget item protected by law which is solely dedicated to highway construction and upkeep. ES has the best roads anywhere in Central America. Lawmakers knew that this part of the budget would be pillaged by future politicians, so they wrote it into law.

If we had done the same with social security back during the New Deal it wouldn't be a problem today.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:One thing about tolls-

They are a lot like funding for entitlement programs.... politicians love to tamper with them. If they could put in a rule requiring that the tolls can go towards paying for road and bridge improvements only, then I'd be in favor. But they won't do that, and the tolls would remain in place after the improvements are paid for and ongoing maintenance is covered

One thing that I liked about El Salvador was their highways. In a brief surprising moment of sanity, functionality and pragmatism several years ago, the Salvadoran government established a fixed budget item protected by law which is solely dedicated to highway construction and upkeep. ES has the best roads anywhere in Central America. Lawmakers knew that this part of the budget would be pillaged by future politicians, so they wrote it into law.

If we had done the same with social security back during the New Deal it wouldn't be a problem today.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

But it would still be a ponzi scheme, right?

kalm wrote:

andy7171 wrote: Then stop trying to put it off on the 80% of the population this side of the Mississippi, and start chipping in. It costs me $4 to go under the Harbor and $8 to cross the Susquehanna.

We pay our share. Besides, I've been told the Feds don't have a revenue problem. FWIW, 405 has an optional toll lane which I use every time. It costs me $2.75 to save 15 minutes and make the next ferry.

Chizzang wrote:CID,
We can't have your beloved world dominating military at 10X the next closest
and an industrialized nation quality infrastructure simultaneously

Pick one...

Chizzang wrote:CID,
We can't have your beloved world dominating military at 10X the next closest
and an industrialized nation quality infrastructure simultaneously

Pick one...

Ibanez wrote:

Chizzang wrote:CID,
We can't have your beloved world dominating military at 10X the next closest
and an industrialized nation quality infrastructure simultaneously

Pick one...

The obvious answer is the F35.

Ibanez wrote:

Chizzang wrote:CID,
We can't have your beloved world dominating military at 10X the next closest
and an industrialized nation quality infrastructure simultaneously

Pick one...

The obvious answer is the F35.

Chizzang wrote:CID,
We can't have your beloved world dominating military at 10X the next closest
and an industrialized nation quality infrastructure simultaneously

Pick one...

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:CID,
We can't have your beloved world dominating military at 10X the next closest
and an industrialized nation quality infrastructure simultaneously

Pick one...

We most certainly can

In fact I've laid it all out in bits and pieces before-

I've said what we have to do IF we want to continue to be world police AND protect our own chitterlings locally at the same time. That's a thought exercise and not what I think we should be doing

We can pull back entirely and protect our own borders with the military we have - the annual operating cost of maintaining just our presence in S Korea alone would finance turning Detroit into Munich

We spend WAY too much on other people's defense, and the ability to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles at donkey carts

People like to look at the total pie chart when it comes to our defense budget compared to everything else we spend - I say take a look at how much it costs us within that budget to guarantee the security of whole continents

Have a military geared towards our own defense and good infrastructure - yes we can!

AZGrizFan wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
We most certainly can

In fact I've laid it all out in bits and pieces before-

I've said what we have to do IF we want to continue to be world police AND protect our own chitterlings locally at the same time. That's a thought exercise and not what I think we should be doing

We can pull back entirely and protect our own borders with the military we have - the annual operating cost of maintaining just our presence in S Korea alone would finance turning Detroit into Munich

We spend WAY too much on other people's defense, and the ability to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles at donkey carts

People like to look at the total pie chart when it comes to our defense budget compared to everything else we spend - I say take a look at how much it costs us within that budget to guarantee the security of whole continents

Have a military geared towards our own defense and good infrastructure - yes we can!

Uh....what you described is most decidedly NOT a world-dominating military. Which I think was kind of Chizzy's point.