• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sen. Bernie Sanders: U.S. becoming laughing stock of the world

Frolicking Dinosaurs

200M yrs of experience
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Messages
2,166
Reaction score
1,692
Location
Southeastern USA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont said Monday night that the United States was becoming “the laughing stock of the entire world” because of the nation’s crumbling infrastructure. The Senate will take up this week a part of Barack Obama’s American Jobs Act that would provide $60 billion create a National Infrastructure Bank, and to rebuild roads, rails and airports.

“China is now spending 9 percent of its GDP on infrastructure,” Sanders said on MSNBC’s Politics Nation. “They’re building thousands of miles of high speed rail. Europe, 5 percent. We are at 2.2 percent. We’re becoming the laughing stock of the entire world. ”

“You want to put people to work tomorrow?” he added. “Start rebuilding the infrastructure. It is incomprehensible to me that the Republicans are opposing that.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders: U.S. becoming laughing stock of the world | The Raw Story
 
If any village is missing its idiot, Sanders is available
 
Typical...Bernie-bashers focusing on the "laughingstock" quote and not focusing on the real substance of what he said. Do any of you have anything to say about the state of our infrastucture and how we're failing to invest in it?
 
I participate in an international forum similar to this one (mostly read there as I have little to add to what they already know). The US is viewed as a very young country that has peaked and is going down the tubes because it does not understand that failing to take care of the basic needs of the citizens (food, shelter, means of livelihood, healthcare) and taking care of the basic needs of the economy (infrastructure and availability of capital) has been the downfall of many, many countries.

What do you think happened to the USSR? The USA is headed down the same path. Failing to recognize this and fix it will result in the same fate for the USA. Too big to fail? Don't bet on it.
 
Typical...Bernie-bashers focusing on the "laughingstock" quote and not focusing on the real substance of what he said. Do any of you have anything to say about the state of our infrastucture and how we're failing to invest in it?
Sure...I'll say it. The 'invest in our infrastructure' argument is bull****. Anyone with eyes can see Obama's 'jobs' planis nothing more than a pathetic little attempt to buy off more union votes. States have failed to budget and tax appropriately. Because they failed to budget appropriately they have to lay off public (union) employees and make cuts. There will be no 'job creation'. There will be more money to the states to once again temporarily pay their employees (union employees) just before the election. There will be no requirement for the states to become solvent or budget/tax their citizens appropriately. Your grandchildren will pay for their grand gesture, excpet they wont pay 60 billion...they will pay 60 billion plus 20-30 years of interest.

Seriously...you never bother to ask "if this is so important that 'we cant wait', why did we wait til the election cycle?"
 
Sure...I'll say it. The 'invest in our infrastructure' argument is bull****. Anyone with eyes can see Obama's 'jobs' planis nothing more than a pathetic little attempt to buy off more union votes. States have failed to budget and tax appropriately. Because they failed to budget appropriately they have to lay off public (union) employees and make cuts. There will be no 'job creation'. There will be more money to the states to once again temporarily pay their employees (union employees) just before the election. There will be no requirement for the states to become solvent or budget/tax their citizens appropriately. Your grandchildren will pay for their grand gesture, excpet they wont pay 60 billion...they will pay 60 billion plus 20-30 years of interest.

Seriously...you never bother to ask "if this is so important that 'we cant wait', why did we wait til the election cycle?"

Well, there WAS this little thing called the ARRA...so Obama tried to do something about it the moment he got into office. Now you could make the argument that that was a vote-buying measure as well, but that doesn't take away from the fact that our infrastructure is quickly losing the race.
 
Last edited:
Where do these 9% and 2.2% numbers come from? Just because this guy says it doesn't make it so. China has to invest plenty in infrastructure. They don't have any, for God's sake. Does the 2.2% number represent Federal investment? What about states? How come we take this stuff at face value when it tells us what we want to hear? Links? Anybody have links?
 
Where do these 9% and 2.2% numbers come from? Just because this guy says it doesn't make it so. China has to invest plenty in infrastructure. They don't have any, for God's sake. Does the 2.2% number represent Federal investment? What about states? How come we take this stuff at face value when it tells us what we want to hear? Links? Anybody have links?

If anyone has the time or inclination to read through this whole thing, it's pretty interesting.

http://www.bafuture.com/sites/default/files/Report_0.pdf
 
Well, there WAS this little thing called the ARRA...so Obama tried to do something about it the moment he got into office. Now you could make the argument that that was a vote-buying measure as well, but that doesn't take away from the fact that our infrastructure is quickly losing the race.
BART in California is one of (I think it is the 5th or 6th) highest utilized mass trans systems in the world. In 2005 it cost 300 million ABOVE fares to maintain annual operations and that doesnt touch the cost of installation, new rolling stock purchase, and that is one of the BETTER fare systems. The cost for installation is huge and to what gain? You not only dont recoup funds, it costs you to manage and maintain the system. So...we should build systems that we KNOW are going to add to city/state/fed gov budget debt?

Amtrak 71% 2009[8] 29% annual budget deficit
Atlanta (MARTA) 31.8% 2007[9] 69% annual budget deficit
Austin (CMTA) 9% 2007[10] 91% annual budget deficit
Boston (MBTA) 43.7% 2002[11] 54% annual budget deficit
Chicago (CTA) 55.2% 2010[12] 45% annual budget deficit
Cleveland (GCRTA) 21.5% 2002[11] 78.5% annual budget deficit

And on and on
Dallas (DART) 28.4% 2008[13]
Detroit (DDOT) 13.9% 2002[14]
Edmonton (ETS) 39.4% 2007 [15]
Harrisburg, PA (CAT) 35.0% 2005
Las Vegas Monorail 56.0% 2006[16]
Long Island (MTA) 26.6% 2009 Q1[17]
Los Angeles (LACMTA) 30.6% 2004[18]
Maryland 26.3% 2002[11]
Miami 16.1% 2002[11]
Montreal (STM) 57.1% 2006 [19]
New York City (MTA) 55.5% 2009 Q1[20]
New York/Connecticut (MTA) 36.2% 2009 Q1[21]
New York/New Jersey (PATH) 41.0% 2002[11]
New Jersey (NJT) 56% 2001[22]
Orlando (Lynx) 26% 2006[23]
Ottawa (OC Transpo) 43.2% 2007 [24]
Philadelphia (SEPTA) 58.6% 2002[11]
Pierce County, WA 13.0% 2009[25]
Philadelphia/New Jersey (PATCO) 61.4% 2002[11]
Portland Metro Area (TriMet) 22% 2010[26]
Puget Sound Region (King County Metro) 19.1% 2006[27]
Puget Sound Region (Sound Transit) 22.2% 2007[28]
San Francisco Bay Area (BART) 64.5% 2008[29]
San Francisco Bay Area (Caltrain) 41% 2006[30]
Staten Island (MTA) 15.2% 2002[11]
Toronto (TTC) 66.7% 2009 [31]
Toronto, Hamilton and area (GO Transit) 88.4% 2008 [32]
Vancouver (TransLink) 46.3% 2009 [33]
Washington, DC (WMATA) 61.6% 2002[11
 
Last edited:
I participate in an international forum similar to this one (mostly read there as I have little to add to what they already know). The US is viewed as a very young country that has peaked and is going down the tubes because it does not understand that failing to take care of the basic needs of the citizens (food, shelter, means of livelihood, healthcare) and taking care of the basic needs of the economy (infrastructure and availability of capital) has been the downfall of many, many countries.

What do you think happened to the USSR? The USA is headed down the same path. Failing to recognize this and fix it will result in the same fate for the USA. Too big to fail? Don't bet on it.

Unfortunately for us, that is an accurate picture of where the US is currently. For decades, we led the world in industrial strength, in growth, in military power. Now, we still want to believe that we're the greatest country in the world, while our college graduates move home and try to pay off student loans flipping burgers, while our system of roads and bridges deteriorates, while our government is de facto for sale, while we have the most inefficient health care system on the planet, while our education system languishes (but, if college grads have no real jobs, what does it matter?) The US is like a 747 headed for the ground with no one at the controls who has a clue how to get it back up to cruising altitude.
 
If there is any request for links, could someone else look them up? Our youngest is getting married Saturday and I'm not going to be here much until after that is over.
 
Bernie Sanders is the #1 BEST Senator in the Senate.
 
Typical...Bernie-bashers focusing on the "laughingstock" quote and not focusing on the real substance of what he said. Do any of you have anything to say about the state of our infrastucture and how we're failing to invest in it?
It's my understanding that most of the funding for roads comes from the State budgets.
 
Truth is our corporations are paying for china's infrastructure building...they are all for building infrastructure everywhere but the united states...here they need tax cuts not infastructure

Except that transportation infrastructure is just as important to an economy as low tax rates.

I know this is anecdotal, but I've got a friend in his early 20's who lives in a suburb in Arizona. While there are jobs in the urban areas, there are no jobs in the suburbs. So for him to get employed, he needs a way to get back and forth between his home and those areas of job opportunities.

But he can't afford a car himself, and the distance is too far and too dangerous to travel back and forth with on his bicycle. Which means he needs that public transportation infrastructure in order to go to those job opportunities that are in areas away from his residence.

So I think that building up our public transportation systems, and reforming them (by mandating every street built with federal funds have both sidewalks and separate bikeways, for instance) will actually help our economy by allowing the poor unemployed go where the jobs are.
 
It's my understanding that most of the funding for roads comes from the State budgets.

That is true since most roads are not owned by the fed. We all pay taxes at the gas pump to maintain the federal highway system, yet the politicians piss away that money on other BS. Everyone that flies on an airplane pays a hidden tax to maintain the safety of the airliners, as well as the network used to control the traffic.....yet that money is spent by politicians to do other BS.

State politicians are equally gutless for not spending enough money on the roads, bridges, etc.

And who is responsible for electing these douchenozzles ....... we the people ...... we are often our own worst enemy.
 
Here's an idea that came up on another forum:

The taxpayer should decide where his tax money should go. After filling out the tax form, the individual taxpayer would say that a certain percent should go here, another percent there. Programs that aren't supported by the taxpayers would then cease to be funded, while the ones that are supported would have budget increases. That way, the individual taxpayers, not the Congress nor the lobbyists in Congress, would determine how the money is to be spent.

Moreover, once the percentage donated by the taxpayers was reached, there would be no more, and therefore no deficit.

Interesting concept, don't you think?
 
Here's an idea that came up on another forum:

The taxpayer should decide where his tax money should go. After filling out the tax form, the individual taxpayer would say that a certain percent should go here, another percent there. Programs that aren't supported by the taxpayers would then cease to be funded, while the ones that are supported would have budget increases. That way, the individual taxpayers, not the Congress nor the lobbyists in Congress, would determine how the money is to be spent.

Moreover, once the percentage donated by the taxpayers was reached, there would be no more, and therefore no deficit.

Interesting concept, don't you think?

No - it's not very pragmatic.
 
Bernie Sanders is the #1 BEST Senator in the Senate.
A certifiable 'genius'. Add hundreds of billions to the debt payed for by future generations, on systems that will require hundreds of billions to operate for as long as they are in operation. Why...I just cant see how ANYONE can have a problem with that concept. Except of course the people in the states on the hook for paying for the services.

He is certifiable alright. However it is NOT shocking that a union hack would think this is a great idea. Who cares if it isnt economically viable...mo debt, mo spending equals mo union jobs.

Say...if this makes so much sense, why arent the unions invested in spending their union employees dues on private investment into such ideas?
 
Except that transportation infrastructure is just as important to an economy as low tax rates.

I know this is anecdotal, but I've got a friend in his early 20's who lives in a suburb in Arizona. While there are jobs in the urban areas, there are no jobs in the suburbs. So for him to get employed, he needs a way to get back and forth between his home and those areas of job opportunities.

But he can't afford a car himself, and the distance is too far and too dangerous to travel back and forth with on his bicycle. Which means he needs that public transportation infrastructure in order to go to those job opportunities that are in areas away from his residence.

So I think that building up our public transportation systems, and reforming them (by mandating every street built with federal funds have both sidewalks and separate bikeways, for instance) will actually help our economy by allowing the poor unemployed go where the jobs are.

He can call for a taxi, use a friend, etc.

The fact is that public transit is a long term, consistently indebted cost for the majority of places around the U.S.
There are a few exceptions, but I highly doubt the burbs of Arizona is one of them.
 
Back
Top Bottom