Well Cyclist, not much different than any other road project: 90% financed by the federal government, 10% by Mass. Bonds.
A cost overrun of going from 4-5 Billion to maybe 15 billion. I don't know how many years this is financed over.

What we Need is a few TRILLION dollars into infrastructure!

Maybe we can keep the feds out of it huh? Let Georgia do their own?
Want your state taxes increased to do it? You, Boortz, and Linder.

Actually, you're all we need on this board. (LOL)

Seriously, the current US budget is around $2.8 trillion. Georgia is around $18 billion. A few trillion more would double the US budget. Your federal tax bill will reflect the same increase. Bush's has proposed a $67 Billion budget for transportation. How much more do you think we need?

BTW, Georgia's fund source for transportation is $1.8 billion, with $14.6 million coming from general funds, $658 million from motor fuel taxes, and $1.1 billion coming from Washington.

-------------------------------------------
Conservatism – apply it directly to the forehead.

Unless you know a way to fix our infrastructure in one year, we don't need all of the money in one year!
Divide it by 15-20 years. but start now for goodness sake.
I'm tired of people who don't give a rat for our kids and their kids future.......selfish dodos.

Need someone to talk to or do you not have enough to do this morning? Read my post below from two days ago.

-------------------------------------------
Conservatism – apply it directly to the forehead.

For your info there is a difference in new roads and bridges for our expanding population, and fixing the ole stuff!!
We need a few trillion to fix the old stuff over 10-15 years.
Want to do it? (doesn't count electricity, water, air, etc.)
Yeah, we will look like Europe in a hundred years----old and decrepit!

they're a pay-as-you-go scheme. As for road construction, funding will be made via, like it or not, through the federal budget process. After that, states will have to compete in order to get the "big prize". Will you and I pay for it? Absolutely!!!
-------------------------------------------
Conservatism – apply it directly to the forehead.

Because of my job, I happened to have some of the figures you asked for. According to the Federal Highway Administration, the amounts spent on bridge infrastructure are as follows (in billions).

1993 - $5.1
1995 - $7.0
1997 - $7.6
2000 - $12.3
2004 - $12.6

The whole boring report can be read at:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2006cpr/chap8.htm

but why you would want to read it (unless you were getting paid to) is beyond me.

Interestingly, a week before the bridge collapse, Bush threatened to veto the congressional appropriations bill that funds the Department of Transportation because it contained $631 million more for federal highway safety than Bush proposed.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that both Clinton and Bush spent and are spending a ton of money on the problem. Frankly, it’s hard for me to pin this one on the Feds. It is the states which request and prioritize this kind of spending. I’ve got a structurally deficient bridge near me which rated 10 out of 100.

but, but, but,.......Clinton!

Clinton gave Bush eight trillion dollars in surplus to start the programs!!!

Instead, he is financing a terrible war in Iraq (not Afghanistan, where he should be).

He also gave a bunch of tax money to oil companies, large businesses, people making over $200,000 per yer, capital gains people, but, but, but. Clinton!

Well, Clinton had a girlfriend, and Starr tried to make a federal case out of it instead of what he was hired to do in Arkansas!

If Clinton had all that money, why didn't he rebuild a couple bridges? He was in office 8 years, why not?
I yam what I yam...Popeye

He paid off some of our debt, thereby reducing the interest and our taxes!
He also didn't want to be the bridge building President!

Normally I wouldn’t respond to anything that that the dimwitted dollar writes, but I just wanted to make sure that nobody else out there, especially those on the left , was stupid enough to think that we ever had an 8 trillion dollar surplus.

Maximus

Hello Professor
This was a test to see if anybody would care about billions or trillions. Usually, they don't.
I am aware that our total budget is less than 2 trillion per year.
Clinton probably averaged between 100 billion and 200 billion in surpluses to the best of my memory. The dot. com helped greatly.
You won!

Another lesson for you leftists with preconceived notions of fiscal responsibility: The national debt was $4.1 trillion on January 21, 1993. On January 21, 2001 it stood at $5.7 trillion. If surpluses averaged “between 100 billion and 200 billion” during that time period, why did the debt go up by $1.6 trillion? In fact, the national debt has risen every year since 1969.

Maximus

Without going further into math and economics and inflation over 15 years, may I just ask you this: are you saying that Ronald Reagan and George Bush, jr., didn't allow, or propose budget, deficits that were much more than Clinton's?
Don't get into % of GNP, a republican argument, or inflation, a false codifier, just answer the question, please.
Also, I'm not interested in hearing how loss of manufacturing and the explosion of dot.coms made it easy for Clinton. That is BS.

i do not think Clinton ever "rebuilt" anything but the "oval (Cigar) office"

I do know he decideed that we did not need the military officers (ie. Army). My husband was "laid off" because he was an Officer and had a college degree. He (My husband) chose the Army. He would still be there (He is in the National Guard - not the same), but Pres. Clinon decide "WE" did not need the Military (hence 9/11).

Pres. Clinton decided he would rather have a (B*** J**) than have our Army Officers. Actually American Citizens ready to "Vote On" or in Hillary. Wonder what she may think of "Office Perks"? Male Stripers DRESSED AS ARMY OFFICERS???????

My God, you right wing nuts have taken it to a new level of dillusion!

Lesson 1 for Maximus: National debt does not equal federal budget deficit. Your boy can't run the government for what the government takes in. Clinton's white house (with the help of a GOP congress) could.

Lesson 2: For weed-smoking valley girl: 9/11 did not happen because your husband was not active duty. It happenned, in large part, because terrorists got on airplanes at commercial airports and took the planes over. The military does not generally guard planes or airports do they? They didn't on 9/11/01.

part 2: 9/11 was allowed to come to fruition because a certain white house resident who you are enamored with did nothing, nada, zip, with a presidential daily bulletin titled, "Al Qaieda determined to attack within the US using aircraft." Not a cigar; not Lewinski, but former marijuana-enjoying George W. Bush ignoring vital intelligence.

Somehow, Valley girl, I and all of my friends made it thru the 90s with our jobs intact. How did we, valley? Any personal responsibility to truly address your husband's OERs and job choices? Did the President write your husband's performance reports? Equating his departure from the U.S.A. with President Clinton's attempt to balance the budget and the size of our military with the threat de sur, to make it sound like a personal attack on the military is insane. And, I'm sure you know that Guardsman are as needed as any other military officers: ESPECIALLY NOW! You may find it interesting that currently the USAF is shrinking by 40,000 personell. Who is the current president valley lady?
Conservatives like you explain why even Rudy Giuliani's kids won't vote for him. You have your own versions of truth and character that don't often jive with the world we others see out of our windows. If you are concerned about infidelity, you have quite a few bodies to clean out of your own party's closet before using the old faithful Clinton one-liners. Next you'll tell me Iraq is going great as their versions of the republican party walked off of the job. Yeah, swimmingly. I think you'd best take another toke.

Kevin "Hack" King

You’ll have to point out to me what part of my statement was wrong, Hack. The national debt increases every year that the federal government spends more money than it takes in (deficit spending). It has increased every year since 1969.

The size of the deficit isn’t what matters anyway; it’s the total amount of spending, especially when compared to GDP, which has been out of control for many more decades than we’ve been alive. And you socialist types can’t wait to add another trillion or so per year to destroy our health care system.

What, besides defense, would you propose be cut in the FY2008 budget if your boss "can't run the government"? If you say “everything” then we have no argument. And before you go spouting off about the need for higher taxes don’t forget that revenue is already at record levels.

Maximus

Don't respond when Dollar is on a roll. You've been around long enough to know that.

Second: Whenever people gush about Clinton and the Republican Congress' budget, certainly you know that they are talking about the balanced federal budget. President Clinton is the last President in a long time to have one of them there balanced budgets.

Now, let me respond in kind, Maximus: Cut the $6 billion a week we are spending in Iraq. What is the return on THAT investment? Especially when Bin Laden is comfortable in Pakistan. Remember Bin Laden, and how he use to be our focus because of the Americans he killed? You "big business knows best, capitalism is flawless if govt does not interfere" types would have the private blackwater types running the entire war in Iraq. The glaring loss of money and failure to account for use of our dollars not withstanding, you would have Halliburton health care and military operations, AIG social security, and, I imagine, Willie's Fayette County security service to replace the Police and Sherrif.

The first budget cut I would make, Maximus, is cutting politician's salleries back to their 1998 levels. If it is good enough for the 2 million on minimum wage, it's good enough for them.
Next, pork barrel spending has to go. No one has proven immune to that.
Next, the beauracracy has swelled to ridiculous levels. We need fewer govt employees spelled "Smaller government" physically. That is a start, anyway. What say you?

Kevin "Hack" King

...as I said I normally wouldn’t respond to dollar. He never has anything of any value or intelligence or interest to say. I was just using his idiotic statement as a place to jump in when I was bored.

As for Iraq, there will be no convincing you. Fortunately I don’t have to. Who ever takes over the White House in 2009 won’t be in a hurry to pull out. “Here me now believe me later” to quote the Governator. What the dems are doing right this minute is trying to figure out how to take credit for the eventual success. But I didn’t realize that trying to discredit Patraeus for his logistics handling (before he was unanimously confirmed by the senate) was part of the latest effort by the “war is lost” left.

I’m not sure what you mean by haliburton health care, AIG social security, or Willie’s security. But the federal government shouldn’t be in charge of the health care system, my retirement, or the local police force if that’s what you’re getting at.

Speaking of social security can you tell me why in spite of the “Clinton and the Republican Congress' budget” of the 1990s the national debt continued to go up?

“… pork barrel spending has to go. No one has proven immune to that.
Next, the beauracracy has swelled to ridiculous levels. We need fewer govt employees spelled "Smaller government" physically. That is a start, anyway. What say you?”

I say that would be a small step in the right direction. We do have common ground.

Maximus

Xvalleygirl999 you are probably a big Bush supporter and an obvious Clinton hater so I know this is not going to influence you, much less change your mind but I have to take issue with you’re writing, “Pres. Clinton decide "WE" did not need the Military (hence 9/11).”

Today, August 6, is the sixth anniversary that President Bush received the Presidential Daily Briefing titled: Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.”

Former CIA chief and State Department counterterrorism chief Larry Johnson sent a CIA person to Texas to brief President Bush personally on the PDB and Bush, (who spent the entire month of August on vacation) responded to the briefing by telling the CIA officer, “All right. You’ve covered you a**, now.”

The Shadow War

So tell us again how it was Clinton’s fault.

I thought all of the guards had been or were going to Iraq? No?

"'WE' did not need the Military (hence 9/11)."

That's incredibly short sighted of you to say, but I have deduced that because you are so full of venom from Clinton's BJ (unrelated to 9/11, hard to believe I know!), you must have caught something in your eye that is impairing your vision.