Infrastructure in Your Area?

[Jeff Matthews]

 

Look on the positive side. It could possibly be a huge blunder to sink $100 billion into roads and bridges with hovercraft vehicles being just around the corner.

The last few times we went there to visit family, we took whichever of our vehicles had the tallest sidewall tires.......'Cause they stop fixing pot-holes.

And the very last time I was there, I could not believe my eyes! There was a huge billboard on Ballinger Hwy. that ENCOURAGED people to get on welfare!

 

 

Imagine what that must look like to others throughout the world.  Land of Bounty!

[oldtimer]

Lets devolve into the Monty Python sketch of one downsmanship. 

 

Road?  Oh la ti da!  We never had roads.  We had to bushwhack everywhere we went, and if we came to a body of water, we had to swim it!  Spare me your luxurious upbringing of roads.

[babadono]

I'll let you in on a secret. For every current public employee making say $50K a year there is another retired used to be public employee making $50K. So for each public employee Joe taxpayer is paying double for their service. This is only going to get worse. Until public employee retirement benefits are brought in line with normal people's benefits there is no solution possible except raising taxes(or "fees"). I know some of these retirees and they boast about how much they are getting for their retirement. They are delighted to bankrupt our children and grandchildren.

Me,Me,Me......its the me generation run amuck.

End Rant

[oldtimer]

How about raising the normal guy's retirement to their level?

[Travis In Austin]

I'll let you in on a secret. For every current public employee making say $50K a year there is another retired used to be public employee making $50K. So for each public employee Joe taxpayer is paying double for their service. This is only going to get worse. Until public employee retirement benefits are brought in line with normal people's benefits there is no solution possible except raising taxes(or "fees"). I know some of these retirees and they boast about how much they are getting for their retirement. They are delighted to bankrupt our children and grandchildren.

Me,Me,Me......its the me generation run amuck.

End Rant

 

 

What is a "Normal" person's benefit?  Is it an amount, or a percentage?  What is the pension amount of US Representatives?  US Senators?  The President?

 

Your math isn't correct.  Joe taxpayer isn't typically paying for pensions, it depends on who the government subdivision set up their system.  There is typically a separate state employees retirement system, a teachers retirement systems, local retirement systems for police, fire, etc.  All run by a separate retirement board of trustees. 

 

Pensions are funded by payments from employee wages, and a portion from the governmental subdivision.  It percentages can vary widely.  Many are EXEMPT from social security.  They do not draw any social security when they retire and do not take away from that system.  They have saved the governmental entity from having making contributions  to social security.

 

Federal legislators are outside the social security system.  Edit, if they were in Congress prior to 1984, since 1984 they have contributed.  Let's start with them, they seem to be "normal."

Edited January 30, 2016 by dwilawyer

[oldtimer]

Travis rocks again. 

[oldtimer]

The larger point being why the resentment?  Usually a public sector life (Washington politicians excluded) inherently involves a lower salary than a commensurate private job.  The benefits were supposedly designed to compensate. Beyond that, corporations are sitting on billions of dollars in cash.   The ostensible reason is because they see no place for investment.  God forbid they invest in their employees.  The employees make their money for them, the shareholders, the manager bonuses.  Yet instead of being perceived as assets (as taught in business school) they are regarded as cost units.  Not people, but cost units.  So my earlier question arises.  Why not demand a decent retirement as a condition of employment?   Oh you say you can't?  newsflash, this is what unions are about.  or used to be until the laws have stripped the "normal guy" of any real collective bargaining power.

[Travis In Austin]

Look on the positive side.  It could possibly be a huge blunder to sink $100 billion into roads and bridges with hovercraft vehicles being just around the corner.

 

I thought we were getting autonomous cars first?  We get hovercrafts?  Cool.  They have big cushions so you can't damage anything.  I wonder what kind of mileage they get?  Or is this a conspiracy between the oil producers and the world bankers. 

[Travis In Austin]

The larger point being why the resentment?  Usually a public sector life (Washington politicians excluded) inherently involves a lower salary than a commensurate private job.  The benefits were supposedly designed to compensate. Beyond that, corporations are sitting on billions of dollars in cash.   The ostensible reason is because they see no place for investment.  God forbid they invest in their employees.  The employees make their money for them, the shareholders, the manager bonuses.  Yet instead of being perceived as assets (as taught in business school) they are regarded as cost units.  Not people, but cost units.  So my earlier question arises.  Why not demand a decent retirement as a condition of employment?   Oh you say you can't?  newsflash, this is what unions are about.  or used to be until the laws have stripped the "normal guy" of any real collective bargaining power.

 

They are resented because they were smart enough to take the lower salary in favor of the better benefits they were lured with.  While they were making less than their private sector counterparts, they were outside of social security, and that money was being invested in some form of pension plan for their benefit.  Most, have been able to achieve a better result than social security.

 

Railroad retirement, military retirement, teacher retirement and on and on. 

 

Cities, Counties (Parish) and States can hire outside  contractors for any, or all of road needs.  Construction, maintenance whatever.  In a growing area it is typically cheaper to do that in house.   

[Jim Naseum]

 

Look on the positive side.  It could possibly be a huge blunder to sink $100 billion into roads and bridges with hovercraft vehicles being just around the corner.

 

I thought we were getting autonomous cars first?  We get hovercrafts?  Cool.  They have big cushions so you can't damage anything.  I wonder what kind of mileage they get?  Or is this a conspiracy between the oil producers and the world bankers. 

 

 

No sir. The world bankers don't need anyone else! "Dark Banking" is the mainspring of the the global economy, and therefore all governments as well. $33T in completely invisible cash. 

[MORE KLIPSCH PLEASE]

Infrastructure in my area..... Baltimore...

Every day on the news there are reports of another water main brake in the city....last year there was a road that gave out and collapsed on RR tracks. It was a whole hill that gave out. The city blamed the RR, the RR blamed the city. But all the families were displaced from there homes for months. They ended up 50-50 to fix the road.

A few years back the mayor of Baltimore was found guilty of taking gift cards for the needy. Now I don't care if it's gift cards or $100k..... it's steeling!!! She had to step down from office, but she got to keep her $97k a year pention.....

The city of Baltimore is falling apart.....like a lot of cities in this nation.... Looking at the big picture of this country it is clear that it's "rotting from the inside out" ....... not just infrastructure but the whole damn thing.....it's sad.....

MKP :-)

[Jim Naseum]

Oh please. The "resentment" you hear from other workers is part and parcel of the libertarian propaganda machine....every man for himself. It used to be called "divide and conquer." When each man can only operate as an entity of ONE, and the corporate persons are essentially "super human" there is obviously no chance for the individual, right?

 

Disclaimer -  that was sarcasm.

Edited January 30, 2016 by jo56steph74

[oldtimer]

 

The larger point being why the resentment?  Usually a public sector life (Washington politicians excluded) inherently involves a lower salary than a commensurate private job.  The benefits were supposedly designed to compensate. Beyond that, corporations are sitting on billions of dollars in cash.   The ostensible reason is because they see no place for investment.  God forbid they invest in their employees.  The employees make their money for them, the shareholders, the manager bonuses.  Yet instead of being perceived as assets (as taught in business school) they are regarded as cost units.  Not people, but cost units.  So my earlier question arises.  Why not demand a decent retirement as a condition of employment?   Oh you say you can't?  newsflash, this is what unions are about.  or used to be until the laws have stripped the "normal guy" of any real collective bargaining power.

 

They are resented because they were smart enough to take the lower salary in favor of the better benefits they were lured with.  While they were making less than their private sector counterparts, they were outside of social security, and that money was being invested in some form of pension plan for their benefit.  Most, have been able to achieve a better result than social security.

 

Railroad retirement, military retirement, teacher retirement and on and on. 

 

Cities, Counties (Parish) and States can hire outside  contractors for any, or all of road needs.  Construction, maintenance whatever.  In a growing area it is typically cheaper to do that in house.   

 

To partially answer the rhetorical question, the resentment stems from that was then this is now.  These opportunities don't exist for the post boomers.  Yes Mallette, it's the generational warfare you disdain, but it exists all the same.

[Jim Naseum]

it's the generational warfare you disdain, but it exists all the same.

 

 

Added to the existing class warfare. 

[oldtimer]

Oh please. The "resentment" you hear from other workers is part and parcel of the libertarian propaganda machine....every man for himself. It used to be called "divide and conquer." When each man can only operate as an entity of ONE, and the corporate persons are essentially "super human" there is obviously no chance for the individual, right?

 

Disclaimer -  that was sarcasm.

See post 27.  been there done that.

[Jim Naseum]

Looking at the big picture of this country it is clear that it's "rotting from the inside out" ....... not just infrastructure but the whole damn thing.....it's sad.....

 

However, even though that is perfectly true....

1. Business profits are at all time highs

2. Cash held by corporations is also at all time highs..

3. Total private wealth is at all time highs and growing fast

4. Market caps for the S&P 500 continue to rise

5. Asset prices continue to rise

 

Now, put that into the context of a rotting physical infrastructure and what is the conclusion? 

[Jim Naseum]

 

Oh please. The "resentment" you hear from other workers is part and parcel of the libertarian propaganda machine....every man for himself. It used to be called "divide and conquer." When each man can only operate as an entity of ONE, and the corporate persons are essentially "super human" there is obviously no chance for the individual, right?

 

Disclaimer -  that was sarcasm.

See post 27.  been there done that.

 

BOING!

[Travis In Austin]

Look on the positive side. It could possibly be a huge blunder to sink $100 billion into roads and bridges with hovercraft vehicles being just around the corner.

I thought we were getting autonomous cars first? We get hovercrafts? Cool. They have big cushions so you can't damage anything. I wonder what kind of mileage they get? Or is this a conspiracy between the oil producers and the world bankers.

No sir. The world bankers don't need anyone else! "Dark Banking" is the mainspring of the the global economy, and therefore all governments as well. $33T in completely invisible cash.

That BS, plain and simple. Give me one mainstream study or book that says that, or even suggests that is the situation. I would be happy to give it a read.

If you cite the Swiss Study I think I will vomit. Please don't suggest I read globalresearch dot com or that nutty Canadian professor behind it.

That subject leads down a very dangerous path. People who believe that, not the possibility of it, but really believe it, typically are either ultra left or right wing. They typically also believe on some very scary things.

Stories about the Bilderberg Group, the Rothchilds,Lyndon LaRouche are all pretty old news.

The idea that a dozen world bankers determine whether Flatonio gets a road, Florida gets a bridge, or Flint gets new pipes is blatantly absurd.

Public infrastructure isn't even financed that way in the US.

But like I say, I would love to see a peer reviewed study or reputable book, I would love to read up on the subject to see if anything has changed.

[Jim Naseum]

 

 

 

Look on the positive side. It could possibly be a huge blunder to sink $100 billion into roads and bridges with hovercraft vehicles being just around the corner.

I thought we were getting autonomous cars first? We get hovercrafts? Cool. They have big cushions so you can't damage anything. I wonder what kind of mileage they get? Or is this a conspiracy between the oil producers and the world bankers.

No sir. The world bankers don't need anyone else! "Dark Banking" is the mainspring of the the global economy, and therefore all governments as well. $33T in completely invisible cash.

That BS, plain and simple. Give me one mainstream study or book that says that, or even suggests that is the situation. I would be happy to give it a read.

If you cite the Swiss Study I think I will vomit. Please don't suggest I read globalresearch dot com or that nutty Canadian professor behind it.

That subject leads down a very dangerous path. People who believe that, not the possibility of it, but really believe it, typically are either ultra left or right wing. They typically also believe on some very scary things.

Stories about the Bilderberg Group, the Rothchilds,Lyndon LaRouche are all pretty old news.

The idea that a dozen world bankers determine whether Flatonio gets a road, Florida gets a bridge, or Flint gets new pipes is blatantly absurd.

Public infrastructure isn't even financed that way in the US.

But like I say, I would love to see a peer reviewed study or reputable book, I would love to read up on the subject to see if anything has changed.

 

WHOOPS

Edited January 30, 2016 by jo56steph74

[Jim Naseum]

 

 

 

Look on the positive side. It could possibly be a huge blunder to sink $100 billion into roads and bridges with hovercraft vehicles being just around the corner.

I thought we were getting autonomous cars first? We get hovercrafts? Cool. They have big cushions so you can't damage anything. I wonder what kind of mileage they get? Or is this a conspiracy between the oil producers and the world bankers.

No sir. The world bankers don't need anyone else! "Dark Banking" is the mainspring of the the global economy, and therefore all governments as well. $33T in completely invisible cash.

That BS, plain and simple. Give me one mainstream study or book that says that, or even suggests that is the situation. I would be happy to give it a read.

If you cite the Swiss Study I think I will vomit. Please don't suggest I read globalresearch dot com or that nutty Canadian professor behind it.

That subject leads down a very dangerous path. People who believe that, not the possibility of it, but really believe it, typically are either ultra left or right wing. They typically also believe on some very scary things.

Stories about the Bilderberg Group, the Rothchilds,Lyndon LaRouche are all pretty old news.

The idea that a dozen world bankers determine whether Flatonio gets a road, Florida gets a bridge, or Flint gets new pipes is blatantly absurd.

Public infrastructure isn't even financed that way in the US.

But like I say, I would love to see a peer reviewed study or reputable book, I would love to read up on the subject to see if anything has changed.

 

 

First off, your response is exceptionally rude. When people's long standing beliefs are challenged, this kind of reaction of outrage is typical, but none the less unpleasant. 

 

What's apparent to me is that your world view is limited to what everyone and anyone could see with their own eyes. In other words, how the world works superficially. There's a government, there are taxes, there are voters, and everything is accountable and in the open. 

 

And yet we can look at some simple examples of events which aren't what the public sees on the surface. 

1. Legislation. It's not written by Congresspeople as you would read in your civics books, it is written by people hired by industry. When those plans for a piece of legislation are hatched in the offices of say Verizon, or CitiBank, you have zero visibility to that process, and neither do any scholars who might be in a position to write some sort of peer reviewed paper on the "undermining of democracy." What you get to see is a result, and nothing more. 

 

2. Covert operations. When the US covert operators, both agents and private operators, smuggle guns, assassinate people, disrupt elections, commit sabotage, smuggle drugs, move billions of dollars around the globe invisibly, what do you get to see of that? The answer is nothing. You have no visibility of any kind into those operations, nor do any scholars, or researchers. At best here's what you might get: An aggressive journalist, willing to risk his life, might investigate and come up with some tidbits left on the trail of these operations. It will be uncorroborated, hard to verify, part truth and part fiction, but it will definitely point to unseeable actions that change the world. 

 

3. Hidden wealth. There exist many trillions of dollars that are off the books of any bank, or public institutions. The amount is of course disputable, but is estimated to be 2 or 3 times the US GDP. This is wealth controlled by sovereigns, by private individuals and by certain kinds of off-book consortia. You can't study what can't be seen. What can be see is the ACTION of this wealth on global markets. Currency exchanges, commodity markets, central banks operations. And like assassinations and covert operations, the trail can be sniffed, some tidbits can be discovered, without ever seeing the whole picture. 

 

Now, you can deny that 1, 2, and 3 are real phenomena. That's the usual position of all who prefer to have a simple worldview uncluttered by forces they can't see. If so, no further discussion is needed or desired. 

 

But, if you can understand 1, 2 and 3, it is only economic common sense that in the world of wealth some assumptions can and should be made in order to understand how it seems to stay in the same hands: 

Assumptions:

1. The wealth was not found under a rock. It was accumulated by some strategy or another until it grew into fantastic proportions.

2. The owner of the wealth intends not only to keep it all, but to grow it all.

3. The reason it is held "in secret" and off the books (I'll assume you understand Bermuda, Switzerland, Cayman Islands), is that it is used in ways that would not be legal in various jurisdictions where transactions are being executed with these funds. 

4. It is natural for all persons to do whatever it takes to defend their wealth against seizure, taxes, robbery.

 

Agreed? If yes, there's more to say. If not, nothing else needs to be said, and you can hold your previous beliefs that everything is accounted for above board.

 

How is policy made in the USA (as an example). The naive belief is that policy is made by the congressional and executive branches of government. Congress, WH, Pentagon, DOJ, FBI and so on down the line. But, that's not true precisely because we know some things out side of that. 

1. We know that elected officials are bought by all kinds of wealthy influences. They want their say into policy. 

2. We know that NGOs like CFR, Trilateral Commission, and umpteen think tanks have in their ranks, all the current and ex-government officials. And we know, all those NGOs have extensive public policy positions.

3. We know that all these NGOs are deeply funded, again by wealthy influences that want something for their money spent. Who are the largest funders? How do you know? But more importantly, the NGOs are themselves DIRECTED by a large cast of characters who represent the deepest pockets in the world. 

4. The mix then of current officials, ex-officials, intelligence community, NGOs and their funders representatives, US business leaders, US media leaders make up what is called "The Washington-NY Establishment." Every activity from cocktail parties to institutional meetings, to binge, trips to office visits are where the ideas for policy are exchanged, debated, and eventually agreed upon. NONE of that is in the public record. NONE! None of that is lying on the surface for you and I to examine. You might as well say, "policy just appears." What you hear in the news is the tail end of a miles long process. What you hear is the politician announcing to CNN what this group has decided is the policy.

 

Who has the most at stake here? The president of the USA, or a global trillionaire with no country, no loyalty to anything but the wealth? Certainly not the POTUS. Who will have the most influence throughout this vast network of global influencers?

 

If you can't see the external, unseen source of influence, there's no reason to read on. Keep your old beliefs. If you can see how this might work, keep going. 

 

Let's see how it works on something like "infrastructure."  Spending on infrastructure comes out of taxes, somewhere. Who are the budget hawks? Why is there so much pressure to keep budgets in balance, with no deficits and retain very low taxes? 

Can you see that the richest people want the lowest taxes?

Can you see that the richest people get hurt the most by deficit spending?

Can you see that there are 100s of institutions and NGOs and individual actors pressing every node in the government to reduce taxes and cut spending?

Why would people bow to all this pressure? They want to be re-elected. They want prodigious postings. They want a piece of the pie for themselves. 

 

Summary

The amount of private money swamps the budgets of countries. This moves the pressure and influence from officialdom to private parties who have the wealth. e.g. He who has the gold, makes the rules. There is no mechanism and no incentive for the nominal government to resist this pressure. 

 

This isn't a study for establishment scholars. The last thing they want is to undermine confidence in government. But that doesn't mean it isn't studied. No, I shall not do the homework for you. It's all out there.