They should.
In a perfect world you don’t build a new highway or sewer system or electric line and then ignore it for 30 years.
Well yeah. But I assume that upkeep is significantly less labor intensive than construction.
Not that I’ve ever fixed a bridge. 
They also make everything run more efficiently. A factory that suffers regular brownouts or blackouts isn’t going to be as productive as one that doesn’t; better roads means less wear and tear on vehicles; a less leaky water system means more water is available for actual use.
And everything from electricity to traffic to data is going to be constantly crossing Mississippi on its way elsewhere; another way in which rebuilding the local infrastructure helps the nation as a whole. The states don’t exist in giant isolated domes; they affect each other, they are tightly woven together.
Google, for one, is a direct result of a DARPA, NSF, and CERN funded projects. I’d call the internet as we know it pretty significant.
Well, it is, but you’re going to have to rebuild the sucker someday. Governments and taxpayers should be fully aware that it’s cost efficient to keep a full-time construction crew on salary, and every twenty years or so they’ve circled back around to where they started.
But the system we have in place today puts the building and maintaining of most roads in the hands of the states and local governments. Are you suggesting we nationalize that?
The question being asked by the OP, in the context of this side discussion, is whether or not the good citizens of the great state of Wyoming should fund this rotating crew within the not-so-great state of Mississippi.
In so far as that infrastructure connects to other states, I would say yes. And, as you note, we already do: Interstate highways are the responsibility of the states, with massive federal funding, and U.S. Highways are much the same.
In so far as the infrastructure is Mississippi state highways, or county highways, or farm-to-market roads, that’s their problem. Certainly, I think it idiotic and short-sighted that they wouldn’t maintain and rebuild those roads, but being neither a farmer, nor a market, nor a resident, nor a taxpayer, it’s none of my business, and if they want to be a piece of shit, they’re welcome to it.
It is not possible for Wyoming to pay for infrastructure in Mississippi, because they pay less in federal taxes than they receive in federal spending. If there is federal spending in Mississippi, none of it is coming from Wyoming, which is already sucking up more than its share of federal taxes.
Yes.
OK, that’s pretty much what I said.
I don’t believe the OP stated that we were constrained to the status quo, so yes, it is possible.
The ideal system is one in which states with progressive policies pay more in taxes than crappy states like Mississippi, but crappy states get more back in services than they pay, and then elect Neanderthals who vote against the progressive policies that allowed them to feed off the sugar tit in the first place.
So one state elects an assembly, senate, and governor that helps foster the counties, cities, and individual citizens to be successful and therefore end up paying more taxes into the federal system so, eventually, states that are full of failures that also elect shitheads to their three branches of government can suck off the teet of those that are doing well.
Yeah, that will work!:rolleyes:
I’m not going to edit your quote because that’s against the rules, but just take a moment to look at that sentence when you take the word “government” out of there. You just said that more jobs won’t solve unemployment.
In the absence of jobs to solve the unemployment problem, what do you suggest?
No I didn’t.
No. John Mace already nailed it. Why would we now direct Federal funds to what have typically been local efforts? Mississippi now gets to decide what is necessary “infrastructure” and Wyoming just needs to write a check, huh?
I have some infrastructure needs here at my house. I want my neighbor to pay, but that selfish prick refuses. The bastard…
I can quote you again if you’d like.
In any case, it doesn’t matter. It’s not the purpose of the government to “solve” unemployment. Unemployment will always exist in one form or another. But if there is any group out there who should be motivated to do something about it, it’s America’s “Job Creators”, who are free to spread their prosperity around by virtue of not having to pay taxes, meaning they can directly and cost-effectively fix problems when and where they need to be fixed, such as in the case of the poor infrastructure of poor Mississippi. And look at them go!
I think what PK means is that he’s saying that government jobs, created by tax dollars, don’t create long term employment that can sustain (via the taxes the employed pay) those jobs.
He’s saying that because he doesn’t understand that the stimulus jobs are to drive up demand, which causes private sector businesses to hire again for permanent positions.
So he’s saying something which is nonsense, but it’s different nonsense than you took it for.
I think what the OP is asking is whether Wyoming should be compelled to pay for infrastructure in Misssissippi.
The argument has been made that Wyoming should be compelled to pay for infrastructure in Mississippi because it indirectly benefits Wyoming. But if that’s the case, then Wyoming should be willing to send money to Mississippi without any compulsion.
The stimulus caused private sector businesses to hire again? Guess I missed the headline.
Or you didn’t look. Of course it didn’t fix it entirely. A lot of the stimulus was wasted on low-multiplier tax cuts for people who already had more money than they spent. But that’s what you get for having to deal with today’s Republican Party. Never mind that it was too small to begin with.