Surely you were asking this question in jest...?

nope

Most economists support debt financing to fund highway construction. Highways are a capital good that provides benefits for many years. Thus, economic efficiency indicates that drivers in 2023, who are benefiting from a highway constructed today, should contribute to paying for that highway (via gas taxes that are used to pay off the bonds used to fund the road construction).

What if the people in 2023 decide they don't want the road and they aren't happy you bought it for them with their money - and then they find out you have been using it without paying for it yourself. Vaflyer - do you consider yourself a participant at some level in the Tea Party movement?

the military budget should be bigger and we can afford for it to be bigger we can cut in tons of other areas

but either way that has nothing to do with roads in oklahoma where we don't borrow to build roads

Why on earth should it be bigger? We already spend more on defense than the next several nations on the list combined - and nearly every one of them are allies. (Sorry I cannot recall the exact number right now.)

The funny thing however is the first thing targeted by those who claim to "support the troops" are pay and benefits for those serving and veterans, rather than the real waste - shiny toys with a part manufactured in as many congressional districts as possible. They do not support the troops, they support the defense industry and their fat campaign donations.....

The one where we can't afford to keep sending in the military to ensure the free-flow of oil at affordable prices.

Over the next five years, the US will account for a third of new oil supplies, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

The US will change from the world's leading importer of oil to a net exporter

What if the people in 2023 decide they don't want the road and they aren't happy you bought it for them with their money - and then they find out you have been using it without paying for it yourself. Vaflyer - do you consider yourself a participant at some level in the Tea Party movement?

It is always possible that people will decide that they do not want a road in 2023 but, if the past is any indication, that is unlikely in most instances.

I think that you may be misunderstanding something or I wasn't very clear. If roads are financed by issuing bonds, the bonds should be paid off over the life of the road. Thus, users today and users in 10 years will be paying for the road.

Where did this Tea Party thing come from?

In my posts, I focus on providing information and engaging in an intellectual discussion on issues. I do not care about the political affiliations of others and do not like labels. Labeling people inhibits discussion and encourages arguing and don't we already have enough arguing in the political system.

As a sidebar to this thread - I owe ou48a an apology.

I incorrectly stated he exclusively backed highway based transportation infrastructure and investment. He has made statements supporting rail based transportation in the past. I mixed him up with another poster.

I still disagree with him on the substance of our previous debate, but I was wrong on this point.

Where did this Tea Party thing come from?

I only ask because when I run into some of my tea party friends I hear the same logic from them. The idea that future generations will want it doesn't jive with reality where gallons of fuel used and mile driven peaked in 2005 and have been declining every since, plus the change in household demographics that suggest suburbia will be dead in a generation.

Vehicle Miles Driven - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/vehicle-miles-driven-2013-2)

And just in case anyone thinks I am making the problem up...

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/03/aging-baby-boomers-and-next-housing-crisis/4863/

(psst . . . jtf . . . it's "jibe" not "jive" . . . i agree with you too much on too many issues to let that slide. =)

It takes me 13 hours to drive from OKC to M/St.P.
If I wanted to go by train, it would take the trip to Ft. Worth to get the connection to Chicago (24 hours, Texas Eagle) and then whatever ride/time goes from Chicago to The Twin Cities where I would rent a car for the rest of the week. I think tickets for two would probably be about $600 total. I can rent a car for over a week for maybe two-thirds of that. Just sayin'.

Not that I wouldn't RATHER make the trip by train (journey a.c.t. destination and all that--plus i love trains) it simply isn't feasible or cost/effective.
Flying to M./St.P. really sucks: You fly as far south as possible (Houston) then all the way back north.
(and THEN rent a car)

I don't have the means to look it up now but are you sure it isn't 'jive'?

Anyhow, to quote Kunstler, we have a rail system the Bulgarians would be ashamed of.

Within the context of your argument, the correct term would probably be jibe.
It is a term associated with sailing. Involving the "set of the jib" and so forth.
And sailing into the wind and how to get to where you want to be.
As expeditiously as possible without getting smacked in the head by that lower sail support deal.

Didn't look it up. Don't sail. It's a curse. Especially to get from OKC to M/St.P.
Jive, within the immediate conversational context, is a synonym for bull****e.

Was that William Kunsler who dissed the Bulgarians?
It sounds like Bill. =))

(not to be someone who has to be right . . .
and remembering that the meaning of words is only that which one attributes to them
"A dictionary is more of a history book than a rule book" S.I. Hayakawa)
The Mavens' Word of the Day (http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20000711)

Trains are Slow But They Are Fun.
The Heartland Flyer is also Scenic.
All That . . . And Fort Worth Too!
(oh, wait . . . how long until The Texas Eagle shows up? . . .)