Is the modern Republican Party against federal infrastructure spending?

Would the modern GOP hate the massive government spending that funded the interstate highway system under Eisenhower?

Nobody talks about Eisenhower anymore, so I will talk about him rather than FDR vs Reagan.

8 Answers

  • Di
    Lv 7
    7 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 allowed for an investment of $25 billion to cover the building of approximately 40,000 miles of roads based on Eisenhower's impression of the German Autobahns used only for the movement of military materiel. His drive across the US before the inception of the Interstate System focused his efforts on improvement for - as you say, moving the military efficiently.

    Note that the Highway Trust fund sent aside for the roadway had 90% of the cost set aside, with states required to kick in their portion.

    Many voters of all political persuasions are for infrastructure - both new and replacement and in North Carolina we have massive ongoing beltway projects for I-95. The things of it is the cost when it is passed on to States through increased gasoline taxes. North Carolina has one of the highest state gas taxes in the nation and when the federal government discusses raising their portion it does cause concern.

    That Eisenhower was a Republican reminds us that he also served his country and it was his first hand experienced that brought us the Interstate System. Sometimes it takes anyone of any political persuasion with the right experience to do something positive for our country.

    JFK was another president who served his country and created the Peace Corps based on his experience and vision.

  • Ranger
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    The Republicans and TP are against All federal spending that does not benefit them personally. If an individual Conservative has an interest in manufacturing and selling road paving materials or cement for bridge construction, he will favor that spending but dislike all other federal spending.

    Also keep in mind, the Federal Interstate system was built right after WWII for the purpose of moving Military Men and Equipment from one side of the Nation to the Other side in the event of another sneak attack by an enemy.

    The improvement in commerce that accompanied the completion of the Interstate Highway System was an added bonus, not the primary reason for building the system.

    Source(s): rc
  • Turtle
    Lv 5
    7 years ago

    My state is trying to repeal automatic machine cops-ie traffic cameras. Since the price of gas has risen and cars have been made more safe, revenue from ticketing slower driving and rates of accidents have gone down resulting in less money and fewer excuses for controlling people from government. In came a private corporation in a far away state with machines to remedy these problems by turning cities into what resembles prison camps with cameras watching for driving sins. Another example of how the better things get on their own, the more the government uses the remaining problems as an excuse to take yet more liberty and privacy still. Now in an urgent call to reduce the already reduced ticket/accident rate, drivers are mailed tickets and not even entitled to trial and the corporation need not even prove who was driving the car. The owner may request a trial to attempt to prove they are not guilty but they are forced to give up rights against self incrimination and tell the court about family members driving etc...forced to *help* the prosecution (a far away business of whom they did no wrong to) prosecute their families.

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    No. Not at all.

    Just against inchoherent infrastructure bills that have been larded up with nonsense.

    When Republicans ran Congress, they passed comprehensive, multi-year infrastructure spending bills. With Democrats we got "shovel-ready" bullhooey that didn't fund infrastructure work on a prioritized or rational basis.

    Why don't you demand that Democrats work on a comprehensive, multi-year bill based on prioritized needs?

    Oh, and to stop calling them "Jobs bills" because infrastructure spending only provides jobs for the duration of the project, and disappear once the project is complete.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 7 years ago

    I'm all for Gov spending money on things that actually/truly benefit EVERYONE in the us. The interstate highway system is one of those things.

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    The GOP would rather spending for infrastructure hidden within a bill the old fashion way. None of this transparency gobblegoop. With those darn pesky democrats they want infrastructure bill to make themselves look good in the economy. I was talking to Mitch the other day and he explained it to me.

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    under Eisenhower we didn't borrow money from the Chinese to give to crooked contractors. I'm quite sure given all the money he blew on his green energy buddies--that Obama had guys lined up around the corner to line their pockets.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.