Why is government "against" preventative maintence?

[Chibibar]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation...ction-funding/50403132/1?csp=YahooModule_News

like the article, I am not saying that increase in budget will fight the fire situation 100%, but it could probably prevent such a level of damage to a smaller scale.

This post is more of why government is not keen on preventative maintenance? Recently we read articles about health care, insurance, now fire prevention. Yes I am aware some preventative is costly, but in the long run wouldn't it be cheaper?

Why take such a risk?

My wife and I take a physical each year to make sure we don't get "surprises" and get taken out of commission (still can happen but less likely)

Remember the whole hurricane and New Orleans? The Levees's budget was cut and maintenance w was neglected and the city paid the price and STILL trying to recover. Again, not that it would save the city 100% but I'm sure it wouldn't have been as bad (as many hindsight expert have said. I am not expert and just quoting from the news)

The only preventative maintenance that the U.S. DO care about is their weapons

 

[DarkAudit]

Because the corporate masters aren't in any of the businesses that would profit from such acts.

 

[Chibibar]

Because the corporate masters aren't in any of the businesses that would profit from such acts.

Ah... capitalism is to blame?

 

[DarkAudit]

Exactly. Building new roads and bridges isn't making money for the Dolmansaxlil Shoe Corporation.

 

[strawman]

Short term gains versus long term gains. When budgets shrink, the preventative maintenance is the first to go.

 

[GasBandit]

And if there's one thing that has been shown reliably over the years, it's that non-capitalist societies don't have this problem because they're completely free of graft and corruption, which is a good thing given the lack of accountability inherent to such centrally-administrated systems.

 

[AshburnerX]

This has more to do with election cycles than anything... basically, no one wants to pay for things they need, so you can't really broach the subject until it's blindingly obvious that something needs to be done lest you risk losing your next election. To put it simply, it's much easier to say you don't need to fix a bridge when you can drive over it. It's much harder to say it when the bridge has collapsed.

 

[GasBandit]

This has more to do with election cycles than anything... basically, no one wants to pay for things they need, so you can't really broach the subject until it's blindingly obvious that something needs to be done lest you risk losing your next election. To put it simply, it's much easier to say you don't need to fix a bridge when you can drive over it. It's much harder to say it when the bridge has collapsed.

Not only that, but preventative spending is politically toxic, where as crises are political opportunities.

 

[Krisken]

Not only that, but preventative spending is politically toxic, where as crises are political opportunities.

Yeah... except in the Republican party! Remember that the Republicans just filibustered the disaster aid package brought up a couple days ago. Cantor had said he wouldn't support disaster aid unless the budget was cut somewhere else.

 

[GasBandit]

Yeah... except in the Republican party! Remember that the Republicans just filibustered the disaster aid package brought up a couple days ago. Cantor had said he wouldn't support disaster aid unless the budget was cut somewhere else.

Ironically, I was not speaking ironically when I made that post. Preventative action IS politically toxic (to both parties) because it pisses somebody off NOW for a not-immediately-felt benefit in the future, whereas "acting boldly during a crisis" scores political points no matter what.

 

[Krisken]

Ah, I see now. Boldly for or against.

 

[Chibibar]

Ironically, I was not speaking ironically when I made that post. Preventative action IS politically toxic (to both parties) because it pisses somebody off NOW for a not-immediately-felt benefit in the future, whereas "acting boldly during a crisis" scores political points no matter what.

Kinda sad that is so true

 

[Dave]

The easy answer is that businesses that have to pay for prevention don't want to do so because it's not a real perceived ROI. Basically they are shelling out shareholder's money and not having anything tangible in return. Putting money into infrastructure is routinely ignored as it can't be easily justified on a balance sheet.