When did infrastructure become so popular among Democrats?

[Virginiá]

Isn't it looked at as part of a big jobs program? It makes sense, obviously. It's at least a better idea than more tax breaks for the wealthy.

Also, expanding infrastructure instead of just maintaining existing things would be good for the economy, assuming we don't build useless/wasteful crap. I'd really love much faster trains that go straight up and down the entire eastern seaboard. Not saying we should do all that now, but instead of arguing over just fixing stuff we already have, we should be planning new ambitious projects for the future.

But, you know, instead we are haggling over existing infrastructure.

Even the mass poisonings in Flint were less because of deficient infrastructure than it was because of poor, and totally unaccountable, governance. Flint's water system was adequate, at least in the sense of not poisoning people, until the appointed cabal that was running the city chose to change its water supply for the sake of saving a very, very small amount of money. It was their idiotic decisions that killed and sickened Flint's residents, not lack of infrastructure spending.

But wouldn't have that been prevented had we revamped the water system earlier? Many politicians seem to have the idea that we only have to build these things once and they'll somehow remain viable and safe forever.

[Virginiá]

A strange world, it would be, in which an incredibly wealthy nation were restricted to these and only these two options.

It doesn't have to be that way, but they are big ones. In fact, I'm not entirely sure what big job ideas Republicans are really pushing besides supply side tax-based proposals. Basing a party's agenda around drowning govt in a bathtub generally doesn't leave one with a ton of options.

"Good for the economy" does not necessarily equate to "good for human beings."

This came off as a bit ambiguous to me - What do you mean? Are you saying infrastructure investment might be bad for human beings?

Which, I am very sorry to note, we cannot safely assume. This is precisely where the political conversation ought to be focused: How do we allocate infrastructure spending more intelligently, more fairly, more sustainably?

Yes, I agree. I'd be willing to bet that cutting waste and abuse from such large programs would bring the price down noticeably. Same idea applies to defense spending, if not more so.

"Existing infrastructure" is what we actually rely on, which seems rather important. Worth at least a bit of haggling, don't you think? There is no shortage of ambitious long-term plans in politics and policy, if that is what you are after. Not that they do much good for any of us...

Well my point was that we shouldn't be so far behind on this issue that our entire fight is over just maintaining our existing infrastructure. That's a big failure of our government right there. Maintaining what we have shouldn't even be up for debate when we can actually address the issue, yet somehow we're actually fighting for years and years on whether to spend money to prevent bridges from collapsing or water systems from poisoning us. It's ridiculous.

In fact, it would be extremely unusual for a city - however prosperous or powerful - to replace its entire water or sewer system in a single, simultaneous, planned event. Most large infrastructure projects are constructed and then replaced piecemeal, evolving into something a bit like Theseus' ship over centuries of urban development. This is, generally speaking, how resilient, sustainable systems come into being. Large, single-shot projects are difficult to fund and lack feedback mechanisms that would allow their builders to recognize the system's flaws, adjust to changing conditions, or address changing needs.

Ideally, it shouldn't be all at once given the reasons you stated. The fact that they are in a position where it has to be is once again an indictment of our representatives and government that it has come to this.