Liberals Scream"Spend More on Infrastructure..."

[thereisnospoon]

And what that article leaves out

In the wake of the Amtrak tragedy Democrats have been holding it up as an example of broken infrastructure and say we need to raise more taxes to invest into infrastructure like China does. Well perhaps if China did not have all of our manufacturing jobs we would have a local tax base that could pay for infrastructure and education. Only 14 Dem's bolted on Pacific trade bill that will lose more American jobs. Brilliant...just fucking brilliant.

Republicans - fuck infrastructure. Let this country die. I want my rights back.
From 2001 to 2008, millions of jobs moved to China. Over 40,000 factories closed. Republicans held both houses, the presidency and the Supreme Court.
Brilliant...just fucking brilliant.

Yeah.... you do realize that infrastructure doesn't' create jobs right?

And again, a child demands stuff. Adults consider what they can afford. It's funny because in 2008, you people on the left were screaming about Bush's $400 Billion deficit. But then you expect him to spend endlessly on 'infrastructure'.

Of course then the irony continued, because in 2009 you passed a massive $800 Billion stimulus package, which didn't stimulate anything, and only about $100 Billion went to infrastructure. And the very instant that this was done... you people on the left started screaming we should have spent more.

We did spend more. $700 Billion more. And you people on the left, had the House... the Senate... and the Presidency.... and you didn't spend enough on infrastructure? You blew throw $800 Billion, and only put about 14% of that towards infrastructure... and you had 100% control over the government? And you want to blame who for your complete and total incompetence?

No one to blame but yourselves.

Building and maintaining infrastructure does create jobs, short term (building) and long term (maintaining). How anyone can believe otherwise is mind blowing.

Consider the interstate highway system. How many business loops were created, building retail food, fuel and lodging structures; how many people are employed in the restaurants, hotels, motels, campgrounds and other services along thousands of miles of highway? How many state troopers patrol these miles, how many tow operators and repair shops aid the stranded traveler?

How many long haul truckers are on these roads everyday, and how many businesses are dependent on their goods being transported to and from retail establishments?

What's your point?
The fact is we have a reliable rail freight system. So you need......What?

Do we? In just the last year, how many derailments have happened which resulted in cataclysmic fireballs? How many have either contaminated or threatened to contaminate water supplies? How many required people to run from their homes either from the threat of more explosions or the dispersal of deadly chemicals (which are sent by rail because they're too dangerous to send down a crowded interstate)? In case you've lost count, here's some interesting reading on the reliability of our rail freight system.

One piece of info missing from the article is
is the rate of accidents per one billion rail miles.
4 facts everyone should know about train accidents - Vox

 

[oldernwiser]

And what that article leaves out

Republicans - fuck infrastructure. Let this country die. I want my rights back.
From 2001 to 2008, millions of jobs moved to China. Over 40,000 factories closed. Republicans held both houses, the presidency and the Supreme Court.
Brilliant...just fucking brilliant.

Yeah.... you do realize that infrastructure doesn't' create jobs right?

And again, a child demands stuff. Adults consider what they can afford. It's funny because in 2008, you people on the left were screaming about Bush's $400 Billion deficit. But then you expect him to spend endlessly on 'infrastructure'.

Of course then the irony continued, because in 2009 you passed a massive $800 Billion stimulus package, which didn't stimulate anything, and only about $100 Billion went to infrastructure. And the very instant that this was done... you people on the left started screaming we should have spent more.

We did spend more. $700 Billion more. And you people on the left, had the House... the Senate... and the Presidency.... and you didn't spend enough on infrastructure? You blew throw $800 Billion, and only put about 14% of that towards infrastructure... and you had 100% control over the government? And you want to blame who for your complete and total incompetence?

No one to blame but yourselves.

Building and maintaining infrastructure does create jobs, short term (building) and long term (maintaining). How anyone can believe otherwise is mind blowing.

Consider the interstate highway system. How many business loops were created, building retail food, fuel and lodging structures; how many people are employed in the restaurants, hotels, motels, campgrounds and other services along thousands of miles of highway? How many state troopers patrol these miles, how many tow operators and repair shops aid the stranded traveler?

How many long haul truckers are on these roads everyday, and how many businesses are dependent on their goods being transported to and from retail establishments?

What's your point?
The fact is we have a reliable rail freight system. So you need......What?

Do we? In just the last year, how many derailments have happened which resulted in cataclysmic fireballs? How many have either contaminated or threatened to contaminate water supplies? How many required people to run from their homes either from the threat of more explosions or the dispersal of deadly chemicals (which are sent by rail because they're too dangerous to send down a crowded interstate)? In case you've lost count, here's some interesting reading on the reliability of our rail freight system.

One piece of info missing from the article is
is the rate of accidents per one billion rail miles.
4 facts everyone should know about train accidents - Vox

Interesting article. And in light of this thread topic it actually reinforces the point: 44.9% of all derailments are due to track failures; I would think that would probably fall under infrastructure improvements, no? I would also think that the more rail infrastructure is allowed to fall into disrepair, this figure would likely rise as well.

I don't think we can use any of the other information contained in that article as we've been considering the efficacy of Amtrak which is predominantly passenger based, and the article itself acknowledges that in the safety section saying: "...last year, for instance, there were a total of 1,241 derailments. But the majority of them cause no injuries or deaths, and often only cause damage to the cargo they're carrying.

This is partly because just a slim minority of US trains carry passengers (most carry freight)..."

 

[Andylusion]

And what that article leaves out

Yeah.... you do realize that infrastructure doesn't' create jobs right?

And again, a child demands stuff. Adults consider what they can afford. It's funny because in 2008, you people on the left were screaming about Bush's $400 Billion deficit. But then you expect him to spend endlessly on 'infrastructure'.

Of course then the irony continued, because in 2009 you passed a massive $800 Billion stimulus package, which didn't stimulate anything, and only about $100 Billion went to infrastructure. And the very instant that this was done... you people on the left started screaming we should have spent more.

We did spend more. $700 Billion more. And you people on the left, had the House... the Senate... and the Presidency.... and you didn't spend enough on infrastructure? You blew throw $800 Billion, and only put about 14% of that towards infrastructure... and you had 100% control over the government? And you want to blame who for your complete and total incompetence?

No one to blame but yourselves.

Building and maintaining infrastructure does create jobs, short term (building) and long term (maintaining). How anyone can believe otherwise is mind blowing.

Consider the interstate highway system. How many business loops were created, building retail food, fuel and lodging structures; how many people are employed in the restaurants, hotels, motels, campgrounds and other services along thousands of miles of highway? How many state troopers patrol these miles, how many tow operators and repair shops aid the stranded traveler?

How many long haul truckers are on these roads everyday, and how many businesses are dependent on their goods being transported to and from retail establishments?

What's your point?
The fact is we have a reliable rail freight system. So you need......What?

Do we? In just the last year, how many derailments have happened which resulted in cataclysmic fireballs? How many have either contaminated or threatened to contaminate water supplies? How many required people to run from their homes either from the threat of more explosions or the dispersal of deadly chemicals (which are sent by rail because they're too dangerous to send down a crowded interstate)? In case you've lost count, here's some interesting reading on the reliability of our rail freight system.

One piece of info missing from the article is
is the rate of accidents per one billion rail miles.
4 facts everyone should know about train accidents - Vox

Interesting article. And in light of this thread topic it actually reinforces the point: 44.9% of all derailments are due to track failures; I would think that would probably fall under infrastructure improvements, no? I would also think that the more rail infrastructure is allowed to fall into disrepair, this figure would likely rise as well.

I don't think we can use any of the other information contained in that article as we've been considering the efficacy of Amtrak which is predominantly passenger based, and the article itself acknowledges that in the safety section saying: "...last year, for instance, there were a total of 1,241 derailments. But the majority of them cause no injuries or deaths, and often only cause damage to the cargo they're carrying.

This is partly because just a slim minority of US trains carry passengers (most carry freight)..."

No that's not the same thing.

Who owns those tracks? The train companies. Who makes billions on those tracks? Train companies.

BNSF made $5.8 Billion in profits 2013. Couldn't find their 2014 numbers. BNSF is owned by Berkshire Hathaway. In other words, Warren Buffet, who has $72 Billion.

So.... The right-wing perspective is, rich people should pay for their own stuff.

The Left-wing perspective apparently is, we're against the rich, and in favor of the working man, so we're going to tax the working man, to pay for the rich peoples businesses, so they can be wealthier. I've said this hundreds of times... it's really the left, that supports the rich, and harms the poor.

I don't want to give one penny of tax money from the working people, to pay the rich.

Back to your highway interstate system.

I am absolutely convinced that the vast majority of the Highway Interstate system was a complete waste of money, with few exceptions.

Just compare Route 40 in Ohio, to the expensive I-70. Route 40 hits every single major junction that I-70 does. Route 40 is a 4-lane divided limited access highway, just like I-70 is. I-70 follows route 40, throughout the state, often within just a mile or two of each other, and can be seen by the other.

Now you tell me.... does a truck traveling on I-70 provide more economic benefit, than a truck traveling Route 40? No. Sorry, you are wrong.

Tell me, which would be more economical: to have one road going from one side of the state to the other, or two roads, one not being used much, going from one side of the state to the other?

How about the 3C Highway, that went from Cleveland to Columbus to Cincinnati? Replaced by I-71. Which is also mirrored by Route 42. So we have two pre-existing roads, that go from Cleveland to Cincinnati, and even more ironic, both 3C, and R-42, pass through more towns and cities along the way, than I-71.

Again, how is a truck or anything, traveling down I-71, providing more economic benefit than traveling down R-42 or 3C?

Now some say, those roads are not as good as the interstate system. That's true. They are not "as good", but that is because the federal government offered to pay for roads. If you are a state government, and you have the option of either upgrading R-42, or having the federal government pay for I-71... which are you going to do? I-71. Not because you could not make R-42 as good as needed, but rather... why pay for something, if someone else will?

But here's the kicker... it's just like Rome and Britain. When Rome moved into Britain, they built all kinds of infrastructure. Aqueducts, wells, iron forges and so on. But the domestic economy couldn't afford to maintain these expensive infrastructures. As a result, when Rome couldn't afford to pay for them anymore, everything started to decay. The local economies couldn't maintain what was built.

I look at some of the massive Federal funded infrastructure projects, that local economies like Detroit, Chicago, New Jersey, could never afford on their own, and then look at the massive $18 Trillion debt and think some day the Federal Government isn't going to be able to pay to maintain those infrastructure projects, and when that happens those cities are going to be in a world of hurt.

It would be far better for the states, and cities to only engage in infrastructure building that they themselves can afford from their own local economies, rather than to hope the Federal Governments endless money pit will last forever. Greece tried that, it didn't work. Spain tried that, it didn't work.

If we follow the exact same pattern, we'll have the exact same results.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And what that article leaves out

Building and maintaining infrastructure does create jobs, short term (building) and long term (maintaining). How anyone can believe otherwise is mind blowing.

Consider the interstate highway system. How many business loops were created, building retail food, fuel and lodging structures; how many people are employed in the restaurants, hotels, motels, campgrounds and other services along thousands of miles of highway? How many state troopers patrol these miles, how many tow operators and repair shops aid the stranded traveler?

How many long haul truckers are on these roads everyday, and how many businesses are dependent on their goods being transported to and from retail establishments?

What's your point?
The fact is we have a reliable rail freight system. So you need......What?

Do we? In just the last year, how many derailments have happened which resulted in cataclysmic fireballs? How many have either contaminated or threatened to contaminate water supplies? How many required people to run from their homes either from the threat of more explosions or the dispersal of deadly chemicals (which are sent by rail because they're too dangerous to send down a crowded interstate)? In case you've lost count, here's some interesting reading on the reliability of our rail freight system.

One piece of info missing from the article is
is the rate of accidents per one billion rail miles.
4 facts everyone should know about train accidents - Vox

Interesting article. And in light of this thread topic it actually reinforces the point: 44.9% of all derailments are due to track failures; I would think that would probably fall under infrastructure improvements, no? I would also think that the more rail infrastructure is allowed to fall into disrepair, this figure would likely rise as well.

I don't think we can use any of the other information contained in that article as we've been considering the efficacy of Amtrak which is predominantly passenger based, and the article itself acknowledges that in the safety section saying: "...last year, for instance, there were a total of 1,241 derailments. But the majority of them cause no injuries or deaths, and often only cause damage to the cargo they're carrying.

This is partly because just a slim minority of US trains carry passengers (most carry freight)..."

No that's not the same thing.

Who owns those tracks? The train companies. Who makes billions on those tracks? Train companies.

BNSF made $5.8 Billion in profits 2013. Couldn't find their 2014 numbers. BNSF is owned by Berkshire Hathaway. In other words, Warren Buffet, who has $72 Billion.

So.... The right-wing perspective is, rich people should pay for their own stuff.

The Left-wing perspective apparently is, we're against the rich, and in favor of the working man, so we're going to tax the working man, to pay for the rich peoples businesses, so they can be wealthier. I've said this hundreds of times... it's really the left, that supports the rich, and harms the poor.

I don't want to give one penny of tax money from the working people, to pay the rich.

Back to your highway interstate system.

I am absolutely convinced that the vast majority of the Highway Interstate system was a complete waste of money, with few exceptions.

Just compare Route 40 in Ohio, to the expensive I-70. Route 40 hits every single major junction that I-70 does. Route 40 is a 4-lane divided limited access highway, just like I-70 is. I-70 follows route 40, throughout the state, often within just a mile or two of each other, and can be seen by the other.

Now you tell me.... does a truck traveling on I-70 provide more economic benefit, than a truck traveling Route 40? No. Sorry, you are wrong.

Tell me, which would be more economical: to have one road going from one side of the state to the other, or two roads, one not being used much, going from one side of the state to the other?

How about the 3C Highway, that went from Cleveland to Columbus to Cincinnati? Replaced by I-71. Which is also mirrored by Route 42. So we have two pre-existing roads, that go from Cleveland to Cincinnati, and even more ironic, both 3C, and R-42, pass through more towns and cities along the way, than I-71.

Again, how is a truck or anything, traveling down I-71, providing more economic benefit than traveling down R-42 or 3C?

Now some say, those roads are not as good as the interstate system. That's true. They are not "as good", but that is because the federal government offered to pay for roads. If you are a state government, and you have the option of either upgrading R-42, or having the federal government pay for I-71... which are you going to do? I-71. Not because you could not make R-42 as good as needed, but rather... why pay for something, if someone else will?

But here's the kicker... it's just like Rome and Britain. When Rome moved into Britain, they built all kinds of infrastructure. Aqueducts, wells, iron forges and so on. But the domestic economy couldn't afford to maintain these expensive infrastructures. As a result, when Rome couldn't afford to pay for them anymore, everything started to decay. The local economies couldn't maintain what was built.

I look at some of the massive Federal funded infrastructure projects, that local economies like Detroit, Chicago, New Jersey, could never afford on their own, and then look at the massive $18 Trillion debt and think some day the Federal Government isn't going to be able to pay to maintain those infrastructure projects, and when that happens those cities are going to be in a world of hurt.

It would be far better for the states, and cities to only engage in infrastructure building that they themselves can afford from their own local economies, rather than to hope the Federal Governments endless money pit will last forever. Greece tried that, it didn't work. Spain tried that, it didn't work.

If we follow the exact same pattern, we'll have the exact same results.

It is all about establishing priorities. We are not Greece or Spain, or Italy or any other sovereign nation. We put men on the moon and we can afford a national health insurance plan, and rebuild/renew our nations infrastructure.

 

[Pete7469]

Government invest into infrastructure?

Great, as long as they stop funding commie "studies" into how infrastructure harms insects and worms no one has ever heard of.

We will not progress as a nation until regressive leftists are purged from our midst.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Government invest into infrastructure?

Great, as long as they stop funding commie "studies" into how infrastructure harms insects and worms no one has ever heard of.

We will not progress as a nation until regressive leftists are purged from our midst.

Wow, purged, you want to purge regressive leftists? First of all, what is a regressive leftist?

Was Stalin a regressive leftist and Hitler too? Did commies really care about insects and worms (maybe if they found their Chicken Kiev or Borscht infused, but I doubt they cared, given the Soviet Style Apts. (LOL as if anyone ever thought those apts. were stylish).

Pete, I must say your posts are odd.

 

[Andylusion]

And what that article leaves out

What's your point?
The fact is we have a reliable rail freight system. So you need......What?

Do we? In just the last year, how many derailments have happened which resulted in cataclysmic fireballs? How many have either contaminated or threatened to contaminate water supplies? How many required people to run from their homes either from the threat of more explosions or the dispersal of deadly chemicals (which are sent by rail because they're too dangerous to send down a crowded interstate)? In case you've lost count, here's some interesting reading on the reliability of our rail freight system.

One piece of info missing from the article is
is the rate of accidents per one billion rail miles.
4 facts everyone should know about train accidents - Vox

Interesting article. And in light of this thread topic it actually reinforces the point: 44.9% of all derailments are due to track failures; I would think that would probably fall under infrastructure improvements, no? I would also think that the more rail infrastructure is allowed to fall into disrepair, this figure would likely rise as well.

I don't think we can use any of the other information contained in that article as we've been considering the efficacy of Amtrak which is predominantly passenger based, and the article itself acknowledges that in the safety section saying: "...last year, for instance, there were a total of 1,241 derailments. But the majority of them cause no injuries or deaths, and often only cause damage to the cargo they're carrying.

This is partly because just a slim minority of US trains carry passengers (most carry freight)..."

No that's not the same thing.

Who owns those tracks? The train companies. Who makes billions on those tracks? Train companies.

BNSF made $5.8 Billion in profits 2013. Couldn't find their 2014 numbers. BNSF is owned by Berkshire Hathaway. In other words, Warren Buffet, who has $72 Billion.

So.... The right-wing perspective is, rich people should pay for their own stuff.

The Left-wing perspective apparently is, we're against the rich, and in favor of the working man, so we're going to tax the working man, to pay for the rich peoples businesses, so they can be wealthier. I've said this hundreds of times... it's really the left, that supports the rich, and harms the poor.

I don't want to give one penny of tax money from the working people, to pay the rich.

Back to your highway interstate system.

I am absolutely convinced that the vast majority of the Highway Interstate system was a complete waste of money, with few exceptions.

Just compare Route 40 in Ohio, to the expensive I-70. Route 40 hits every single major junction that I-70 does. Route 40 is a 4-lane divided limited access highway, just like I-70 is. I-70 follows route 40, throughout the state, often within just a mile or two of each other, and can be seen by the other.

Now you tell me.... does a truck traveling on I-70 provide more economic benefit, than a truck traveling Route 40? No. Sorry, you are wrong.

Tell me, which would be more economical: to have one road going from one side of the state to the other, or two roads, one not being used much, going from one side of the state to the other?

How about the 3C Highway, that went from Cleveland to Columbus to Cincinnati? Replaced by I-71. Which is also mirrored by Route 42. So we have two pre-existing roads, that go from Cleveland to Cincinnati, and even more ironic, both 3C, and R-42, pass through more towns and cities along the way, than I-71.

Again, how is a truck or anything, traveling down I-71, providing more economic benefit than traveling down R-42 or 3C?

Now some say, those roads are not as good as the interstate system. That's true. They are not "as good", but that is because the federal government offered to pay for roads. If you are a state government, and you have the option of either upgrading R-42, or having the federal government pay for I-71... which are you going to do? I-71. Not because you could not make R-42 as good as needed, but rather... why pay for something, if someone else will?

But here's the kicker... it's just like Rome and Britain. When Rome moved into Britain, they built all kinds of infrastructure. Aqueducts, wells, iron forges and so on. But the domestic economy couldn't afford to maintain these expensive infrastructures. As a result, when Rome couldn't afford to pay for them anymore, everything started to decay. The local economies couldn't maintain what was built.

I look at some of the massive Federal funded infrastructure projects, that local economies like Detroit, Chicago, New Jersey, could never afford on their own, and then look at the massive $18 Trillion debt and think some day the Federal Government isn't going to be able to pay to maintain those infrastructure projects, and when that happens those cities are going to be in a world of hurt.

It would be far better for the states, and cities to only engage in infrastructure building that they themselves can afford from their own local economies, rather than to hope the Federal Governments endless money pit will last forever. Greece tried that, it didn't work. Spain tried that, it didn't work.

If we follow the exact same pattern, we'll have the exact same results.

It is all about establishing priorities. We are not Greece or Spain, or Italy or any other sovereign nation. We put men on the moon and we can afford a national health insurance plan, and rebuild/renew our nations infrastructure.

So said Rome.... we are not like other nations.

I think you are foolish to assume that we are so special that we can ignore the laws of economics. The Soviet Union tried to do the same. Millions spent. Billions wasted. By the time the Soviet Union fell, people were eating each other.

The Soviet Union was the first to launch satellite in space. Even in the 1980s, people said there was no way the Soviet Union could fail.

History proved them wrong, and if you and those like you, do not learn from the mistakes of two great empires of history, you will fail as well.

 

[Staidhup]

Another typical democrat with a solution, spend more, line ones pocket, get reelected, keep f-----g the tax payer.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And what that article leaves out

Do we? In just the last year, how many derailments have happened which resulted in cataclysmic fireballs? How many have either contaminated or threatened to contaminate water supplies? How many required people to run from their homes either from the threat of more explosions or the dispersal of deadly chemicals (which are sent by rail because they're too dangerous to send down a crowded interstate)? In case you've lost count, here's some interesting reading on the reliability of our rail freight system.

One piece of info missing from the article is
is the rate of accidents per one billion rail miles.
4 facts everyone should know about train accidents - Vox

Interesting article. And in light of this thread topic it actually reinforces the point: 44.9% of all derailments are due to track failures; I would think that would probably fall under infrastructure improvements, no? I would also think that the more rail infrastructure is allowed to fall into disrepair, this figure would likely rise as well.

I don't think we can use any of the other information contained in that article as we've been considering the efficacy of Amtrak which is predominantly passenger based, and the article itself acknowledges that in the safety section saying: "...last year, for instance, there were a total of 1,241 derailments. But the majority of them cause no injuries or deaths, and often only cause damage to the cargo they're carrying.

This is partly because just a slim minority of US trains carry passengers (most carry freight)..."

No that's not the same thing.

Who owns those tracks? The train companies. Who makes billions on those tracks? Train companies.

BNSF made $5.8 Billion in profits 2013. Couldn't find their 2014 numbers. BNSF is owned by Berkshire Hathaway. In other words, Warren Buffet, who has $72 Billion.

So.... The right-wing perspective is, rich people should pay for their own stuff.

The Left-wing perspective apparently is, we're against the rich, and in favor of the working man, so we're going to tax the working man, to pay for the rich peoples businesses, so they can be wealthier. I've said this hundreds of times... it's really the left, that supports the rich, and harms the poor.

I don't want to give one penny of tax money from the working people, to pay the rich.

Back to your highway interstate system.

I am absolutely convinced that the vast majority of the Highway Interstate system was a complete waste of money, with few exceptions.

Just compare Route 40 in Ohio, to the expensive I-70. Route 40 hits every single major junction that I-70 does. Route 40 is a 4-lane divided limited access highway, just like I-70 is. I-70 follows route 40, throughout the state, often within just a mile or two of each other, and can be seen by the other.

Now you tell me.... does a truck traveling on I-70 provide more economic benefit, than a truck traveling Route 40? No. Sorry, you are wrong.

Tell me, which would be more economical: to have one road going from one side of the state to the other, or two roads, one not being used much, going from one side of the state to the other?

How about the 3C Highway, that went from Cleveland to Columbus to Cincinnati? Replaced by I-71. Which is also mirrored by Route 42. So we have two pre-existing roads, that go from Cleveland to Cincinnati, and even more ironic, both 3C, and R-42, pass through more towns and cities along the way, than I-71.

Again, how is a truck or anything, traveling down I-71, providing more economic benefit than traveling down R-42 or 3C?

Now some say, those roads are not as good as the interstate system. That's true. They are not "as good", but that is because the federal government offered to pay for roads. If you are a state government, and you have the option of either upgrading R-42, or having the federal government pay for I-71... which are you going to do? I-71. Not because you could not make R-42 as good as needed, but rather... why pay for something, if someone else will?

But here's the kicker... it's just like Rome and Britain. When Rome moved into Britain, they built all kinds of infrastructure. Aqueducts, wells, iron forges and so on. But the domestic economy couldn't afford to maintain these expensive infrastructures. As a result, when Rome couldn't afford to pay for them anymore, everything started to decay. The local economies couldn't maintain what was built.

I look at some of the massive Federal funded infrastructure projects, that local economies like Detroit, Chicago, New Jersey, could never afford on their own, and then look at the massive $18 Trillion debt and think some day the Federal Government isn't going to be able to pay to maintain those infrastructure projects, and when that happens those cities are going to be in a world of hurt.

It would be far better for the states, and cities to only engage in infrastructure building that they themselves can afford from their own local economies, rather than to hope the Federal Governments endless money pit will last forever. Greece tried that, it didn't work. Spain tried that, it didn't work.

If we follow the exact same pattern, we'll have the exact same results.

It is all about establishing priorities. We are not Greece or Spain, or Italy or any other sovereign nation. We put men on the moon and we can afford a national health insurance plan, and rebuild/renew our nations infrastructure.

So said Rome.... we are not like other nations.

I think you are foolish to assume that we are so special that we can ignore the laws of economics. The Soviet Union tried to do the same. Millions spent. Billions wasted. By the time the Soviet Union fell, people were eating each other.

The Soviet Union was the first to launch satellite in space. Even in the 1980s, people said there was no way the Soviet Union could fail.

History proved them wrong, and if you and those like you, do not learn from the mistakes of two great empires of history, you will fail as well.

There is a great difference between Rome in 476 AD and the United States in the 21st Century; and the difference between the Soviet Union -to rigid to change - and the United States is almost as great.

That does not mean we are too big to fail, it simply means we need to face the fact we cannot police the world, and must make the changes necessary to be fiscally responsible - we can't do everything and somethings need to be done.

A POTUS is elected to lead. S/He cannot lead when The Congress is broken and everything is debated on partisan and ideological grounds.

Here's what I have proposed;

Constitutional amendments:

• Giving POTUS the Line-Item Veto
• Electing POTUS for one six-year term
• Making any payment or promise to any appointed official, elected official or candidate for elective office a felony.

 

[toxicmedia]

In the wake of the Amtrak tragedy Democrats have been holding it up as an example of broken infrastructure and say we need to raise more taxes to invest into infrastructure like China does. Well perhaps if China did not have all of our manufacturing jobs we would have a local tax base that could pay for infrastructure and education. Only 14 Dem's bolted on Pacific trade bill that will lose more American jobs. Brilliant...just fucking brilliant.

Is our infrastructure NOT in need of maintenance?

If so, that does cost money

 

[Pete7469]

Wow, purged, you want to purge regressive leftists? First of all, what is a regressive leftist?

Was Stalin a regressive leftist and Hitler too? Did commies really care about insects and worms (maybe if they found their Chicken Kiev or Borscht infused, but I doubt they cared, given the Soviet Style Apts. (LOL as if anyone ever thought those apts. were stylish).

Pete, I must say your posts are odd.

Wry,

Your posts are asinine. You're one of the few "intelligent" liberals on this forum, and you're only tolerable because you take abuse well.

Seriously though, were Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao, or Ho Chi Minh anything but regressive leftists? They dragged their countries beneath the status of feudal states and turned them into nightmarish hellholes. Only insipid drones like you can twist that into "progressive reform", or even attempt to pretend that obozo or any other democrook isn't as morally corrupt as any of history's criminally insane authoritarian sociopaths. If it wasn't for insipid drones like you there never would have been a despotic regime so long as common people had the right to bear arms.

You are genetic garbage and should have either been swallowed or tossed into a dumpster behind a planned parenthood clinic.

That's the nicest thing I can say to you.

 

[Pete7469]

If so, that does cost money

Yes it is, and yes it does.

The $22 TRILLION wasted on welfare would have been spent far more effectively employing people to mix cement in wheel barrows with shovels. The entire surface of the western hemisphere could be paved by now, but we still have not reduced poverty even slightly.

As if people who have houses, cars, electricity, bling, cable and obozo phones are "poor". Come piss up my stairs when you see real poverty.

It looks WORSE than this in many areas, but no one in the US has ever experienced real poverty if they've been born here.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If so, that does cost money

Yes it is, and yes it does.

The $22 TRILLION wasted on welfare would have been spent far more effectively employing people to mix cement in wheel barrows with shovels. The entire surface of the western hemisphere could be paved by now, but we still have not reduced poverty even slightly.

As if people who have houses, cars, electricity, bling, cable and obozo phones are "poor". Come piss up my stairs when you see real poverty.

It looks WORSE than this in many areas, but no one in the US has ever experienced real poverty if they've been born here.

And your solution to poverty is what? Years ago I mentioned CETA, a program promulgated by the Ford (maybe Nixon) Administration during a time of high inflation and high unemployment. But that was then, when the R's & D's could work together for the best interests of the country. Today, it's all politics, all the time.

 

[Staidhup]

As I recall the chosen one proclaimed there are 100's even 1000's of shovel ready jobs to repair and enhance our infrastructure, so where the F--k did that money go as the democratic congress signed on? oops.... that was back in 2010, must have been Baby Bush's fault!!! !nothing happened..did you really expect otherwise?...Hope for change, or spare change, which is what America received, this is what the American people were promised, maybe Spike lee and his Hollywood cohorts know where all the money went? What a fraud, what an excuse to print more money for nothing other than to elect incompetent gullible people to represent you? Obama is the king of division, poverty and the travail of liberalism. Obama=gridlock+division-est politics for the sake of promoting and securing the progressive agenda! So lets hear it for printing some more worthless dollars in the name of addressing what should have been done in the first place!

 

[Pete7469]

And your solution to poverty is what? .

STOP SUBSIDIZING IT!!!


Of course bed wetting "progressive" scum need poverty to maintain power, so they'll never stop subsidizing it on the backs of productive people.

 

[toxicmedia]

If so, that does cost money

Yes it is, and yes it does.

The $22 TRILLION wasted on welfare would have been spent far more effectively employing people to mix cement in wheel barrows with shovels. The entire surface of the western hemisphere could be paved by now, but we still have not reduced poverty even slightly.

As if people who have houses, cars, electricity, bling, cable and obozo phones are "poor". Come piss up my stairs when you see real poverty.

It looks WORSE than this in many areas, but no one in the US has ever experienced real poverty if they've been born here.

You didn't answer my question.

Does our infrastructure NOT need maintenance and replacement if obsolete?

 

[Pete7469]

You didn't answer my question.

Does our infrastructure NOT need maintenance and replacement if obsolete?

Yes I did answer your question.

It wasn't good enough? Did I not steal enough money from a rich guy to satisfy you? Should I have beaten up a DuPont widow and sold her mink coats to fix you sidewalk?

If we aren't taxed enough to maintain infrastructure, perhaps we have more than we need. Either that or we need to find a better agent to maintain our infrastructure than a shit ton of unaccountable bureaucrooks.

 

[toxicmedia]

You didn't answer my question.

Does our infrastructure NOT need maintenance and replacement if obsolete?

Yes I did answer your question.

It wasn't good enough? Did I not steal enough money from a rich guy to satisfy you? Should I have beaten up a DuPont widow and sold her mink coats to fix you sidewalk?

If we aren't taxed enough to maintain infrastructure, perhaps we have more than we need. Either that or we need to find a better agent to maintain our infrastructure than a shit ton of unaccountable bureaucrooks.

It was a yes or no question, and I didn't see either of the words yes or no in your response. I did see a yes in the part whre you said you answered my question.

But since you insist I read between the lines...and if I understand...

You think we may not need as much infrastructure as some think we do, and you lack confidence that government can maintain efficiently.

So private toll bridges, roads, etc....?

 

[Wry Catcher]

As I recall the chosen one proclaimed there are 100's even 1000's of shovel ready jobs to repair and enhance our infrastructure, so where the F--k did that money go as the democratic congress signed on? oops.... that was back in 2010, must have been Baby Bush's fault!!! !nothing happened..did you really expect otherwise?...Hope for change, or spare change, which is what America received, this is what the American people were promised, maybe Spike lee and his Hollywood cohorts know where all the money went? What a fraud, what an excuse to print more money for nothing other than to elect incompetent gullible people to represent you? Obama is the king of division, poverty and the travail of liberalism. Obama=gridlock+division-est politics for the sake of promoting and securing the progressive agenda! So lets hear it for printing some more worthless dollars in the name of addressing what should have been done in the first place!

"Nothing happened" is beyond bullshit, it's a lie.

but before I decide you're simply another one whose sole source of information comes from liars such as Limbaugh and Hannity, I'll give you the opportunity to review a link and sites linked to it. Maybe then you won't parrot bullshit and will understand much more was included in the bill - a bill passed when the economy of the US was in free fall inherited by President Obama:

The Recovery Act

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr1enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr1enr.pdf

In the SF Bay Area funds for rebuilding, repairing and adding new transportion infrastructure included the Eastern Span of the SF Bay Bridge, new access to the GG Bridge, earthquake retrofitting of freeways, expanding BART and widening highways and the development of the Eastern Shore of the City of San Francisco.

 

[Pete7469]

It was a yes or no question, and I didn't see either of the words yes or no in your response. I did see a yes in the part whre you said you answered my question.

But since you insist I read between the lines...and if I understand...

You think we may not need as much infrastructure as some think we do, and you lack confidence that government can maintain efficiently.

So private toll bridges, roads, etc....?

Your poor reading skills are not my problem. If I had my way you wouldn't have been victimized with a piss poor public education.

The first line of my response was:

Yes it is, and yes it does.

So a logical person would conclude that I agree our infrastructure does need to be maintained and it does cost money.

To address the rest of your response, IMO we can't have enough infrastructure to satisfy everyone. We could always have more roads, better water, bigger bridges and faster trains. The bottom line is that we can't afford everything everyone wants, and yes the government has proven to be incompetent at managing and doing the necessary expansion of what we do have.

Do I have a brilliant solution? No, but it seems to me that when our government wanted more railroads in the 1800's they left it up to private enterprise to get it done. We ended up with more rail than the rest of the world.