Liberals Scream"Spend More on Infrastructure..."

[Andylusion]

And what that article leaves out
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.

If course there are differences, but it's funny how every time someone says 'we're different' we end up with the same problems.

This Time Is Different Eight Centuries of Financial Folly Carmen M. Reinhart Kenneth Rogoff 9780691152646 Amazon.com Books

Carmen M. Reinhart wrote a book on how every single time a country has had a sovereign default, there were people before the crash saying "We're different!" And.... they were not!

You can list a million and a half reason why the US is completely different than any other country, just like all those countries listed millions of reason why they were different too. In the end... the fundamental laws of economics will win, and you will lose.

Yes, we need "make the changes necessary to be fiscally responsible"... I agree! Part of that, is not spending billions on infrastructure projects we can't afford.

Line-Item Veto... I'm cautious on that. Assuming a good president, it could be used to clear out pork. I grant you that.

However, the only reason we need a Line-Item veto to begin with, is because congress is not operating within the limitation of the Constitution. If we forced Congress to operate within it's assigned limits of those power specifically enumerated in the constitution, there would be no pork. There are very few, if any, pork projects that are constitutional.

So now we need to change the constitution because we are not following it to begin with?

But of course those on the left don't want congress operating within the constitution, because you like many of those unconstitutional projects. You like Medicare, and Green-Energy funding. Both of which are completely unconstitutional. So you demand congress ignore the constitution for the things you want, and then complain and moan over congress doing other spending project you don't like. The people on the left, caused their own problem.

Then I wonder, ok perhaps a good president would line-item veto pork. But none of us really knows who the next president will be, or any thereafter. I can easily see a president stripping out the meat and potatoes of a bill, and leaving the pork. Or worse, what about a home security bill, and he strips out the limitations? Or a banking bill, and strips out the oversight?

You give these powers, under the current administration, and yet have no idea what the next administration might be, and how they may abuse those powers. It like those saying "I don't mind Obama having drone strike powers"... yeah, but you don't know who will come after, and how they might use that power.

Six-Year terms..... meh.... There are presidents around the world with different terms. They don't seem to operate any better.

Make payment or promise to politicians....

It's not going to make any difference at all. It's always funny to see people who claim we should legalize drugs, because making it illegal doesn't stop criminals, turn right around and claim we need new laws on bribery, because that will solve the problem.

Besides, quid pro quo, is already illegal. Another quid pro quo law won't change anything.

As long as politicians need money, they'll find a way to get it.

As long as politicians are elected in national elections, they'll need money.

That's why we were never supposed to vote on Senators, Representatives and Presidents. We were supposed to elect people locally at each state. Those people voted on who was in the Federal Government. Our founding fathers specifically set it up this way, because they said a public vote would invite corruption.

So we tossed out the wisdom of the founding fathers, and now you are complaining about corruption? Shocking.

The only way we'll get money out of politics, is if we get away from Democracy, and back to a Republic. I don't see that happening.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Conservative scream"spend more money bombing and invading people"

 

[Andylusion]

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.

All crap. All of those projects were already being funded at the local level. The Federal government hijacked dozens of EXISTING PROJECTS, and then claimed they did it.

They didn't. Obama stimulus was crap, and it DID NOTHING. You are wrong.

 

[Andylusion]

Conservative scream"spend more money bombing and invading people"

Only if needed.

I though we should never have been in Libya, Syria, or any of the others.

Iraq was necessary. Afghanistan was necessary.

Now I will grant you this..... We created Osama Bin Laden. We had the CIA fund opposition to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. We should not have. We elected to fund foriegn fighters in Afghanistan. We should not have. We should have remained completely out of Afghanistan, and let them fight the Soviets on their own.

So, I grant you that much.

But national defense is the primary duty of the Federal Government. We SHOULD be spending money on bombs, planes, tanks, ships, subs, and so on. That's the primary reason the Federal Government exists.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Only if needed.
.

as a conservative moron , and I repeat myself, you must consider the invasion of Iraq "necessary"...'Nuff said...

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Years ago I worked at Wendy's. A lady came in, and on her first day, openly told us she was only going to work until she qualified for welfare again. She even told us the exact day she qualified.

Sure enough, on that day, she stopped showing up for work.

Stop paying people to remain poor. That's the solution.

She could work.... she just didn't have to. We paid her to stay home, so she did.

That's a solution to poverty right there.

See, if she had kept at that job, and worked her way up, even at Wendy's, she'd be store manager or even an owner by now.

Instead, she quit and sat at home. Next time she gets kicked off welfare, she'll be starting over at minimum wage. Then she'll quit, and go back to welfare, and the cycle repeats. You people on the left, actually hold people in poverty, with your programs.

 

[Andylusion]

Only if needed.
.

as a conservative moron , and I repeat myself, you must consider the invasion of Iraq "necessary"...'Nuff said...

So, you have nothing of value to say. 'Nuff said.....

 

[Pete7469]

If course there are differences, but it's funny how every time someone says 'we're different' we end up with the same problems.

This Time Is Different Eight Centuries of Financial Folly Carmen M. Reinhart Kenneth Rogoff 9780691152646 Amazon.com Books

Carmen M. Reinhart wrote a book on how every single time a country has had a sovereign default, there were people before the crash saying "We're different!" And.... they were not!

You can list a million and a half reason why the US is completely different than any other country, just like all those countries listed millions of reason why they were different too. In the end... the fundamental laws of economics will win, and you will lose.

Yes, we need "make the changes necessary to be fiscally responsible"... I agree! Part of that, is not spending billions on infrastructure projects we can't afford.

Line-Item Veto... I'm cautious on that. Assuming a good president, it could be used to clear out pork. I grant you that.

However, the only reason we need a Line-Item veto to begin with, is because congress is not operating within the limitation of the Constitution. If we forced Congress to operate within it's assigned limits of those power specifically enumerated in the constitution, there would be no pork. There are very few, if any, pork projects that are constitutional.

So now we need to change the constitution because we are not following it to begin with?

But of course those on the left don't want congress operating within the constitution, because you like many of those unconstitutional projects. You like Medicare, and Green-Energy funding. Both of which are completely unconstitutional. So you demand congress ignore the constitution for the things you want, and then complain and moan over congress doing other spending project you don't like. The people on the left, caused their own problem.

Then I wonder, ok perhaps a good president would line-item veto pork. But none of us really knows who the next president will be, or any thereafter. I can easily see a president stripping out the meat and potatoes of a bill, and leaving the pork. Or worse, what about a home security bill, and he strips out the limitations? Or a banking bill, and strips out the oversight?

You give these powers, under the current administration, and yet have no idea what the next administration might be, and how they may abuse those powers. It like those saying "I don't mind Obama having drone strike powers"... yeah, but you don't know who will come after, and how they might use that power.

Six-Year terms..... meh.... There are presidents around the world with different terms. They don't seem to operate any better.

Make payment or promise to politicians....

It's not going to make any difference at all. It's always funny to see people who claim we should legalize drugs, because making it illegal doesn't stop criminals, turn right around and claim we need new laws on bribery, because that will solve the problem.

Besides, quid pro quo, is already illegal. Another quid pro quo law won't change anything.

As long as politicians need money, they'll find a way to get it.

As long as politicians are elected in national elections, they'll need money.

That's why we were never supposed to vote on Senators, Representatives and Presidents. We were supposed to elect people locally at each state. Those people voted on who was in the Federal Government. Our founding fathers specifically set it up this way, because they said a public vote would invite corruption.

So we tossed out the wisdom of the founding fathers, and now you are complaining about corruption? Shocking.

The only way we'll get money out of politics, is if we get away from Democracy, and back to a Republic. I don't see that happening.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Only if needed.
.

as a conservative moron , and I repeat myself, you must consider the invasion of Iraq "necessary"...'Nuff said...

So, you have nothing of value to say. 'Nuff said.....

and you are a conservative moron, sorry I keep repeating myself,'Nuff said... you consider the Iraq invasion necessary?

yes____

NO____

 

[Pete7469]

Only if needed.

I though we should never have been in Libya, Syria, or any of the others.

Iraq was necessary. Afghanistan was necessary.

Now I will grant you this..... We created Osama Bin Laden. We had the CIA fund opposition to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. We should not have. We elected to fund foriegn fighters in Afghanistan. We should not have. We should have remained completely out of Afghanistan, and let them fight the Soviets on their own.

So, I grant you that much.

But national defense is the primary duty of the Federal Government. We SHOULD be spending money on bombs, planes, tanks, ships, subs, and so on. That's the primary reason the Federal Government exists.

I only disagree in that I think it was right to help the Mujaheddin defeat the soviets. However we should not have abandoned the region and allowed the power vacuum to exist that was eventually filled by the talibs. We had an opportunity to influence a developing nation and we blew it off.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

why was the Iraq invasion necessary...moron ?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

why was this necessary

Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered In US War And Occupation Of Iraq "1,455,590"


Number of U.S. Military Personnel Sacrificed(Officially acknowledged) In U.S. War And Occupation Of Iraq 4,801

Number Of International Occupation Force Troops Slaughtered In Afghanistan : 3,487

Cost of War in Iraq & Afghanistan
$1,628,327,563,773

 

[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.

All crap. All of those projects were already being funded at the local level. The Federal government hijacked dozens of EXISTING PROJECTS, and then claimed they did it.

They didn't. Obama stimulus was crap, and it DID NOTHING. You are wrong.

They were planned, but couldn't be funded without Federal Gov't money. Thus, little was being done on most of the projects. Besides that, not all of the stimulus money was directed toward shovel ready projects - read the link and educate yourself.

 

[Wry Catcher]

why was this necessary

Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered In US War And Occupation Of Iraq "1,455,590"


Number of U.S. Military Personnel Sacrificed(Officially acknowledged) In U.S. War And Occupation Of Iraq 4,801

Number Of International Occupation Force Troops Slaughtered In Afghanistan : 3,487

Cost of War in Iraq & Afghanistan
$1,628,327,563,773

"But...but...but BENGAHZI!!!!!!!!!!"

 

[Pete7469]

"But...but...but BENGAHZI!!!!!!!!!!"

The fact that you trivialize the deaths of your own countrymen is why the rest of us hold tapeworms like you in contempt.

 

[Andylusion]

Only if needed.
.

as a conservative moron , and I repeat myself, you must consider the invasion of Iraq "necessary"...'Nuff said...

So, you have nothing of value to say. 'Nuff said.....

and you are a conservative moron, sorry I keep repeating myself,'Nuff said... you consider the Iraq invasion necessary?

yes____

NO____

Yes absolutely it was. No question about it. The fact you don't, makes you the moron.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

All crap. All of those projects were already being funded at the local level. The Federal government hijacked dozens of EXISTING PROJECTS, and then claimed they did it.

They didn't. Obama stimulus was crap, and it DID NOTHING. You are wrong.

They were planned, but couldn't be funded without Federal Gov't money. Thus, little was being done on most of the projects. Besides that, not all of the stimulus money was directed toward shovel ready projects - read the link and educate yourself.

Just not true. Flat out, not true friend.

You are wrong. You should read more than only those articles which support the conclusion you agree with.

 

[Andylusion]

why was this necessary

Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered In US War And Occupation Of Iraq "1,455,590"


Number of U.S. Military Personnel Sacrificed(Officially acknowledged) In U.S. War And Occupation Of Iraq 4,801

Number Of International Occupation Force Troops Slaughtered In Afghanistan : 3,487

Cost of War in Iraq & Afghanistan
$1,628,327,563,773

Because Saddam was actively seeking links with existing terrorist networks. Yes, he had not established any yet, but he was trying.

Should we wait until bombs are going off in more US cities?

Saddam was in violation of the ceasefire agreement. Saddam was jerking us around for 10 years. We had tons of reasons to go in there and finish him.

All of the intel we had at the time, said Saddam was intent on being a threat. Even Bill Clinton knew this, which is why he tried to move against him in 1998. The only problem was, Clinton was a scandal ridden spineless coward. He didn't do jack, unless the polls said he should. America could have burnt to the ground, and as long as his approval rating was high, he didn't give a crap.

People keep saying they want a person who doesn't do only what is politically advantageous, someone who will stand up for what he believes is best for the country. Bush did, and you hate him for it.

Well sucks to be you. It was necessary. Sorry.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Because Saddam was actively seeking links with existing terrorist networks. Yes, he had not established any yet, but he was trying.

Well sucks to be you. It was necessary. Sorry.

No he was not ...you are just a right wing fool tool...but again I repeat myself

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

hey you numbskull Andy,....next time you think a war is necessary send all your loved ones to fight it..put some skin in the game...tool