Liberals Scream"Spend More on Infrastructure..."

[bripat9643]

FUCK YOU! That you claim I "trivialize the deaths of your own countrymen" is a bold faced lie, something your kind, right wing assholes, thrive upon. Though only you, a piece of human excrement, would post such a lie.

Of course you are trivializing them, tapeworm. What you posted is the equivalent of Hillary saying "What difference does it make?"

Oh STFU you whinny little Right wing Ninny...you trivialize these folks killed because Bush lied

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

Apparently you believe there is some kind of logic in what you posted.

Your "logic" goes like this:

#1. The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s.

#2. Therefore Bush lied about Iraq.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Apparently you believe there is some kind of logic in what you posted.

Your "logic" goes like this:

#1. The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s.

#2. Therefore Bush lied about Iraq.

You are an idiot unconditional supporter of this douche bag

..Effing Right wing Dork

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[bripat9643]

Apparently you believe there is some kind of logic in what you posted.

Your "logic" goes like this:

#1. The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s.

#2. Therefore Bush lied about Iraq.

You are an idiot unconditional supporter of this douche bag

..Effing Right wing Dork

In other words, "therefore Bush lied about Iraq."

You're a one note musician.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Apparently you believe there is some kind of logic in what you posted.

Your "logic" goes like this:

#1. The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s.

#2. Therefore Bush lied about Iraq.

You are an idiot unconditional supporter of this douche bag

..Effing Right wing Dork

In other words, "therefore Bush lied about Iraq."

You're a one note musician.

Your whine is pathetic...

 

[Wry Catcher]

FUCK YOU! That you claim I "trivialize the deaths of your own countrymen" is a bold faced lie, something your kind, right wing assholes, thrive upon. Though only you, a piece of human excrement, would post such a lie.

Eat my shit bed wetter, I enlisted and did shit the likes of you trivialize. You vote for the sort of clown who insinuates we only do so because we're not smart enough to go to college and get a C- like Kerry did. Bush got a C+.

You act as if Benghazi wasn't an absolute failure and dereliction of duty because you suck the puss out of political wounds suffered by your political whores. You're beneath contempt and should have rotted in a planned parenthood dumpster.

I enlisted too, and I know that not everyone who enlisted was a hero or even a decent person. I served with some real bums, whose use of language was quite similar to yours - vulgar and a sure sign of ignorance.

 

[Pete7469]

I enlisted too, and I know that not everyone who enlisted was a hero or even a decent person. I served with some real bums, whose use of language was quite similar to yours - vulgar and a sure sign of ignorance.

Well that confirms it. Bed wetting douchebags like you who get butt-hurt and offended every chance you get pussified a military that once conquered most of the world. Now we have to tip toe around and make sure sniveling cry babies brought their woobies to field training and jerk them off so that when they fuck up simple tasks we don't hurt their feelings.

Thanks for your "service".

 

[Andylusion]

Apparently you believe there is some kind of logic in what you posted.

Your "logic" goes like this:

#1. The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s.

#2. Therefore Bush lied about Iraq.

You are an idiot unconditional supporter of this douche bag

..Effing Right wing Dork

In other words, "therefore Bush lied about Iraq."

You're a one note musician.

Your whine is pathetic...

Our whining is pathetic? Have you seen the picture you just posted?

You have proven yourself incapable of rational mature debate. Thus you have informed me that you are not worth talking to, and are not worthy to talk to me. Congrats! You are now ignored. Never to be heard from again. Bye bye little troll. Maybe you'll grow up to be an adult one day, but I will not see it, or you, ever again.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

You have proven yourself incapable of rational mature debate. Thus you have informed me that you are not worth talking to, and are not worthy to talk to me. Congrats! You are now ignored. Never to be heard from again. Bye bye little troll. Maybe you'll grow up to be an adult one day, but I will not see it, or you, ever again.

Oh God how will I be able to bear this burden....Unnnbelievable narcissist

 

[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.

The article I posted in the link was the bill, passed by Congress and signed by POTUS. BARTs future extensions were posted on the trains for at least a decade, the Eastern span of the BAY Bridge needed to be replaced immediately after the '89 Quake, planning commended thereafter but as usual no one could agree on design, the cost do to the in fighting exploded but the project was completed with a $2.8 Billion Dollar Grant from the Stimulus Act.

https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/Final to GM 2 10 10C .pdf

http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/ARRA/MTC-SFBayArea_ARRA_Projects_Status_12-31-10.pdf

So let's recap what you just told me....

There was a plan already in place.

They COULD HAVE paid for it themselves, but didn't.

They had political partisan in-fighting, which drove up the cost to what they couldn't afford.

So instead, we blow $2.8 Billion dollars of my tax money, that our kids will be taxed higher and higher to pay for ever growing debt, to pay for a section of BART track.

So here is my response to that:

The whole reason the politicians knew they could have a massive fight over the BART track, and not care about the cost, is specifically because they believed at some point they could get the Federal Government to hand out borrowed money to them, and dump the cost on the tax payers.

IF the Federal Government was not in the business of dishing out other people's hard earned money... or future money.... They would have had to compromise, and find a cheaper cost efficient solution to accomplish the same goal.

Or, not build the track at all. Clearly SF has done fairly well without the new track. There is no reason to assume they would have economic catastrophe without it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"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.

The article I posted in the link was the bill, passed by Congress and signed by POTUS. BARTs future extensions were posted on the trains for at least a decade, the Eastern span of the BAY Bridge needed to be replaced immediately after the '89 Quake, planning commended thereafter but as usual no one could agree on design, the cost do to the in fighting exploded but the project was completed with a $2.8 Billion Dollar Grant from the Stimulus Act.

https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/Final to GM 2 10 10C .pdf

http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/ARRA/MTC-SFBayArea_ARRA_Projects_Status_12-31-10.pdf

So let's recap what you just told me....

There was a plan already in place.

They COULD HAVE paid for it themselves, but didn't.

They had political partisan in-fighting, which drove up the cost to what they couldn't afford.

So instead, we blow $2.8 Billion dollars of my tax money, that our kids will be taxed higher and higher to pay for ever growing debt, to pay for a section of BART track.

So here is my response to that:

The whole reason the politicians knew they could have a massive fight over the BART track, and not care about the cost, is specifically because they believed at some point they could get the Federal Government to hand out borrowed money to them, and dump the cost on the tax payers.

IF the Federal Government was not in the business of dishing out other people's hard earned money... or future money.... They would have had to compromise, and find a cheaper cost efficient solution to accomplish the same goal.

Or, not build the track at all. Clearly SF has done fairly well without the new track. There is no reason to assume they would have economic catastrophe without it.

Well, I never argue with those who believe they know the truth about what other people are thinking, or their supposed hidden agendas.

I did read some articles which you won't be interested in:

Revenge of the Reality-Based Community The American Conservative

Ex-Reagan adviser Fox News is self-brainwashing Republicans into a radical fringe party - Democratic Underground

And likely won't look at or consider, which is why I'll read your stuff and only comment on it with secondary sources which will act as my rebuttal.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

The article I posted in the link was the bill, passed by Congress and signed by POTUS. BARTs future extensions were posted on the trains for at least a decade, the Eastern span of the BAY Bridge needed to be replaced immediately after the '89 Quake, planning commended thereafter but as usual no one could agree on design, the cost do to the in fighting exploded but the project was completed with a $2.8 Billion Dollar Grant from the Stimulus Act.

https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/Final to GM 2 10 10C .pdf

http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/ARRA/MTC-SFBayArea_ARRA_Projects_Status_12-31-10.pdf

So let's recap what you just told me....

There was a plan already in place.

They COULD HAVE paid for it themselves, but didn't.

They had political partisan in-fighting, which drove up the cost to what they couldn't afford.

So instead, we blow $2.8 Billion dollars of my tax money, that our kids will be taxed higher and higher to pay for ever growing debt, to pay for a section of BART track.

So here is my response to that:

The whole reason the politicians knew they could have a massive fight over the BART track, and not care about the cost, is specifically because they believed at some point they could get the Federal Government to hand out borrowed money to them, and dump the cost on the tax payers.

IF the Federal Government was not in the business of dishing out other people's hard earned money... or future money.... They would have had to compromise, and find a cheaper cost efficient solution to accomplish the same goal.

Or, not build the track at all. Clearly SF has done fairly well without the new track. There is no reason to assume they would have economic catastrophe without it.

Well, I never argue with those who believe they know the truth about what other people are thinking, or their supposed hidden agendas.

I did read some articles which you won't be interested in:

Revenge of the Reality-Based Community The American Conservative

Ex-Reagan adviser Fox News is self-brainwashing Republicans into a radical fringe party - Democratic Underground

And likely won't look at or consider, which is why I'll read your stuff and only comment on it with secondary sources which will act as my rebuttal.

Again.... my company years back, had a project to build a power system for hybrid buses. The project was ready to go, and ready to fund, and all set. After Obama won the election, suddenly the project was on hold. The CEO said basically, they could get the Federal government to pay for it.

This is normal human nature. I don't need a crystal ball to see this. It's human nature 101.

And I've seen documentaries about the 1980s, when Reagan cut funding for special projects, and the state governments openly said, we're not building jack until we get federal funding. And they did just that. Sure enough Congress slipped pork spending into bills, and got the funding for all their special interest groups, and more building resumed.

They said openly.... we're not going to do it, until you fund it.

Again, human nature. I personally think SNAP and food stamps should be eliminated. But... if I qualify for free food, I'll take it. Why should I pay for my own food, if you are stupid enough to buy it for me? Human nature dude.

It's just like Honda's test track here in Ohio. They got the State government to tax the poor, and build a multi-bilion dollar mufti-national corporation, an expensive test track here in Ohio. You think Honda couldn't afford to build their own track? Of course they could. But why do that, if you can find idiot voters, electing idiot politicians, to tax the voters and pay the billionaires, to build a track for them?

Now if you want to live in fantasy world, where politicians operate altruistically for the good of the country, instead of what is best for themselves politically, fine. I don't.

You are correct.... I don't care about an article attacking Republicans, because I'm not a Republican.

In fact, the very article points out what I had just been saying. The author pointed out that fiscal-hawks, voted for expansion of medicare, when Medicare was already going broke.

Ding! Correct. "Republican" is a political party. A political party is interested in having political power, and getting elected. So politicians more than anything else, are interested in advancing themselves in office.

So even if there is no money for it, and even if Medicare is going broke, they vote to expand medicare. Why? Because it's politically beneficial.

Just like, if they can bicker and fight over BART, they can get the federal government to fund it. Politically smart. Economically damaging.

You just helped me make my point with your article. Thanks.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

The article I posted in the link was the bill, passed by Congress and signed by POTUS. BARTs future extensions were posted on the trains for at least a decade, the Eastern span of the BAY Bridge needed to be replaced immediately after the '89 Quake, planning commended thereafter but as usual no one could agree on design, the cost do to the in fighting exploded but the project was completed with a $2.8 Billion Dollar Grant from the Stimulus Act.

https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/Final to GM 2 10 10C .pdf

http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/ARRA/MTC-SFBayArea_ARRA_Projects_Status_12-31-10.pdf

So let's recap what you just told me....

There was a plan already in place.

They COULD HAVE paid for it themselves, but didn't.

They had political partisan in-fighting, which drove up the cost to what they couldn't afford.

So instead, we blow $2.8 Billion dollars of my tax money, that our kids will be taxed higher and higher to pay for ever growing debt, to pay for a section of BART track.

So here is my response to that:

The whole reason the politicians knew they could have a massive fight over the BART track, and not care about the cost, is specifically because they believed at some point they could get the Federal Government to hand out borrowed money to them, and dump the cost on the tax payers.

IF the Federal Government was not in the business of dishing out other people's hard earned money... or future money.... They would have had to compromise, and find a cheaper cost efficient solution to accomplish the same goal.

Or, not build the track at all. Clearly SF has done fairly well without the new track. There is no reason to assume they would have economic catastrophe without it.

Well, I never argue with those who believe they know the truth about what other people are thinking, or their supposed hidden agendas.

I did read some articles which you won't be interested in:

Revenge of the Reality-Based Community The American Conservative

Ex-Reagan adviser Fox News is self-brainwashing Republicans into a radical fringe party - Democratic Underground

And likely won't look at or consider, which is why I'll read your stuff and only comment on it with secondary sources which will act as my rebuttal.

Again.... my company years back, had a project to build a power system for hybrid buses. The project was ready to go, and ready to fund, and all set. After Obama won the election, suddenly the project was on hold. The CEO said basically, they could get the Federal government to pay for it.

This is normal human nature. I don't need a crystal ball to see this. It's human nature 101.

And I've seen documentaries about the 1980s, when Reagan cut funding for special projects, and the state governments openly said, we're not building jack until we get federal funding. And they did just that. Sure enough Congress slipped pork spending into bills, and got the funding for all their special interest groups, and more building resumed.

They said openly.... we're not going to do it, until you fund it.

Again, human nature. I personally think SNAP and food stamps should be eliminated. But... if I qualify for free food, I'll take it. Why should I pay for my own food, if you are stupid enough to buy it for me? Human nature dude.

It's just like Honda's test track here in Ohio. They got the State government to tax the poor, and build a multi-bilion dollar mufti-national corporation, an expensive test track here in Ohio. You think Honda couldn't afford to build their own track? Of course they could. But why do that, if you can find idiot voters, electing idiot politicians, to tax the voters and pay the billionaires, to build a track for them?

Now if you want to live in fantasy world, where politicians operate altruistically for the good of the country, instead of what is best for themselves politically, fine. I don't.

You are correct.... I don't care about an article attacking Republicans, because I'm not a Republican.

In fact, the very article points out what I had just been saying. The author pointed out that fiscal-hawks, voted for expansion of medicare, when Medicare was already going broke.

Ding! Correct. "Republican" is a political party. A political party is interested in having political power, and getting elected. So politicians more than anything else, are interested in advancing themselves in office.

So even if there is no money for it, and even if Medicare is going broke, they vote to expand medicare. Why? Because it's politically beneficial.

Just like, if they can bicker and fight over BART, they can get the federal government to fund it. Politically smart. Economically damaging.

You just helped me make my point with your article. Thanks.

Once again you have projected your opinion into the minds and behaviors of others. That form of an opinion is always framed in an ideology, which IMO, is never panoptic.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Line item veto was once the law of the land. Until the SCOTUS ruled it unconstiutional
Washingtonpost.com Court Strikes Down Line-Item Veto
One term presidents would be an idea worth exploring.
I'd carry the payoff thing one step further. Outlaw lobbying and deal making as a result of lobbying.

 

[Pete7469]

Once again you have projected your opinion into the minds and behaviors of others. That form of an opinion is always framed in an ideology, which IMO, is never panoptic.

Once a again a bed wetting liberal dismisses a fact based argument over his opinion on someone else's opinion. There is no need to consider a factually wrong point of view. When liberals finally get their shit together and realize they're always wrong, the apocalypse will be upon us anyway and it won't matter.

It is useless arguing with sycophants. The only purpose they will every serve is to become fertilizer.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Once again you have projected your opinion into the minds and behaviors of others. That form of an opinion is always framed in an ideology, which IMO, is never panoptic.

Once a again a bed wetting liberal dismisses a fact based argument over his opinion on someone else's opinion. There is no need to consider a factually wrong point of view. When liberals finally get their shit together and realize they're always wrong, the apocalypse will be upon us anyway and it won't matter.

It is useless arguing with sycophants. The only purpose they will every serve is to become fertilizer.

It useless debating with you; you obviously believe you know the truth but seem unequal to the task of proving anything, other than you are an asshole.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

The article I posted in the link was the bill, passed by Congress and signed by POTUS. BARTs future extensions were posted on the trains for at least a decade, the Eastern span of the BAY Bridge needed to be replaced immediately after the '89 Quake, planning commended thereafter but as usual no one could agree on design, the cost do to the in fighting exploded but the project was completed with a $2.8 Billion Dollar Grant from the Stimulus Act.

https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/Final to GM 2 10 10C .pdf

http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/ARRA/MTC-SFBayArea_ARRA_Projects_Status_12-31-10.pdf

So let's recap what you just told me....

There was a plan already in place.

They COULD HAVE paid for it themselves, but didn't.

They had political partisan in-fighting, which drove up the cost to what they couldn't afford.

So instead, we blow $2.8 Billion dollars of my tax money, that our kids will be taxed higher and higher to pay for ever growing debt, to pay for a section of BART track.

So here is my response to that:

The whole reason the politicians knew they could have a massive fight over the BART track, and not care about the cost, is specifically because they believed at some point they could get the Federal Government to hand out borrowed money to them, and dump the cost on the tax payers.

IF the Federal Government was not in the business of dishing out other people's hard earned money... or future money.... They would have had to compromise, and find a cheaper cost efficient solution to accomplish the same goal.

Or, not build the track at all. Clearly SF has done fairly well without the new track. There is no reason to assume they would have economic catastrophe without it.

Well, I never argue with those who believe they know the truth about what other people are thinking, or their supposed hidden agendas.

I did read some articles which you won't be interested in:

Revenge of the Reality-Based Community The American Conservative

Ex-Reagan adviser Fox News is self-brainwashing Republicans into a radical fringe party - Democratic Underground

And likely won't look at or consider, which is why I'll read your stuff and only comment on it with secondary sources which will act as my rebuttal.

Again.... my company years back, had a project to build a power system for hybrid buses. The project was ready to go, and ready to fund, and all set. After Obama won the election, suddenly the project was on hold. The CEO said basically, they could get the Federal government to pay for it.

This is normal human nature. I don't need a crystal ball to see this. It's human nature 101.

And I've seen documentaries about the 1980s, when Reagan cut funding for special projects, and the state governments openly said, we're not building jack until we get federal funding. And they did just that. Sure enough Congress slipped pork spending into bills, and got the funding for all their special interest groups, and more building resumed.

They said openly.... we're not going to do it, until you fund it.

Again, human nature. I personally think SNAP and food stamps should be eliminated. But... if I qualify for free food, I'll take it. Why should I pay for my own food, if you are stupid enough to buy it for me? Human nature dude.

It's just like Honda's test track here in Ohio. They got the State government to tax the poor, and build a multi-bilion dollar mufti-national corporation, an expensive test track here in Ohio. You think Honda couldn't afford to build their own track? Of course they could. But why do that, if you can find idiot voters, electing idiot politicians, to tax the voters and pay the billionaires, to build a track for them?

Now if you want to live in fantasy world, where politicians operate altruistically for the good of the country, instead of what is best for themselves politically, fine. I don't.

You are correct.... I don't care about an article attacking Republicans, because I'm not a Republican.

In fact, the very article points out what I had just been saying. The author pointed out that fiscal-hawks, voted for expansion of medicare, when Medicare was already going broke.

Ding! Correct. "Republican" is a political party. A political party is interested in having political power, and getting elected. So politicians more than anything else, are interested in advancing themselves in office.

So even if there is no money for it, and even if Medicare is going broke, they vote to expand medicare. Why? Because it's politically beneficial.

Just like, if they can bicker and fight over BART, they can get the federal government to fund it. Politically smart. Economically damaging.

You just helped me make my point with your article. Thanks.

Once again you have projected your opinion into the minds and behaviors of others. That form of an opinion is always framed in an ideology, which IMO, is never panoptic.

You have the right to be wrong. The fact you provided evidence of your own, that made my case, suggest there is something to it.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Line item veto was once the law of the land. Until the SCOTUS ruled it unconstiutional
Washingtonpost.com Court Strikes Down Line-Item Veto
One term presidents would be an idea worth exploring.
I'd carry the payoff thing one step further. Outlaw lobbying and deal making as a result of lobbying.

Again "making a deal" quid pro quo, is already illegal.

Outlawing lobbying will do nothing. I'm convinced.

When you have a system of democracy, and a rule by the ignorant, the public doesn't really care about money in politics. They really honestly don't. You think they do, but they don't. And as long as the vast majority doesn't care, and yet controls elections, then no law you ever make will ever have any effect. They only care about money in politics, if it's a recipient they don't like, and a donor they don't like. In other words, they only care when it fits their political agenda. But otherwise, they don't care, and you can't stop it.

How do I know this?

One: In the 90s, Bill Clinton was caught taking money from Chinese military fronts, in exchange for the rubber stamp on high end computer technology sold to China. It was documented, proven, and undeniable. No one cared. Nothing happened to him. In the late 90s, Al Gore was caught, on tape, directly violating campaign laws, both at a Buddhist Temp, and shaking down companies from the office of the VP. No one cared, and nothing happened to him.

Instead we got this "vast right wing Conspiracy" crap, and it was all the Republicans beating up on poor billy clinton.

Two: In the 90s, a known drug dealer met with Hillary Clinton, in the White House. At that event the guy showed up with a check, to donate to the cause. The White House staffers quickly shoo'd the check away, and explained he should donate to a "charitable" organization.... like.... N.O.W.

That's when I realized how impossible the goal is. If you eliminate direct donations, they will simply donate to a supporting group. If they can't donate to Hillary directly, they'll donate to the National Organization for Women. What are you going to do about that? Ban all organizations? Ban Universities? Ban Unions? Some of the biggest lobbying groups in the country, are Unions and Universities.

Ban the Sierra Club?

What are you are trying to do, is absolutely impossible.

As long as elections are dominated by the ignorant, where every joe blow and susie blow has 'equal voice', then elections will be dominated by media and "name recognition'.

As long as election are dominated by media and name recognition, then cash will be king.

As long as cash is king of elections, then politicians absolutely will find a way to get money.

And no congress or president, will ever pass laws preventing themselves from being able to raise money to win elections.

It will NEVER happen.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Line item veto was once the law of the land. Until the SCOTUS ruled it unconstiutional
Washingtonpost.com Court Strikes Down Line-Item Veto
One term presidents would be an idea worth exploring.
I'd carry the payoff thing one step further. Outlaw lobbying and deal making as a result of lobbying.

Again "making a deal" quid pro quo, is already illegal.

Outlawing lobbying will do nothing. I'm convinced.

When you have a system of democracy, and a rule by the ignorant, the public doesn't really care about money in politics. They really honestly don't. You think they do, but they don't. And as long as the vast majority doesn't care, and yet controls elections, then no law you ever make will ever have any effect. They only care about money in politics, if it's a recipient they don't like, and a donor they don't like. In other words, they only care when it fits their political agenda. But otherwise, they don't care, and you can't stop it.

How do I know this?

One: In the 90s, Bill Clinton was caught taking money from Chinese military fronts, in exchange for the rubber stamp on high end computer technology sold to China. It was documented, proven, and undeniable. No one cared. Nothing happened to him. In the late 90s, Al Gore was caught, on tape, directly violating campaign laws, both at a Buddhist Temp, and shaking down companies from the office of the VP. No one cared, and nothing happened to him.

Instead we got this "vast right wing Conspiracy" crap, and it was all the Republicans beating up on poor billy clinton.

Two: In the 90s, a known drug dealer met with Hillary Clinton, in the White House. At that event the guy showed up with a check, to donate to the cause. The White House staffers quickly shoo'd the check away, and explained he should donate to a "charitable" organization.... like.... N.O.W.

That's when I realized how impossible the goal is. If you eliminate direct donations, they will simply donate to a supporting group. If they can't donate to Hillary directly, they'll donate to the National Organization for Women. What are you going to do about that? Ban all organizations? Ban Universities? Ban Unions? Some of the biggest lobbying groups in the country, are Unions and Universities.

Ban the Sierra Club?

What are you are trying to do, is absolutely impossible.

As long as elections are dominated by the ignorant, where every joe blow and susie blow has 'equal voice', then elections will be dominated by media and "name recognition'.

As long as election are dominated by media and name recognition, then cash will be king.

As long as cash is king of elections, then politicians absolutely will find a way to get money.

And no congress or president, will ever pass laws preventing themselves from being able to raise money to win elections.

It will NEVER happen.

You're most likely correct in your prediction.
However, if politicians were not running for office, instead we had statesmen for whom to vote, money would not be the prime motivator.
Now, you went off on a tangent here.....
My focus is strictly on the lobby process. Its incestuous. Reason: former members of Congress darken the hallways of the US Capitol. People who are using their time in office to enrich themselves. Too much back patting and palm pressing. And DO NOT try to convince me that there isn't all kinds of money and gifts flowing inside the Beltway like water circling the bowl....
Washington is a complete shit show.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Line item veto was once the law of the land. Until the SCOTUS ruled it unconstiutional
Washingtonpost.com Court Strikes Down Line-Item Veto
One term presidents would be an idea worth exploring.
I'd carry the payoff thing one step further. Outlaw lobbying and deal making as a result of lobbying.

Again "making a deal" quid pro quo, is already illegal.

Outlawing lobbying will do nothing. I'm convinced.

When you have a system of democracy, and a rule by the ignorant, the public doesn't really care about money in politics. They really honestly don't. You think they do, but they don't. And as long as the vast majority doesn't care, and yet controls elections, then no law you ever make will ever have any effect. They only care about money in politics, if it's a recipient they don't like, and a donor they don't like. In other words, they only care when it fits their political agenda. But otherwise, they don't care, and you can't stop it.

How do I know this?

One: In the 90s, Bill Clinton was caught taking money from Chinese military fronts, in exchange for the rubber stamp on high end computer technology sold to China. It was documented, proven, and undeniable. No one cared. Nothing happened to him. In the late 90s, Al Gore was caught, on tape, directly violating campaign laws, both at a Buddhist Temp, and shaking down companies from the office of the VP. No one cared, and nothing happened to him.

Instead we got this "vast right wing Conspiracy" crap, and it was all the Republicans beating up on poor billy clinton.

Two: In the 90s, a known drug dealer met with Hillary Clinton, in the White House. At that event the guy showed up with a check, to donate to the cause. The White House staffers quickly shoo'd the check away, and explained he should donate to a "charitable" organization.... like.... N.O.W.

That's when I realized how impossible the goal is. If you eliminate direct donations, they will simply donate to a supporting group. If they can't donate to Hillary directly, they'll donate to the National Organization for Women. What are you going to do about that? Ban all organizations? Ban Universities? Ban Unions? Some of the biggest lobbying groups in the country, are Unions and Universities.

Ban the Sierra Club?

What are you are trying to do, is absolutely impossible.

As long as elections are dominated by the ignorant, where every joe blow and susie blow has 'equal voice', then elections will be dominated by media and "name recognition'.

As long as election are dominated by media and name recognition, then cash will be king.

As long as cash is king of elections, then politicians absolutely will find a way to get money.

And no congress or president, will ever pass laws preventing themselves from being able to raise money to win elections.

It will NEVER happen.

You're most likely correct in your prediction.
However, if politicians were not running for office, instead we had statesmen for whom to vote, money would not be the prime motivator.
Now, you went off on a tangent here.....
My focus is strictly on the lobby process. Its incestuous. Reason: former members of Congress darken the hallways of the US Capitol. People who are using their time in office to enrich themselves. Too much back patting and palm pressing. And DO NOT try to convince me that there isn't all kinds of money and gifts flowing inside the Beltway like water circling the bowl....
Washington is a complete shit show.

My point was, if you ban lobbying.... they will still lobby. Can you name any government anywhere in the world, at any time in history, in which there was no lobbying? Where money and gifts did not flow like water circling the bowl?

If they can't lobby directly (drug dealer in the white house giving a check to Hillary), then they will lobby indirectly (giving the check to N.O.W.)

Do you remember Hillary Clinton, slipping in pork spending into a bill, that gave the Women's hall of fame millions of tax dollars, and magically Hillary was the next women to be inducted into the hall of fame?

How do you propose we stop that?

And then you have all the 90s Clinton scandals. Clear violations of law.

You complain about lobbying.... how exactly do you propose we stop that? What law can you pass that will stop all the money in Washington, when they don't follow the existing laws we already have? This is like gun control. Let's pass another law. Oh they broke that law. Let's pass yet another law. Oh they broke that one too. Funny, law breakers seem to be breaking all the new laws, like the old ones?

What law do you think we could pass, that they magically won't break? Why will the new law be followed, when they didn't follow the old law?

And lastly, yeah, having a 'statesman' instead of a 'politician' would be nice....

Unicorns and faeries would be great too.

The problem is, the public doesn't want a statesman. They want politicians, because they themselves like politicians.

Bill Clinton violated dozens of laws, and got away with it, and was angry anyone even said anything.

Ferguson? Baltimore? The public is constantly screaming the police shouldn't do anything to anyone caught.

I still remember McCain going to Detroit, and saying people need to move on, that those manufacturing jobs were not coming back.

People HATED him for saying the truth.

People don't want honest truthful politicians that stand up for what they believe. They want crooks and liars.

Bush stood up for what he believed in going into Iraq. People HATED him for standing up for what he believed.

Clinton in the 90s, said we needed to go into Iraq. Made the case for going into Iraq. And then he completely back flipped, when the people complained. He did what was politically advantageous, and everyone loved him for it.

Are you seeing the pattern I am?

You claim you want 'statesman'. And maybe *YOU* do. But the public, which lies cheats and steals, doesn't want statesmen, they want politicians that lie cheat and steal, just like they do.

Welcome to Democracy. This is how it works.

Think about it.... we've taught the public, in our schools, for decades on end, that there is no absolute truth, and that morals are all relative.......... and then you get pissed off at politicians that live out those principals?