Too long ignored?

[Synthaholic]

We need term limits.

And yea, we do need a far tighter control on the money.

And we really need to stop voting on party rather than people.

Let me get this straight:

Right-wingers and tea-baggers preach personal responsibility, yet want to create a new law to save them from having to actually practice personal responsibility?

And even though they SWEAR that they hate government because they say that it curtails their "freedom", they would happily turn to a government solution in an effort to VOLUNTARILY limit their freedoms?

Holy shit!

I am an individual, I do not represent any view other than my own. Clearly you are incapable of understanding simple facts like individual thought.

Okay. Then you are saying that YOU want government to create a new law to prevent YOU from having the freedom to vote for an incumbent, saving YOU from having to exercising personal responsibility.

Yeah, that's MUCH better.

 

[Synthaholic]

No politician gets re-elected on performing maintenance on bridges, tunnels and levys. For this reason we have allowed our infrastructure to deteriorate to dangerous levels

No politician gets re-elected on performing maintenance on bridges, tunnels and levys. For this reason we have allowed our infrastructure to deteriorate to dangerous levels

That's a very good point.

And a good example of why government cannot be trusted more than private enterprise.


Hey, why don't we give politicians the job of maintaining a healthcare system.....

I'm certain that couldn't be any harder than maintaining a bridge, right?

I do not agree.

If it were so, then Sen. Ted Stevens would not have been pusing for his Bridge To Nowhere. I am sure that the Congresscritters from Minnesota are heralding their accomplishments concerning the rebuilt I-35:

Politicians run on anything that they perceive will help them get re-elected.

 

[Missourian]

Any more questions?

Well, I was really looking for some verification of this:

They were top of the line diamond plated chrome...the guys who unloaded the said a normal switch cost a thousand dollars each...these were $8500 each...bought with stimulus money.

But I trust you wouldn't make it up. Is there any debate that those presumably more expensive switches are/are not needed in order to guarantee they won't freeze up? If the purpose in the end is to generate more ridership, I'd say it's worth it. But I'm no expert on that subject.

The guys that unloaded me said there was no difference except these were cosmetically upgraded and much more expensive.

They seemed genuinely upset, since it was their tax money too, that Amtrak was wasting that money when it was tax dollars they were spending.

 

[FireGod]

The repairs may be desparately needed, but, seriously, the thieves in DC just spent a Trillion dollars to fix things and all they did was bribe their cronies and reward their sycophants.

How much more graft and corruption needs to go unchecked in this?

It would be nice if we had honest citizen Senators and Congressmen, but sadly, they are all venemous and corrupt jackels who live to steal and will will sell their daughters, wives and mothers into prostitution for a compaign contribution.

As long as we need to pass the repair money through the hands of those that just can't seem to function without a payoff, we're screwed.

The stimulus money did not go for pay offs (mostly) but it did get used in many state and local budgets to replace falling revenues. Few actual infrastructure projects have been funded.

My ex worked for Westinghouse back in the '80s, repairing signals on railroad lines. I assume you guys know this is the preferred method of moving toxic waste, like nuclear rods? Those lines are in terrible condition.

A disaster or two is inevitable if we do not wake the fuck up.

We just more a few truckloads of railroad switches from Kansas City to Chicago that were paid for by stimulus.

They were top of the line diamond plated chrome...the guys who unloaded the said a normal switch cost a thousand dollars each...these were $8500 each...bought with stimulus money.

These were union railroad builders in Chicago, and even they were appalled.

Is it possible that the diamond plated chrome can withstand much more abuse than the regular steel used? <-- not a trick question.

 

[FireGod]

Any more questions?

Well, I was really looking for some verification of this:

They were top of the line diamond plated chrome...the guys who unloaded the said a normal switch cost a thousand dollars each...these were $8500 each...bought with stimulus money.

But I trust you wouldn't make it up. Is there any debate that those presumably more expensive switches are/are not needed in order to guarantee they won't freeze up? If the purpose in the end is to generate more ridership, I'd say it's worth it. But I'm no expert on that subject.

The guys that unloaded me said there was no difference except these were cosmetically upgraded and much more expensive.

They seemed genuinely upset, since it was their tax money too, that Amtrak was wasting that money when it was tax dollars they were spending.

Why the fuck would a railroad care about cosmetics?

That is just plain stupid.

 

[saveliberty]

No politician gets re-elected on performing maintenance on bridges, tunnels and levys. For this reason we have allowed our infrastructure to deteriorate to dangerous levels

...or....

We figured that giving government that much money was going to cover all those expenses. Government is way too inefficient in all things but healthcare so they lost alot of it. Yeah, right.

 

[midcan5]

Great idea, but how long would it take before Cargill and Monsanto laid dibs on the fresh farmlands? Bye bye small farmer incentives.

Land use would need to be managed as it is in Oregon. Hard stuff but too much freedom in the use of land only leads to the urban/suburban mess we have now. Ever drive the interstates during rush hour? I see no reason peoplekind have to move into the future still dumb.


Oregon's Land-Use Planning

"Under the Oregon plan, then, growth would be controlled outside the urban-growth boundaries through the combination of tax incentives and zoning at very large--80 to 160 or more acres--minimum lot sizes. But growth would be managed inside the urban-growth boundaries using zoning and other systems to insure that there would always be sufficient affordable housing for everyone.

As the law was implemented for nearly two decades, nearly all of the burden fell upon landowners outside of the urban-growth boundaries who were unable to use their land as they liked. There were some controversies inside the growth boundaries when cities or counties proposed to rezone to higher densities. But generally, the growth boundaries were drawn large enough to allow development at low densities for many years. When rural opponents of the planning rules attempted to overturn them at the ballot box, the much larger number of urban residents who benefitted from enforced rural open space without paying any costs voted in favor of retaining the law."

 

[California Girl]

Let me get this straight:

Right-wingers and tea-baggers preach personal responsibility, yet want to create a new law to save them from having to actually practice personal responsibility?

And even though they SWEAR that they hate government because they say that it curtails their "freedom", they would happily turn to a government solution in an effort to VOLUNTARILY limit their freedoms?

Holy shit!

I am an individual, I do not represent any view other than my own. Clearly you are incapable of understanding simple facts like individual thought.

Okay. Then you are saying that YOU want government to create a new law to prevent YOU from having the freedom to vote for an incumbent, saving YOU from having to exercising personal responsibility.

Yeah, that's MUCH better.

We have term limits on the POTUS. I see no reason why term limits shouldn't be applied to the rest of the critters.... it would prevent the culture of corruption and that is a good thing. You're quite moronic, aren't you?

Laws, like alcohol, are fine in moderation.

 

[MaggieMae]

Great idea, but how long would it take before Cargill and Monsanto laid dibs on the fresh farmlands? Bye bye small farmer incentives.

Land use would need to be managed as it is in Oregon. Hard stuff but too much freedom in the use of land only leads to the urban/suburban mess we have now. Ever drive the interstates during rush hour? I see no reason peoplekind have to move into the future still dumb.


Oregon's Land-Use Planning

"Under the Oregon plan, then, growth would be controlled outside the urban-growth boundaries through the combination of tax incentives and zoning at very large--80 to 160 or more acres--minimum lot sizes. But growth would be managed inside the urban-growth boundaries using zoning and other systems to insure that there would always be sufficient affordable housing for everyone.

As the law was implemented for nearly two decades, nearly all of the burden fell upon landowners outside of the urban-growth boundaries who were unable to use their land as they liked. There were some controversies inside the growth boundaries when cities or counties proposed to rezone to higher densities. But generally, the growth boundaries were drawn large enough to allow development at low densities for many years. When rural opponents of the planning rules attempted to overturn them at the ballot box, the much larger number of urban residents who benefitted from enforced rural open space without paying any costs voted in favor of retaining the law."

We have something similar in Vermont.

Vermont Land Trust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But people living near those open spaces still need to travel by road (or Interstate) to get to their places of business, usually in the more urban areas.

 

[Missourian]

Well, I was really looking for some verification of this:
But I trust you wouldn't make it up. Is there any debate that those presumably more expensive switches are/are not needed in order to guarantee they won't freeze up? If the purpose in the end is to generate more ridership, I'd say it's worth it. But I'm no expert on that subject.

The guys that unloaded me said there was no difference except these were cosmetically upgraded and much more expensive.

They seemed genuinely upset, since it was their tax money too, that Amtrak was wasting that money when it was tax dollars they were spending.

Why the fuck would a railroad care about cosmetics?

That is just plain stupid.

Riiiight...Amtrak would never spend extra for cosmetics.

/Sarcasm.

That's how things work kid. Amtrak gets $100 million of your money and they MUST spend it on that project. They ain't giving one dollar back.

If that means they get pretty boxes......they get pretty boxes.

It's no different than if a stranger get handed you $50,000 but you can only use it to buy a car and the rest you have to give back.

If you were spending YOUR money you'd buy a Ford Focus...but since it's FREE money (to you) and you must return the remainder you buy a Lexus instead.

Hell, why not, that money will just "go to waste" anyway...where "go to waste" means "not benefit you".

Next week we'll cover the topic "Why government departments spend every last dime in there budget" or "Use it or lose it".

 

[dilloduck]

I say we let construction companies fix everything and then we print the money to bail them out.

 

[Samson]

I say we let construction companies fix everything and then we print the money to bail them out.

I say we pay unemployed auto parts workers to fix the bridges, then re-educate the construction workers to make auto parts.

 

[Synthaholic]

I am an individual, I do not represent any view other than my own. Clearly you are incapable of understanding simple facts like individual thought.

Okay. Then you are saying that YOU want government to create a new law to prevent YOU from having the freedom to vote for an incumbent, saving YOU from having to exercising personal responsibility.

Yeah, that's MUCH better.

We have term limits on the POTUS. I see no reason why term limits shouldn't be applied to the rest of the critters.... it would prevent the culture of corruption and that is a good thing. You're quite moronic, aren't you?

Laws, like alcohol, are fine in moderation.

I'm not the one looking for a government solution to save myself from my own bad decisions. You are.

(And your substituting personal attacks for debate is noted)

 

[MaggieMae]

I say we let construction companies fix everything and then we print the money to bail them out.

I say we pay unemployed auto parts workers to fix the bridges, then re-educate the construction workers to make auto parts.

What do YOU do for a living?

 

[code1211]

Any stimulus funds that went for shovel-ready infrastructure were a drop in the bucket. Just watch the fucking documentary, genius. This isn't a political issue.

The repairs may be desparately needed, but, seriously, the thieves in DC just spent a Trillion dollars to fix things and all they did was bribe their cronies and reward their sycophants.

How much more graft and corruption needs to go unchecked in this?

It would be nice if we had honest citizen Senators and Congressmen, but sadly, they are all venemous and corrupt jackels who live to steal and will will sell their daughters, wives and mothers into prostitution for a compaign contribution.

As long as we need to pass the repair money through the hands of those that just can't seem to function without a payoff, we're screwed.

The stimulus money did not go for pay offs (mostly) but it did get used in many state and local budgets to replace falling revenues. Few actual infrastructure projects have been funded.
My ex worked for Westinghouse back in the '80s, repairing signals on railroad lines. I assume you guys know this is the preferred method of moving toxic waste, like nuclear rods? Those lines are in terrible condition.

A disaster or two is inevitable if we do not wake the fuck up.

Translation of the words in red above is that the money used to support state and local budgets saved the jobs of government payroll workers which did exactly nothig to stimulate the economy.

Incenting private enterprise to create jobs that create tax dollars is what a stimulus does.

Pouring tax dollars down the hole to save jobs that cost more tax dollars avoids the incentive that could have been crated and also builds a big drag on the staggering economy that we already know is wounded.

This administration is beyond stupid and you know what can't be fixed.

 

[MaggieMae]

The repairs may be desparately needed, but, seriously, the thieves in DC just spent a Trillion dollars to fix things and all they did was bribe their cronies and reward their sycophants.

How much more graft and corruption needs to go unchecked in this?

It would be nice if we had honest citizen Senators and Congressmen, but sadly, they are all venemous and corrupt jackels who live to steal and will will sell their daughters, wives and mothers into prostitution for a compaign contribution.

As long as we need to pass the repair money through the hands of those that just can't seem to function without a payoff, we're screwed.

The stimulus money did not go for pay offs (mostly) but it did get used in many state and local budgets to replace falling revenues. Few actual infrastructure projects have been funded.
My ex worked for Westinghouse back in the '80s, repairing signals on railroad lines. I assume you guys know this is the preferred method of moving toxic waste, like nuclear rods? Those lines are in terrible condition.

A disaster or two is inevitable if we do not wake the fuck up.

Translation of the words in red above is that the money used to support state and local budgets saved the jobs of government payroll workers which did exactly nothig to stimulate the economy.

Incenting private enterprise to create jobs that create tax dollars is what a stimulus does.

Pouring tax dollars down the hole to save jobs that cost more tax dollars avoids the incentive that could have been crated and also builds a big drag on the staggering economy that we already know is wounded.

This administration is beyond stupid and you know what can't be fixed.

If you can't figure out why that was absolutely, positively necessary, then you have my sympathy. Show me one economist who says otherwise. ONE. There are valid criticisms about where some of the stimulus funds were wasted on silly projects, but allowing the states to conduct business without laying off thousands of ESSENTIAL employees wasn't one of them.

 

[Samson]

The stimulus money did not go for pay offs (mostly) but it did get used in many state and local budgets to replace falling revenues. Few actual infrastructure projects have been funded.
My ex worked for Westinghouse back in the '80s, repairing signals on railroad lines. I assume you guys know this is the preferred method of moving toxic waste, like nuclear rods? Those lines are in terrible condition.

A disaster or two is inevitable if we do not wake the fuck up.

Translation of the words in red above is that the money used to support state and local budgets saved the jobs of government payroll workers which did exactly nothig to stimulate the economy.

Incenting private enterprise to create jobs that create tax dollars is what a stimulus does.

Pouring tax dollars down the hole to save jobs that cost more tax dollars avoids the incentive that could have been crated and also builds a big drag on the staggering economy that we already know is wounded.

This administration is beyond stupid and you know what can't be fixed.

If you can't figure out why that was absolutely, positively necessary, then you have my sympathy. Show me one economist who says otherwise. ONE. There are valid criticisms about where some of the stimulus funds were wasted on silly projects, but allowing the states to conduct business without laying off thousands of ESSENTIAL employees wasn't one of them.

Where were all these brilliant economists when the economy was headed for the cliffs?

 

[MaggieMae]

Translation of the words in red above is that the money used to support state and local budgets saved the jobs of government payroll workers which did exactly nothig to stimulate the economy.

Incenting private enterprise to create jobs that create tax dollars is what a stimulus does.

Pouring tax dollars down the hole to save jobs that cost more tax dollars avoids the incentive that could have been crated and also builds a big drag on the staggering economy that we already know is wounded.

This administration is beyond stupid and you know what can't be fixed.

If you can't figure out why that was absolutely, positively necessary, then you have my sympathy. Show me one economist who says otherwise. ONE. There are valid criticisms about where some of the stimulus funds were wasted on silly projects, but allowing the states to conduct business without laying off thousands of ESSENTIAL employees wasn't one of them.

Where were all these brilliant economists when the economy was headed for the cliffs?

A few were sounding alarms, but not enough to capture the attention of the powers that be, I guess. Some have written books.

I've read two: "The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine," about the small group at Lehman Brothers who came to realize what the upper ranks should have known (or maybe they did and didn't care). And "Too Big to Fail: The Inside Story of How Wall Street and Washington Fought to Save the Financial System – and Themselves," by Andrew Ross Sorkin, which reads like a thriller but is the true story of the unfolding crisis. (I haven't finished that one.)

 

[Samson]

If you can't figure out why that was absolutely, positively necessary, then you have my sympathy. Show me one economist who says otherwise. ONE. There are valid criticisms about where some of the stimulus funds were wasted on silly projects, but allowing the states to conduct business without laying off thousands of ESSENTIAL employees wasn't one of them.

Where were all these brilliant economists when the economy was headed for the cliffs?

A few were sounding alarms, but not enough to capture the attention of the powers that be, I guess. Some have written books.

I've read two: "The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine," about the small group at Lehman Brothers who came to realize what the upper ranks should have known (or maybe they did and didn't care). And "Too Big to Fail: The Inside Story of How Wall Street and Washington Fought to Save the Financial System – and Themselves," by Andrew Ross Sorkin, which reads like a thriller but is the true story of the unfolding crisis. (I haven't finished that one.)

Don't you find it odd that so few economists saw it coming, yet so many know how to fix it?

I'm thinking that if we gave enough economists a typewriter, a couple of them would probably type out a good solution.