Liberals Scream"Spend More on Infrastructure..."

[rightwinger]

And assholes like you scream that it is all a boondoggle and we shouldn't invest in our own country. Even bridges that are highly needed or more money to upgrade them to be able to handle a future earth quake = boondoggle! You spent how much on infrastructure in Iraq? SO you have no effin room to whine!

We spend about 2-3% of the federal budget on infrastructure. If we wish to have the best,,,well, we better be ready to pay for it. Of course, you don't want us to be the best! Your plan is Slash, cut and burn!!!

How much of the $10 trillion + new debt under Obama went to infrastructure?

How much went to the 1%?

Did you miss the stimulus plan passed right after Obama became president? You know, the one Republicans bitched about so much

How bout the tax increase on those making over $400k?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Actually, we spend too much on infrastructure. We have simply got to stop poring money into Halliburton and Brown and Root for them to keep rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan....

I've said it before ...

To the right, third world countries are "emerging markets".

American poor are leeches.

The last thing the right wants is to put more Americans to work or to invest in our country or people.

That's just not the Repub way.

 

[Rozman]

Would Amtrak still lose money if they got $1 trillion dollars in funding?
I wonder.

 

[candycorn]

Here is why. The network of embassies and consulates that we have now is based on some outdated concepts. Chief among these is promoting US interests in the host country. Let Microsoft take care of laying their own groundwork. Or send a diplomat based in Washington along. Other concepts were that they act as an agency for Americans abroad. Did you know that Europeans can go to any EU country's diplomatic mission and enjoy the same treatment as if they showed up at their nation's embassy? Surely we could join that circle of nations and pare down the costs. Finally, the supposed "oversight" to make sure that we're not buying goods like conflict diamonds or stuff made in sweatshops has long since been dispelled. Given the choice between high standards and low prices, Americans opt for low prices.

Oh ... You mean like when Hillary Clinton was promoting Boeing as Secretary of State.
She convinced Russia to buy $3.7 billion worth of Boeing aircraft in the Rosavia deal (2009) ... And then Boeing contributed $900,000 to her Foundation.

I see you still support her ... Now that is just typical.

.

You seem to be an expert on the topic...how much did they give to "her foundation" prior to her becoming SoS and since she has left the position?

Would you want to get rid of the Department of State acting as a match-maker all the way? Not sure I would but in the case of the largest nation on earth, I think such intervention/teamwork is warranted. In the case of having an office in Burkina Fasso just on the off chance they may want to buy some Colgate toothpaste...no.

 

[candycorn]

Would Amtrak still lose money if they got $1 trillion dollars in funding?
I wonder.

With their business model...yes. It's simply a non-starter in the South and most of the midwest/mountain regions.

 

[candycorn]

Whenever you hear "cut spending to the bone" from the GOP...just know there are consequences.

We subsidize amtrack to the tune of 1.5 billion+ a year to run routes that can't pay for themselves, why? Shouldn't they close unprofitable routes?

The short answer is yes. I'm not sure about the nature of all of the routes. I think we should also get out of the business of sponsoring public radio and television, close most of our embassies over-seas and pay the congressmen and women part-time wages since they are not in session most of the year.

I agree mostly, I don't know about your congressman but mine is very busy doing his job when he's in TX. I have a good friend on his staff and I know how busy he keeps them, he does town halls, meets with business leaders, students and much more. I think he earns his money.

Well, that is all fine and good but it takes 218 to pass a law and if you're not in Washington, you're likely not doing a lot of lobbying that will be effective. Further, there is no guarantee that the next guy/gal will uphold the standard of working when not in session.

If you're not in session, you're not doing the job you were elected to do. Bottom line.

That's crap, a congressman is hired to represent their constituents, talking to them is as important as legislating. Do we really need more laws, hell they can't enforce the ones we already have.

Most of the problems in Washington are ones born out of mis-trust. Back when they used to get things done and we didn't have to rely on last minute deals and crisis atmosphere to force the hands of lawmakers, the lawmakers knew one another. Their kids went to the same schools; they saw each other around town in the evenings and on weekends.

I'll grant you that the district footwork is important but so is being an effective legislator. I'll trade a largely absentee effective legislator for an ineffective glad-hander any day of the week.

 

[OKTexas]

We subsidize amtrack to the tune of 1.5 billion+ a year to run routes that can't pay for themselves, why? Shouldn't they close unprofitable routes?

The short answer is yes. I'm not sure about the nature of all of the routes. I think we should also get out of the business of sponsoring public radio and television, close most of our embassies over-seas and pay the congressmen and women part-time wages since they are not in session most of the year.

I agree mostly, I don't know about your congressman but mine is very busy doing his job when he's in TX. I have a good friend on his staff and I know how busy he keeps them, he does town halls, meets with business leaders, students and much more. I think he earns his money.

Well, that is all fine and good but it takes 218 to pass a law and if you're not in Washington, you're likely not doing a lot of lobbying that will be effective. Further, there is no guarantee that the next guy/gal will uphold the standard of working when not in session.

If you're not in session, you're not doing the job you were elected to do. Bottom line.

That's crap, a congressman is hired to represent their constituents, talking to them is as important as legislating. Do we really need more laws, hell they can't enforce the ones we already have.

Most of the problems in Washington are ones born out of mis-trust. Back when they used to get things done and we didn't have to rely on last minute deals and crisis atmosphere to force the hands of lawmakers, the lawmakers knew one another. Their kids went to the same schools; they saw each other around town in the evenings and on weekends.

I'll grant you that the district footwork is important but so is being an effective legislator. I'll trade a largely absentee effective legislator for an ineffective glad-hander any day of the week.

That's where we differ, I would have no problem if congress did nothing in a year or two but pass budgets that consolidated or eliminated agencies with duplicate or overlapping functions. And if time permitted they could start a review of existing laws and regulations that are obsolete or harmful to the economy beyond their benefit and repealing them. After almost two and a half centuries it's way past time to do some house cleaning. That would really be doing their jobs.

 

[candycorn]

The short answer is yes. I'm not sure about the nature of all of the routes. I think we should also get out of the business of sponsoring public radio and television, close most of our embassies over-seas and pay the congressmen and women part-time wages since they are not in session most of the year.

I agree mostly, I don't know about your congressman but mine is very busy doing his job when he's in TX. I have a good friend on his staff and I know how busy he keeps them, he does town halls, meets with business leaders, students and much more. I think he earns his money.

Well, that is all fine and good but it takes 218 to pass a law and if you're not in Washington, you're likely not doing a lot of lobbying that will be effective. Further, there is no guarantee that the next guy/gal will uphold the standard of working when not in session.

If you're not in session, you're not doing the job you were elected to do. Bottom line.

That's crap, a congressman is hired to represent their constituents, talking to them is as important as legislating. Do we really need more laws, hell they can't enforce the ones we already have.

Most of the problems in Washington are ones born out of mis-trust. Back when they used to get things done and we didn't have to rely on last minute deals and crisis atmosphere to force the hands of lawmakers, the lawmakers knew one another. Their kids went to the same schools; they saw each other around town in the evenings and on weekends.

I'll grant you that the district footwork is important but so is being an effective legislator. I'll trade a largely absentee effective legislator for an ineffective glad-hander any day of the week.

That's where we differ, I would have no problem if congress did nothing in a year or two but pass budgets that consolidated or eliminated agencies with duplicate or overlapping functions. And if time permitted they could start a review of existing laws and regulations that are obsolete or harmful to the economy beyond their benefit and repealing them. After almost two and a half centuries it's way past time to do some house cleaning. That would really be doing their jobs.

This is why the GOP will lose the upcoming election. The party of "no" doesn't play in prime time.

 

[Kosh]

I agree mostly, I don't know about your congressman but mine is very busy doing his job when he's in TX. I have a good friend on his staff and I know how busy he keeps them, he does town halls, meets with business leaders, students and much more. I think he earns his money.

Well, that is all fine and good but it takes 218 to pass a law and if you're not in Washington, you're likely not doing a lot of lobbying that will be effective. Further, there is no guarantee that the next guy/gal will uphold the standard of working when not in session.

If you're not in session, you're not doing the job you were elected to do. Bottom line.

That's crap, a congressman is hired to represent their constituents, talking to them is as important as legislating. Do we really need more laws, hell they can't enforce the ones we already have.

Most of the problems in Washington are ones born out of mis-trust. Back when they used to get things done and we didn't have to rely on last minute deals and crisis atmosphere to force the hands of lawmakers, the lawmakers knew one another. Their kids went to the same schools; they saw each other around town in the evenings and on weekends.

I'll grant you that the district footwork is important but so is being an effective legislator. I'll trade a largely absentee effective legislator for an ineffective glad-hander any day of the week.

That's where we differ, I would have no problem if congress did nothing in a year or two but pass budgets that consolidated or eliminated agencies with duplicate or overlapping functions. And if time permitted they could start a review of existing laws and regulations that are obsolete or harmful to the economy beyond their benefit and repealing them. After almost two and a half centuries it's way past time to do some house cleaning. That would really be doing their jobs.

This is why the GOP will lose the upcoming election. The party of "no" doesn't play in prime time.

The irony of that post from the far left drone..

 

[OKTexas]

I agree mostly, I don't know about your congressman but mine is very busy doing his job when he's in TX. I have a good friend on his staff and I know how busy he keeps them, he does town halls, meets with business leaders, students and much more. I think he earns his money.

Well, that is all fine and good but it takes 218 to pass a law and if you're not in Washington, you're likely not doing a lot of lobbying that will be effective. Further, there is no guarantee that the next guy/gal will uphold the standard of working when not in session.

If you're not in session, you're not doing the job you were elected to do. Bottom line.

That's crap, a congressman is hired to represent their constituents, talking to them is as important as legislating. Do we really need more laws, hell they can't enforce the ones we already have.

Most of the problems in Washington are ones born out of mis-trust. Back when they used to get things done and we didn't have to rely on last minute deals and crisis atmosphere to force the hands of lawmakers, the lawmakers knew one another. Their kids went to the same schools; they saw each other around town in the evenings and on weekends.

I'll grant you that the district footwork is important but so is being an effective legislator. I'll trade a largely absentee effective legislator for an ineffective glad-hander any day of the week.

That's where we differ, I would have no problem if congress did nothing in a year or two but pass budgets that consolidated or eliminated agencies with duplicate or overlapping functions. And if time permitted they could start a review of existing laws and regulations that are obsolete or harmful to the economy beyond their benefit and repealing them. After almost two and a half centuries it's way past time to do some house cleaning. That would really be doing their jobs.

This is why the GOP will lose the upcoming election. The party of "no" doesn't play in prime time.

So you're all in favor of keeping outdated laws and agencies to waste taxpayer money, typical lib.

 

[candycorn]

Well, that is all fine and good but it takes 218 to pass a law and if you're not in Washington, you're likely not doing a lot of lobbying that will be effective. Further, there is no guarantee that the next guy/gal will uphold the standard of working when not in session.

If you're not in session, you're not doing the job you were elected to do. Bottom line.

That's crap, a congressman is hired to represent their constituents, talking to them is as important as legislating. Do we really need more laws, hell they can't enforce the ones we already have.

Most of the problems in Washington are ones born out of mis-trust. Back when they used to get things done and we didn't have to rely on last minute deals and crisis atmosphere to force the hands of lawmakers, the lawmakers knew one another. Their kids went to the same schools; they saw each other around town in the evenings and on weekends.

I'll grant you that the district footwork is important but so is being an effective legislator. I'll trade a largely absentee effective legislator for an ineffective glad-hander any day of the week.

That's where we differ, I would have no problem if congress did nothing in a year or two but pass budgets that consolidated or eliminated agencies with duplicate or overlapping functions. And if time permitted they could start a review of existing laws and regulations that are obsolete or harmful to the economy beyond their benefit and repealing them. After almost two and a half centuries it's way past time to do some house cleaning. That would really be doing their jobs.

This is why the GOP will lose the upcoming election. The party of "no" doesn't play in prime time.

So you're all in favor of keeping outdated laws and agencies to waste taxpayer money, typical lib.

No...didn't say that. Just pointing out that the "Lets do less, lets be less" campaign the GOP nominee will have to run is not going to resonate. That is what you're prescribing basically--that idiotic meet once every 2 years "government" Texas has.

We could and should get rid of a lot of wasteful, obsolete, redundant programs and make other decisions about what we no longer can afford (PBS as I mentioned above through the NEA). The way it needs to work however is via the scalpel, not the cleaver

 

[Kosh]

That's crap, a congressman is hired to represent their constituents, talking to them is as important as legislating. Do we really need more laws, hell they can't enforce the ones we already have.

Most of the problems in Washington are ones born out of mis-trust. Back when they used to get things done and we didn't have to rely on last minute deals and crisis atmosphere to force the hands of lawmakers, the lawmakers knew one another. Their kids went to the same schools; they saw each other around town in the evenings and on weekends.

I'll grant you that the district footwork is important but so is being an effective legislator. I'll trade a largely absentee effective legislator for an ineffective glad-hander any day of the week.

That's where we differ, I would have no problem if congress did nothing in a year or two but pass budgets that consolidated or eliminated agencies with duplicate or overlapping functions. And if time permitted they could start a review of existing laws and regulations that are obsolete or harmful to the economy beyond their benefit and repealing them. After almost two and a half centuries it's way past time to do some house cleaning. That would really be doing their jobs.

This is why the GOP will lose the upcoming election. The party of "no" doesn't play in prime time.

So you're all in favor of keeping outdated laws and agencies to waste taxpayer money, typical lib.

No...didn't say that. Just pointing out that the "Lets do less, lets be less" campaign the GOP nominee will have to run is not going to resonate. That is what you're prescribing basically--that idiotic meet once every 2 years "government" Texas has.

We could and should get rid of a lot of wasteful, obsolete, redundant programs and make other decisions about what we no longer can afford (PBS as I mentioned above through the NEA). The way it needs to work however is via the scalpel, not the cleaver

Yep the far left campaign for Congress worked so well in 2010 and 2012 and 2014..

Yep the far left religious scriptures worked well for them in Congress..

 

[oldernwiser]

I spent none until GW Bush took office. GH Bush never invaded Iraq.

Are you ok??? Both Bushes invaded Iraq and spent money on infrastructure, science, r&d and education! Every president science George Washington has done so!


I don't see how America compete in this world without spending more at this point. It is like we want infrastructure failure...Of course, you would love to see it.

To be correct, GH invaded battled Iraq but only to the Iraqi border from Kuwait. He never crossed the border. He did break his word with Saudis and left troops staged in Riyadh after the conflict ended which created Osama Bin Laden and ramped up Al-Qaeda.

But, you're right. Until the TP started chewing on Republicans like a plague of black flies, every congress without exception has allowed for infrastructure spending on a bipartisan basis. Some years were better than others, but they surely did invest in the country. Kinda makes you wonder what those old American values they want to return to really are, huh?

 

[oldernwiser]

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

I'm NOT a Liberal, but I do believe that we need to spend on infrastructure. We could pay for it by cutting waste and unnecessary spending.

What would about 2.5 million buy?

1. The National Institute of Health’s Center for Alternative and Complimentary Medicine spent $387,000 to study the effects of Swedish massages on rabbits.

2. The Department of Interior spent $10,000 to monitor the growth rate of saltmarsh grass. In other words, the government is paying people to watch grass grow. On the bright side, they have not started paying people to watch paint dry.

3. The National Science Foundation has granted more than $200,000 to a research project that is trying to determine how and why Wikipedia is sexist. Wikipedia’s War on Woman?

4. The National Institute of Health funded a study to see if mothers love dogs as much as they love kids. Regardless of the results, this experiment cost taxpayers $371,026.

5. The federal government has granted $804,254 for the development of a smartphone game called “Kiddio: Food Fight.” The game is intended to teach parents how to convince their children to try and eat new healthier food choices.

6. The National Endowment for the Humanities has provided $47,000 for undergraduate classes that teach students about laughing and humor.

7. The National Science Foundation spent $856,000 to teach mountain lions how to walk on treadmills as part of a research project whose aim was to better understand mountain lions’ instincts.

Top 7 Wackiest Examples of Wasteful Government Spending from Wastebook 2014

There's lunacy everywhere. There was once a lazy government contract that simply specified that "all tooling be fight tested". It didn't specify exactly which tooling, or whether that meant just the test gear and fixtures (which are also referred to as "tooling"). So, as the facility was being built, a government inspector came in and noticed that none of the hammers they were using had any evidence of being flight tested and raised a flag. Instead of amending the contract (which would have put the project back under congressional scrutiny and reassessment of funding requests and stalled the project for years), the hammers were taken up on a plane and properly tested - documentation was provided in accordance with the contract, and the cost overrun was duly passed on to the tax payers.

But we also can't forget the $1.1B in tax relief given to Goldman-Sachs a couple of years ago in the budget battle so that they could replace an office building that had been damaged in the 9/11 attack. Technically, it's not spending, but it IS $1.1B that isn't in the country's coffer nonetheless.

 

[bgr39]

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

I'm NOT a Liberal, but I do believe that we need to spend on infrastructure. We could pay for it by cutting waste and unnecessary spending.

If we can't spend and invest on our own homeland. Well, we won't be a first world country very long. Some of our infrastructure as of this time is unacceptable!

IF can't afford to maintain the infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc) we now have, why are we building more infrastructure (roads, bridges etc) that we can't afford to maintain?????

 

[bgr39]

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

I'm NOT a Liberal, but I do believe that we need to spend on infrastructure. We could pay for it by cutting waste and unnecessary spending.

What would about 2.5 million buy?

1. The National Institute of Health’s Center for Alternative and Complimentary Medicine spent $387,000 to study the effects of Swedish massages on rabbits.

2. The Department of Interior spent $10,000 to monitor the growth rate of saltmarsh grass. In other words, the government is paying people to watch grass grow. On the bright side, they have not started paying people to watch paint dry.

3. The National Science Foundation has granted more than $200,000 to a research project that is trying to determine how and why Wikipedia is sexist. Wikipedia’s War on Woman?

4. The National Institute of Health funded a study to see if mothers love dogs as much as they love kids. Regardless of the results, this experiment cost taxpayers $371,026.

5. The federal government has granted $804,254 for the development of a smartphone game called “Kiddio: Food Fight.” The game is intended to teach parents how to convince their children to try and eat new healthier food choices.

6. The National Endowment for the Humanities has provided $47,000 for undergraduate classes that teach students about laughing and humor.

7. The National Science Foundation spent $856,000 to teach mountain lions how to walk on treadmills as part of a research project whose aim was to better understand mountain lions’ instincts.

Top 7 Wackiest Examples of Wasteful Government Spending from Wastebook 2014

There's lunacy everywhere. There was once a lazy government contract that simply specified that "all tooling be fight tested". It didn't specify exactly which tooling, or whether that meant just the test gear and fixtures (which are also referred to as "tooling"). So, as the facility was being built, a government inspector came in and noticed that none of the hammers they were using had any evidence of being flight tested and raised a flag. Instead of amending the contract (which would have put the project back under congressional scrutiny and reassessment of funding requests and stalled the project for years), the hammers were taken up on a plane and properly tested - documentation was provided in accordance with the contract, and the cost overrun was duly passed on to the tax payers.

But we also can't forget the $1.1B in tax relief given to Goldman-Sachs a couple of years ago in the budget battle so that they could replace an office building that had been damaged in the 9/11 attack. Technically, it's not spending, but it IS $1.1B that isn't in the country's coffer nonetheless.

Didn't Goldman-Sachs have insurance on their building?

 

[BlackSand]

Here is why. The network of embassies and consulates that we have now is based on some outdated concepts. Chief among these is promoting US interests in the host country. Let Microsoft take care of laying their own groundwork. Or send a diplomat based in Washington along. Other concepts were that they act as an agency for Americans abroad. Did you know that Europeans can go to any EU country's diplomatic mission and enjoy the same treatment as if they showed up at their nation's embassy? Surely we could join that circle of nations and pare down the costs. Finally, the supposed "oversight" to make sure that we're not buying goods like conflict diamonds or stuff made in sweatshops has long since been dispelled. Given the choice between high standards and low prices, Americans opt for low prices.

Oh ... You mean like when Hillary Clinton was promoting Boeing as Secretary of State.
She convinced Russia to buy $3.7 billion worth of Boeing aircraft in the Rosavia deal (2009) ... And then Boeing contributed $900,000 to her Foundation.

I see you still support her ... Now that is just typical.

.

You seem to be an expert on the topic...how much did they give to "her foundation" prior to her becoming SoS and since she has left the position?

Would you want to get rid of the Department of State acting as a match-maker all the way? Not sure I would but in the case of the largest nation on earth, I think such intervention/teamwork is warranted. In the case of having an office in Burkina Fasso just on the off chance they may want to buy some Colgate toothpaste...no.

It isn't the first time Boeing has benefited from supporting pet projects of Hillary Clinton's as Secretary of State either.
If you want to suggest she is guilty of more corruption regarding Boeing and her position in government ... I am not going to stop you from doing that.

I would get rid of crooked politicians and government leaders like Hillary Clinton ... Instead of pretending what they are doing is any different than what I was bitching about other people doing ... But I can see where that may be a little over your head.

.

 

[rightwinger]

Would Amtrak still lose money if they got $1 trillion dollars in funding?
I wonder.

When red states continue to insist that Amtrak provide service to their states, they will continue to lose money. The Northeast corridor is very profitable

 

[OKTexas]

That's crap, a congressman is hired to represent their constituents, talking to them is as important as legislating. Do we really need more laws, hell they can't enforce the ones we already have.

Most of the problems in Washington are ones born out of mis-trust. Back when they used to get things done and we didn't have to rely on last minute deals and crisis atmosphere to force the hands of lawmakers, the lawmakers knew one another. Their kids went to the same schools; they saw each other around town in the evenings and on weekends.

I'll grant you that the district footwork is important but so is being an effective legislator. I'll trade a largely absentee effective legislator for an ineffective glad-hander any day of the week.

That's where we differ, I would have no problem if congress did nothing in a year or two but pass budgets that consolidated or eliminated agencies with duplicate or overlapping functions. And if time permitted they could start a review of existing laws and regulations that are obsolete or harmful to the economy beyond their benefit and repealing them. After almost two and a half centuries it's way past time to do some house cleaning. That would really be doing their jobs.

This is why the GOP will lose the upcoming election. The party of "no" doesn't play in prime time.

So you're all in favor of keeping outdated laws and agencies to waste taxpayer money, typical lib.

No...didn't say that. Just pointing out that the "Lets do less, lets be less" campaign the GOP nominee will have to run is not going to resonate. That is what you're prescribing basically--that idiotic meet once every 2 years "government" Texas has.

We could and should get rid of a lot of wasteful, obsolete, redundant programs and make other decisions about what we no longer can afford (PBS as I mentioned above through the NEA). The way it needs to work however is via the scalpel, not the cleaver

No where did I say congress should meet every two years, I said it could take a year or two of budget negotiations to eliminate duplicate and obsolete programs, that would be using the scalpel method. I wouldn't have a problem if that's all they got done in that time, just because government is, doesn't mean it has to grow year over year.

 

[kaz]

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

Having lived the bulk of my career in the Northeast corridor, I love riding the Acela over flying when I can. Usually I few for time, but I did take the Acela many times.

However, government funding it is ridiculous. If it isn't economically viable, it should go away