Millions out of work - a crumbling infrastructure - I have an idea!

[Quantum Windbag]

Republicans don't understand that the previous president's budget is in effect for nearly a year after he leaves office. Obama was sworn in at the beginning of the year, but he is stuck with Bush's budget until the end of October. That's they way it works. But because Obama was president and Bush's policies are failures, they must belong to Obama. Republicans simply can't face the truth. It causes too much pain.

The only problem with that theory is Bush vetoed the budget that Obama voted for, and later signed.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There are a number of reasons why our current system does not support the economy we would like to have. Appropriate infrastructure is one of them.

so then why be so afraid to give us your best example of inappropriate infrastructure?? Certainly if all we had to do was build a road or bridge there ought to be at least one great example to get us all on your side??

 

[rdean]

​

Republicans don't understand that the previous president's budget is in effect for nearly a year after he leaves office. Obama was sworn in at the beginning of the year, but he is stuck with Bush's budget until the end of October. That's they way it works. But because Obama was president and Bush's policies are failures, they must belong to Obama. Republicans simply can't face the truth. It causes too much pain.

The only problem with that theory is Bush vetoed the budget that Obama voted for, and later signed.

I didn't know that. I would love to read about it. Do you have a link?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

So gubmint has been in charge of this "infrastructure" thingy for decades now and y'all tell us that it's crumbling?

Excuse me if I ask if that's supposed to be any evidence that they're the ones best suited to fix it?

Just because OUR government has not been able to appropriate its infrastructure spending effectively doesn't mean it can't be done. Evidence here:

China approves $157-billion infrastructure spending | Reuters

shows China's level of commitment to economic growth, and their commitment to continue. Are we China? Of course not, nor would we want to be, but if you're looking for evidence of how a healthy and modern infrastructure supports to a more efficient and robust economy, I can think of few better examples. There are a number of reasons why our current system does not support the economy we would like to have. Appropriate infrastructure is one of them.

Do you know of another body/entity better suited? If you think corporations, good luck getting them to spend the kind of money necessary to make us globally relevant again. They'd much rather outsource to a country like China that DOES have the infrastructure to support their objectives. It's much easier and cheaper for them.

You want to compare a third world country that is emerging as an economic superpower because it is moving away from a centrally managed economy with the US? Are you aware that the only reason they are spending that much money on infrastructure is because they don't fracking have any?

I wasn't comparing China with the U.S., merely pointing out that a strong infrastructure supports economic growth. They are investing it, and their economy is growing. It's no mystery that U.S. companies let China do their manufacturing. There are multiple reasons, infrastructure is merely one of them and that was the only point I was trying to make.

If you would prefer an American example then look at the Interstate Highway System. The Interstate Highway system enacted in the 1950's corresponded with economic growth. It's a pretty simple connection. When things run efficiently, so does business. Thomas Jefferson believed in roads and public works too, because he recognized that it stimulated economic expansion and growth. It has already proven to be true, which is exactly why emerging economies are putting so much stock in it. They learned it from us. Why have we suddenly forgotten about it?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

There are a number of reasons why our current system does not support the economy we would like to have. Appropriate infrastructure is one of them.

so then why be so afraid to give us your best example of inappropriate infrastructure?? Certainly if all we had to do was build a road or bridge there ought to be at least one great example to get us all on your side??

The Interstate Highway System. It's enactment by President Eisenhower helped shape the U.S. as an economic superpower. The decay of this system and the subsequent decay or our economic dominance should be an easy enough corollary to see.

 

[Unkotare]

Have you given any thought to quality?

Yes, I have. Have you given any thought as to how we can force our corporations to stay in the U.S. and stop manufacturing in China?

We can't and we shouldn't. We should make it more profitable and attractive to manufacture in America whatever it makes sense to manufacture in America.

 

[Unkotare]

Since you bring it up, Acela, the high-speed arm of Amtrak, is one of the few profitable lines for the company. .

No it's not. They cook the books to make that part look profitable, but the whole thing is a giant money pit.

 

[rdean]

There are a number of reasons why our current system does not support the economy we would like to have. Appropriate infrastructure is one of them.

so then why be so afraid to give us your best example of inappropriate infrastructure?? Certainly if all we had to do was build a road or bridge there ought to be at least one great example to get us all on your side??

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...23ca7c4da5ccfb&bpcl=40096503&biw=1738&bih=931

Home | King Arthur Flour

https://www.youtube.com/user/kingarthurflour

Blurt: The Seven Days Staff Blog: Vermont Lands $47 Million in Broadband Stimulus Grants

One of my favorite stories is "King Authur Flour". An American company that has been around 220 years and makes specialty flour for high end baking. Since Broadband from stimulus money was installed, this "small business" now has expanded and is selling all over the world to high end restaurants. Online baking classes. Specialty baking utensils and pans. I saw a video of an employee pointing to a new and giant warehouse and saying, "All this from broadband". This is only one example. There are many. Republicans simply don't want to hear it. They have to believe the stimulus is a failure, otherwise, it becomes apparent it is they are are the failed.

 

[rdean]

Just because OUR government has not been able to appropriate its infrastructure spending effectively doesn't mean it can't be done. Evidence here:

China approves $157-billion infrastructure spending | Reuters

shows China's level of commitment to economic growth, and their commitment to continue. Are we China? Of course not, nor would we want to be, but if you're looking for evidence of how a healthy and modern infrastructure supports to a more efficient and robust economy, I can think of few better examples. There are a number of reasons why our current system does not support the economy we would like to have. Appropriate infrastructure is one of them.

Do you know of another body/entity better suited? If you think corporations, good luck getting them to spend the kind of money necessary to make us globally relevant again. They'd much rather outsource to a country like China that DOES have the infrastructure to support their objectives. It's much easier and cheaper for them.

You want to compare a third world country that is emerging as an economic superpower because it is moving away from a centrally managed economy with the US? Are you aware that the only reason they are spending that much money on infrastructure is because they don't fracking have any?

I wasn't comparing China with the U.S., merely pointing out that a strong infrastructure supports economic growth. They are investing it, and their economy is growing. It's no mystery that U.S. companies let China do their manufacturing. There are multiple reasons, infrastructure is merely one of them and that was the only point I was trying to make.

If you would prefer an American example then look at the Interstate Highway System. The Interstate Highway system enacted in the 1950's corresponded with economic growth. It's a pretty simple connection. When things run efficiently, so does business. Thomas Jefferson believed in roads and public works too, because he recognized that it stimulated economic expansion and growth. It has already proven to be true, which is exactly why emerging economies are putting so much stock in it. They learned it from us. Why have we suddenly forgotten about it?

Thank the Republican Party for the interstate highway system. Course, it was a different party back then.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Have you given any thought to quality?

Yes, I have. Have you given any thought as to how we can force our corporations to stay in the U.S. and stop manufacturing in China?

We can't and we shouldn't. We should make it more profitable and attractive to manufacture in America whatever it makes sense to manufacture in America.

Exactly.

The first step is to look at why so much of it is being done overseas. I've pointed out one. Infrastructure is not just roads and trains and bridges. It is any physical or organizational system that allows for safe and efficient passage of goods and services from point A to point Z. The points constitute the private sector. What stands between them is the public sector. When the public sector is marred, so is safe and efficient passage between them. This is historical and I don't really understand why it is disputed so much. Multiple governments got together to put a stop to the Barbary pirates in the Mediterranean at the turn of the 19th Century because it was wreaking havoc on trade routes. That was an infrastructural maneuver. It certainly didn't come from the private sector. As a result, goods were able to flow, to the benefit of all private sector parties involved.

 

[Rozman]

Republicans have spent trillions on Iraq and Afghanistan. During the presidential debate, Romney said we should invest in economies and schools and infrastructure overseas.

What will it take to get conservatives to want to invest in this country?

What will it take to get conservatives to want to invest in this country?

Money probably....
We don't have any...
WE are borrowing money now so we can spend it...

Is ANY of this getting through to you Libs?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Since you bring it up, Acela, the high-speed arm of Amtrak, is one of the few profitable lines for the company. .

No it's not. They cook the books to make that part look profitable, but the whole thing is a giant money pit.

According to whom? My source was not a political one, and it does say it may be exaggerated a slight bit, like 31% and not 40%. What is your source? One with a political agenda?

Is the Northeast Corridor really profitable? - Fred Frailey - Trains Magazine - Trains.com online community

Anyway, this is not really about trains for me. I didn't get involved to defend trains, and I'm not really sure why I did.

 

[Unkotare]

Yes, I have. Have you given any thought as to how we can force our corporations to stay in the U.S. and stop manufacturing in China?

We can't and we shouldn't. We should make it more profitable and attractive to manufacture in America whatever it makes sense to manufacture in America.

Exactly.

The first step is to look at why so much of it is being done overseas.

Because it is more profitable to do so. Lower labor costs and less obstructive regulation (just pay the guanxi and get on with your business).

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

We can't and we shouldn't. We should make it more profitable and attractive to manufacture in America whatever it makes sense to manufacture in America.

Exactly.

The first step is to look at why so much of it is being done overseas.

Because it is more profitable to do so. Lower labor costs and less obstructive regulation (just pay the guanxi and get on with your business).

That would be another reason.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Republicans don't understand that the previous president's budget is in effect for nearly a year after he leaves office. Obama was sworn in at the beginning of the year, but he is stuck with Bush's budget until the end of October. That's they way it works. But because Obama was president and Bush's policies are failures, they must belong to Obama. Republicans simply can't face the truth. It causes too much pain.

The only problem with that theory is Bush vetoed the budget that Obama voted for, and later signed.

I didn't know that. I would love to read about it. Do you have a link?

Yes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just because OUR government has not been able to appropriate its infrastructure spending effectively doesn't mean it can't be done. Evidence here:

China approves $157-billion infrastructure spending | Reuters

shows China's level of commitment to economic growth, and their commitment to continue. Are we China? Of course not, nor would we want to be, but if you're looking for evidence of how a healthy and modern infrastructure supports to a more efficient and robust economy, I can think of few better examples. There are a number of reasons why our current system does not support the economy we would like to have. Appropriate infrastructure is one of them.

Do you know of another body/entity better suited? If you think corporations, good luck getting them to spend the kind of money necessary to make us globally relevant again. They'd much rather outsource to a country like China that DOES have the infrastructure to support their objectives. It's much easier and cheaper for them.

You want to compare a third world country that is emerging as an economic superpower because it is moving away from a centrally managed economy with the US? Are you aware that the only reason they are spending that much money on infrastructure is because they don't fracking have any?

I wasn't comparing China with the U.S., merely pointing out that a strong infrastructure supports economic growth. They are investing it, and their economy is growing. It's no mystery that U.S. companies let China do their manufacturing. There are multiple reasons, infrastructure is merely one of them and that was the only point I was trying to make.

If you would prefer an American example then look at the Interstate Highway System. The Interstate Highway system enacted in the 1950's corresponded with economic growth. It's a pretty simple connection. When things run efficiently, so does business. Thomas Jefferson believed in roads and public works too, because he recognized that it stimulated economic expansion and growth. It has already proven to be true, which is exactly why emerging economies are putting so much stock in it. They learned it from us. Why have we suddenly forgotten about it?

The thing is, we have a strong infrastructure. Politicians like to talk about how it is crumbling, but the fact is that the bridges that are inspected, and actually slated for repair or replacement, before they crumble. There are a few spectacular exceptions, but they are extremely rare.

 

[Rshermr]

Well, I used my "common sense" to see that when someone uses the first ten years of a program...in which during four of those ten years payments aren't being made...that the true cost of what ObamaCare is going to be is totally skewed. If you REALLY want to know what the cost of the program is going to be then you should get rid of the years when nothing is being paid out. The Democrats didn't DO that. They asked the CBO to crunch numbers for those first ten years. The proof of what I'm saying is that when the CBO did a followup ten year projection of costs...leaving out just one year at the front end and adding one at the back? The cost for ObamaCare increased substantially. And if you took away those four years when services won't be being paid for and replace them with four years where they WILL? Then the ten year cost of ObamaCare doubles.

Which is total nonsense. Just your poor common sense. So, you are saying that the cbo is stupid, and you are oh so smart. Sorry, oldstyle, I will put my money on the CBO. But thanks for your opinion. So, is it only you who sees the costs doubling. Are you saying no one else sees that. Including the CBO. You must have a link, oldstyle. But then, since you are simply lying again, you will have no link. dipshit. Quit wasting my time.

So let me get this straight...you really can't grasp that the numbers were "cooked" in that initial CBO estimate because they include the initial years of ObamaCare where money wasn't being paid out yet? And you need me to go find a "link" so that you can see that the costs of ObamaCare are going to be massively more expensive then one would have been led to believe from the initial 10 year projection that the CBO did? All I can say is WOW! Those poor students you "taught"? I'm sure it was an experience they'll never forget.

So, based on your off the top of the head analysis, you would certainly like the Affordable Care Act to be eliminated entirely. The republican dominated house voted to do so. Of course, that was an exercise in gamesmanship, as the senate simply voted against repealing the aCA, So, Boehner, trying, i suppose, to show it would be a good financial idea to repeal the ACA. So, he asked the CBO to score the effects on the deficit of repealing the ACA. And the CBO complied.
Now, a couple of realities, oldstyle. First, there was never a presidential or democratic requirement that the cbo only analyze the ACA for 10 years, as you have been claiming. Another untruth. Either a lie, or simply an outcome of lazyness on your part. Easy enough to find this out. Is this why you have not found a sourse to back up your contention that the dems purposely limited the length of time? The reason, as the CBO states in the link below, is that they can not be sure enough of what may happen over 10 years out. No dem screwing with the numbers as you keep claiming, simply an effort on the part of the cbo to keep the numbers as accurate as possible.

Second, the effect on the deficit of eliminating the ACA is estimated to be $109B. Here is the quote:

"Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period."
CBO | Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act

And, that is after the first 2.5 years of the ACA. Not from the beginning. So, about that logic of yours, oldstyle. My money is on the CBO. You are wrong again.
Is this why you can not find a link, oldstyle, and why you insulted me for not buying your logic? i suspect so. And that would make this ANOTHER lie. In my humble but correct opinion. But nice try, oldstyle. After your insults to my rationality about the issue, turns out you were WRONG and I was CORRECT. I suppose I should not wait with baited breath for your thanks for educating you again.

 

[Oldstyle]

You really are a piece of work.

Wow. An attack from a con tool. What a surprise. Well, that would be your opinion. My opinion of you is that you are a lying dipshit.

You accuse me of "lying" because unemployment peaked in late October instead of my "early in the year" which is a whole two months later? You said that 7 months went by between the passage of ObamaCare and when unemployment peaked when it was actually 8 and a half months. So I'm a liar because I was off by two months citing off the top of my head but you're NOT when you distort numbers that you're taking from someone else's web site? Do you really not grasp what an idiot you make yourself out to be when you post this nonsense?

I simply expect you to have a clue. Which you do not. I do not care that I was off a month. Nor do I care if you were off two months. Of course, you said early next year, and now you are saying the first of January. But, who cares. What is funny is that you are so proud of quoting off the top of your head, and you are almost always wrong. Prety stupid, eh, dipshit.

The problem that you have, Rshermr is that it was Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama who promised immediate jobs if the stimulus they sought was passed. I'm simply holding them to what THEY said we would get. In Nancy's case it was a preposterous 400,000 jobs created immediately. That never happened. It didn't even come CLOSE to happening! So were Nancy and Barry lying when they made those promises...or were they so monumentally clueless about how the process works that they promised something that anyone with a modicum of common sense KNEW wasn't going to occur?

The problem you have, Oldstyle, is that you think that anything that politicians say should be believed without question. Apparently are very, very naive. No, I did not believe the statements completely. But then, I understood they were politicians, and that this was a political battle between cons who wanted the economy to fail, and the administration which was trying to help the economy.
So, you say you are not a con tool. I may not be real smart, but I am old. And I have seen enough of people attacking Pelosi, and calling a sitting president Barry, to know when I am addressing a con tool. Really, oldstyle, it just does not pass the giggle test.

So when I'm off by two months, quoting off the top of my head, I'm a "liar" but when you're off a month and a half, from the dates that you're LOOKING AT from someone's site , you're not? No double standard there, "Tommy"!

So now January isn't early in the year? I suppose December isn't late in the year as well? Really, Rshermr? But "I'm" the guy playing fast and loose with the "truth"? LOL

I'm also amused by how you give Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama a "pass" for the lies that you now seem to be willing to admit they told because after all...they're politicians and therefore are expected to lie? You are right that there was a "battle" going on between the Administration and critics of it's proposed stimulus. Those critics correctly pointed out that what was proposed was NOT going to create jobs quickly. Nancy and Barry lied and said that it would. But that's OK with you because...hmmmm...I guess you're going to have to take a stab at explaining WHY it's all right for our political leaders to mislead us in order to get public support for the legislation they are proposing. To me it's a clear sign that they KNOW the legislation won't do what they are promising it will. That's lying.

As for why I attack Pelosi and Obama? I do so because they have been so inept with their handling of our fiscal problems. I attack them because they have been in charge of the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression. I attack them because at a time when millions of Americans are out of work and desperately need jobs, Barry and Nancy are seeking a tax increase that will put more people out of work. I attack them because we are running trillion dollar a year budget deficits and they are unwilling to even talk about cuts in spending to the entitlement programs that are the main drivers of those deficits. I attack them because they have an energy policy based on ideology rather than common sense. I attack them because they have given us a foreign policy that is so unfocused and confused that our enemies see us as weak and our allies see us as unreliable. THOSE are the reasons I attack Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama.

 

[Oldstyle]

Which is total nonsense. Just your poor common sense. So, you are saying that the cbo is stupid, and you are oh so smart. Sorry, oldstyle, I will put my money on the CBO. But thanks for your opinion. So, is it only you who sees the costs doubling. Are you saying no one else sees that. Including the CBO. You must have a link, oldstyle. But then, since you are simply lying again, you will have no link. dipshit. Quit wasting my time.

So let me get this straight...you really can't grasp that the numbers were "cooked" in that initial CBO estimate because they include the initial years of ObamaCare where money wasn't being paid out yet? And you need me to go find a "link" so that you can see that the costs of ObamaCare are going to be massively more expensive then one would have been led to believe from the initial 10 year projection that the CBO did? All I can say is WOW! Those poor students you "taught"? I'm sure it was an experience they'll never forget.

So, based on your off the top of the head analysis, you would certainly like the Affordable Care Act to be eliminated entirely. The republican dominated house voted to do so. Of course, that was an exercise in gamesmanship, as the senate simply voted against repealing the aCA, So, Boehner, trying, i suppose, to show it would be a good financial idea to repeal the ACA. So, he asked the CBO to score the effects on the deficit of repealing the ACA. And the CBO complied.
Now, a couple of realities, oldstyle. First, there was never a presidential or democratic requirement that the cbo only analyze the ACA for 10 years, as you have been claiming. Another untruth. Either a lie, or simply an outcome of lazyness on your part. Easy enough to find this out. Is this why you have not found a sourse to back up your contention that the dems purposely limited the length of time? The reason, as the CBO states in the link below, is that they can not be sure enough of what may happen over 10 years out. No dem screwing with the numbers as you keep claiming, simply an effort on the part of the cbo to keep the numbers as accurate as possible.

Second, the effect on the deficit of eliminating the ACA is estimated to be $109B. Here is the quote:

"Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period."
CBO | Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act

And, that is after the first 2.5 years of the ACA. Not from the beginning. So, about that logic of yours, oldstyle. My money is on the CBO. You are wrong again.
Is this why you can not find a link, oldstyle, and why you insulted me for not buying your logic? i suspect so. And that would make this ANOTHER lie. In my humble but correct opinion. But nice try, oldstyle. After your insults to my rationality about the issue, turns out you were WRONG and I was CORRECT. I suppose I should not wait with baited breath for your thanks for educating you again.

Kindly explain to all us then, "Tommy"...why the ten year projected "costs" of the ACA keep growing with each analysis that the CBO DOES? It's quite obvious to me that the main reason for that cost explosion is that with each passing year one of the years that the ACA wasn't paying out money is eliminated...revealing more and more of what the TRUE cost of ObamaCare is going to be. Do I REALLY need to cite a source for that? It's about as common sense a concept as you could possibly find...which is probably why YOU are having such a difficult time grasping it!

 

[Rshermr]

So let me get this straight...you really can't grasp that the numbers were "cooked" in that initial CBO estimate because they include the initial years of ObamaCare where money wasn't being paid out yet? And you need me to go find a "link" so that you can see that the costs of ObamaCare are going to be massively more expensive then one would have been led to believe from the initial 10 year projection that the CBO did? All I can say is WOW! Those poor students you "taught"? I'm sure it was an experience they'll never forget.

So, based on your off the top of the head analysis, you would certainly like the Affordable Care Act to be eliminated entirely. The republican dominated house voted to do so. Of course, that was an exercise in gamesmanship, as the senate simply voted against repealing the aCA, So, Boehner, trying, i suppose, to show it would be a good financial idea to repeal the ACA. So, he asked the CBO to score the effects on the deficit of repealing the ACA. And the CBO complied.
Now, a couple of realities, oldstyle. First, there was never a presidential or democratic requirement that the cbo only analyze the ACA for 10 years, as you have been claiming. Another untruth. Either a lie, or simply an outcome of lazyness on your part. Easy enough to find this out. Is this why you have not found a sourse to back up your contention that the dems purposely limited the length of time? The reason, as the CBO states in the link below, is that they can not be sure enough of what may happen over 10 years out. No dem screwing with the numbers as you keep claiming, simply an effort on the part of the cbo to keep the numbers as accurate as possible.

Second, the effect on the deficit of eliminating the ACA is estimated to be $109B. Here is the quote:

"Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period."
CBO | Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act

And, that is after the first 2.5 years of the ACA. Not from the beginning. So, about that logic of yours, oldstyle. My money is on the CBO. You are wrong again.
Is this why you can not find a link, oldstyle, and why you insulted me for not buying your logic? i suspect so. And that would make this ANOTHER lie. In my humble but correct opinion. But nice try, oldstyle. After your insults to my rationality about the issue, turns out you were WRONG and I was CORRECT. I suppose I should not wait with baited breath for your thanks for educating you again.

Kindly explain to all us then, "Tommy"...why the ten year projected "costs" of the ACA keep growing with each analysis that the CBO DOES? It's quite obvious to me that the main reason for that cost explosion is that with each passing year one of the years that the ACA wasn't paying out money is eliminated...revealing more and more of what the TRUE cost of ObamaCare is going to be. Do I REALLY need to cite a source for that? It's about as common sense a concept as you could possibly find...which is probably why YOU are having such a difficult time grasping it!

Sure, oldstyle. So you see no costs being offset over time. Just your logic that the costs are going to increase substantially. By the way, since you say you are such an objective guy, did you ever consider that the private insurance that ACA supplements and regulates was inflating at a rate of about 14% per year. That would have been an increase of about 170% over 10 years. But then, that would be ok with you, right? You probably never posted once about the increasing costs of private healthcare, right. And you are probably ok with the fact that we have about double the cost of the average country that comprise the top 35 industrialized nations. If you need a link, i can give you one.

Now, I just posted on the cost of eliminating the ACA, as calculated by the CBO for Boener. Just an oversight, I am sure. So, if it costs $109 BILLION over the next 10 years, which would be starting at year 2.5 of the ACA, then it appears to me that your logic is completely blown. Big surprise. There is that pesky CBO telling Boehner exactly what he did not want to hear. And, coincidentally, exactly what oldstyle did not want to hear. And, surprise of all surprises, Oldstyle is trying to ignore that.