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

[Oldstyle]

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?

The Election is over, Obama "won".

Will Obama keep his campaign promise from 2008 and bring the troops home?

Let's see $700 Billion is Stimulus didn't work. I have an idea!

More Stimulus!

So, Mad. You say the stimulus did not work. The CBO says it did. Who should I believe??? A con tool like Mad, or the CBO. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Tough choice, but my money is on the CBO.

Kindly explain a few things, Rshermr...if the stimulus really DID work, then why did unemployment go up? If the stimulus really DID work, then why did the Obama Administration have to invent a new economic statistic "jobs saved" to hide the fact that the stimulus that you SAY worked...actually didn't! If you took the cost of the stimulus and divided it by the amount of jobs that were REALLY created? The cost per job is so ridiculously outlandish that you really have to be "out there" to call the stimulus a success.

The CBO crunches whatever numbers it is GIVEN. If you give it bullshit to crunch...you'll get crunchy bullshit. It's still bullshit.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

I have an idea too.

First let's have an accounting of where the billions of dollars collected annually via gas taxes that are supposed to be earmarked for the upkeep of roads has gone.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Heard at Democrat scientist Engineering school:

"Oh my! What a pretty bridge! It looks just like Che!!"

"Yes, we know math is very hard subject. Do you know why? Because it's racist! So don't worry too much about it when you design your pretty bridges"

"Tell me how you feel about mechanical engineering"

 

[Oldstyle]

LOL...we're back to claiming that conservatives are less intelligent than liberals? If that's the case then why did Massachusetts (where I grew up) consistently elect Republicans (even though it's a heavily Democratic State) to fix the States fiscal problems? Hmmm...now WHY WOULD all those intellectually superior liberals need to do that?

 

[Dot Com]

Heard at Democrat scientist Engineering school:

"Oh my! What a pretty bridge! It looks just like Che!!"

"Yes, we know math is very hard subject. Do you know why? Because it's racist! So don't worry too much about it when you design your pretty bridges"

"Tell me how you feel about mechanical engineering"

lol..... NOT!!!

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I love it when idiots talk about crumbling infrastructure like it actually means something. Tell me something, do you have any idea why the Secretary of Transportation wants federal transportation funds, which should be used to maintain that infrastructure, to be diverted to a bullet train project in California? Wouldn't it make more sense to use that money to invest in the entire country than support a politically favored fat cat who wants to line his pockets?

And there goes Windbag. Who would have guessed that he would be against infrastructure spending. And who would have believed he would bring up bullett trains, like they made no sense? Or that he would accuse those in favor of "supporting a politically favored fat cat who wants to line his pockets"?

Why any of us would. And we would know that Windbag has no evidence that infrastructure spending does not stimulate the economy. And that he has no evidence that a fat cat is to be supported in building a bullet train in California. It is just Windbag, doing what windbag does. He is posting con dogma. Because that is what windbag is capable of.

Being against federal spending on bullet trains that run between two small cities in central California is not the same as being opposed to infrastructure spending. If bullet trains actually made sense, it wouldn't take 3 trains and longer than it takes to fly from San Francisco to New York to take a bullet train from San Francisco to Los Angeles. We would also see private sector investment in making it happen, the same way we see private sector investment in maintaining rail lines for freight trains.

Please, I beg you, try to justify investing in 19th century technology in the 21st century and call yourself a progressive, I enjoy trashing the idiots who think trains are new.

I understand your point.

However, when it comes to transportation, infrastructure is everything. Without it, no investment is really possible. Think about the amount of infrastructure that supports air travel. Most of the worlds airports are owned by government bodies who then lease to commercial entities to run them. Then there's TSA and the FAA. While it could be argued that commercial companies should provide all of these things, the fact is they don't, and if you remove all of that infrastructure there is no air travel, and hence no investment in air travel.

I agree that the "infrastructure" buzz word is widely misunderstood, and often used in debates with little to no authoritativeness. I also agree and understand that nobody will invest in a form of transportation, or anything else for that matter, unless it will turn a profit. However, when it comes to transportation, the issue is not as simple as manufacturing a new widget.

Whether or not high-speed rail is viable is debatable, and not really what I'm getting at. Somebody traveling from Los Angeles to San Francisco may very well choose high-speed rail at 200 MPH over the hassles of air travel today. I don't know for sure. What I do know is that such an investment is not possible without massive infrastructural support, so without it we will never know. I am in your corner in that I tend to favor entrepreneurial innovation over anything spearheaded by the government. However, there are exceptions, and transportation is one of them.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle says the following:

Kindly explain a few things, Rshermr...if the stimulus really DID work, then why did unemployment go up?

Because, old economic genius, unemployment does not ever go down immediately. You see, oldstyle, it takes a while to spend the money. If you look, you will see that the stimulus was approved in 2009 but that very little of the stimulus was spent then. Most of it was spent in 2010, with a good deal more spent in 2011 and 2012, And unemployment did go down.
Here is all you need to know about the distribution of the stimulus:
http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx
If you care to see the actual facts, you will notice that there are still stimulus dollars being spent.
Second, the stimulus was too small. Way too small. And of the $800B in stimulus, less than $500B was in spending. the rest was in the form of tax cuts, which had very little stimulative value.

If the stimulus really DID work, then why did the Obama Administration have to invent a new economic statistic "jobs saved" to hide the fact that the stimulus that you SAY worked...actually didn't!

Wow. Great con tool talking point. But pure drivel.

Here, Oldstyle, if you ever need the facts on unemployment, this is a good site to find the info:
http://www.davemanuel.com/historical-unemployment-rates-in-the-united-states.php

If you took the cost of the stimulus and divided it by the amount of jobs that were REALLY created? The cost per job is so ridiculously outlandish that you really have to be "out there" to call the stimulus a success.

Yes, well, what is that sentence, Oldstyle? Your opinion, or did you get it from the bat shit crazy con web sites that you normally cruse. Your opinion, if that is what it is, is totally against what economists believe, and different than what the CBO analysis say.

The CBO crunches whatever numbers it is GIVEN. If you give it bullshit to crunch...you'll get crunchy bullshit. It's still bullshit.

Wow. So those analysts and economists that work for the CBO do nothing. Just take numbers and crunch them. so all of that stuff the CBO says about gathering and analyzing, is, according to you untrue. Damn, Oldstyle. Gives us a conundrum, eh. Should we believe you, or the CBO. My money is on the CBO.
The really funny thing is that both republicans and democrats quote the cbo when it is in their favor. The con tool web sites do the same. But, being a true con tool, you attack the source of the information. Because, as usual, you have no integrity.
And, as usual, you have no source for your accusations. Because, if you did, they would be partial republican sites. And, if you do not use impartial sites at all, then you can say anything that you want. But it is just your opinion. And you know how much I value your opinion.

 

[Rshermr]

I think our stuff crumbles because only 6% of scientist are Republicans; we can't cover ever **** up, a lot of the Democrat scientist (promoted because how they feel about the subject instead of what they know) just designs stuff that's Eco-friendly and collapses when it rains.

And here we have another opinion piece by a con tool idiot. Crusader, I am so concerned. You know how much I value your opinion.

 

[Rshermr]

Heard at Democrat scientist Engineering school:

"Oh my! What a pretty bridge! It looks just like Che!!"

"Yes, we know math is very hard subject. Do you know why? Because it's racist! So don't worry too much about it when you design your pretty bridges"

"Tell me how you feel about mechanical engineering"

lol..... NOT!!!

And, here we have two con tools trying their hand at comedy. Normal folk see no comedy here. Maybe you have to be a con to see the humor. Maybe it explains why they have so few comedians among them. But I am sure, it does go to prove the already proven fact, by many many actual studies, that cons are stupid.

 

[Oddball]

I think our stuff crumbles because only 6% of scientist are Republicans; we can't cover ever **** up, a lot of the Democrat scientist (promoted because how they feel about the subject instead of what they know) just designs stuff that's Eco-friendly and collapses when it rains.

And here we have another opinion piece by a con tool idiot. Crusader, I am so concerned. You know how much I value your opinion.

You don't value the opinion of anyone who isn't a blood-shooting-out-the-ears lolberal pinhead like you....So we might as well just go ahead with the mockery and lulz.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And there goes Windbag. Who would have guessed that he would be against infrastructure spending. And who would have believed he would bring up bullett trains, like they made no sense? Or that he would accuse those in favor of "supporting a politically favored fat cat who wants to line his pockets"?

Why any of us would. And we would know that Windbag has no evidence that infrastructure spending does not stimulate the economy. And that he has no evidence that a fat cat is to be supported in building a bullet train in California. It is just Windbag, doing what windbag does. He is posting con dogma. Because that is what windbag is capable of.

Being against federal spending on bullet trains that run between two small cities in central California is not the same as being opposed to infrastructure spending. If bullet trains actually made sense, it wouldn't take 3 trains and longer than it takes to fly from San Francisco to New York to take a bullet train from San Francisco to Los Angeles. We would also see private sector investment in making it happen, the same way we see private sector investment in maintaining rail lines for freight trains.

Please, I beg you, try to justify investing in 19th century technology in the 21st century and call yourself a progressive, I enjoy trashing the idiots who think trains are new.

I understand your point.

However, when it comes to transportation, infrastructure is everything. Without it, no investment is really possible. Think about the amount of infrastructure that supports air travel. Most of the worlds airports are owned by government bodies who then lease to commercial entities to run them. Then there's TSA and the FAA. While it could be argued that commercial companies should provide all of these things, the fact is they don't, and if you remove all of that infrastructure there is no air travel, and hence no investment in air travel.

I agree that the "infrastructure" buzz word is widely misunderstood, and often used in debates with little to no authoritativeness. I also agree and understand that nobody will invest in a form of transportation, or anything else for that matter, unless it will turn a profit. However, when it comes to transportation, the issue is not as simple as manufacturing a new widget.

Whether or not high-speed rail is viable is debatable, and not really what I'm getting at. Somebody traveling from Los Angeles to San Francisco may very well choose high-speed rail at 200 MPH over the hassles of air travel today. I don't know for sure. What I do know is that such an investment is not possible without massive infrastructural support, so without it we will never know. I am in your corner in that I tend to favor entrepreneurial innovation over anything spearheaded by the government. However, there are exceptions, and transportation is one of them.

You actually missed my point.

The federal government should not support local projects, period. The gasoline tax raises more than enough money to maintain the interstate highway system, but we waste it on building bike lanes and hiking trails so that congresscritters can get votes and pay off favors.

By the way, the only way a high speed train from LA to San Francisco could travel 200 mph is if it didn't stop anywhere in between. They already have over 20 different stops planned, for the route, and a few of the people involved say that the current plans will require passengers to change trains twice. No one here actually wants the damn thing, and it shouldn't get federal money unless it crosses a state line, which it won't.

 

[Rshermr]

I think our stuff crumbles because only 6% of scientist are Republicans; we can't cover ever **** up, a lot of the Democrat scientist (promoted because how they feel about the subject instead of what they know) just designs stuff that's Eco-friendly and collapses when it rains.

And here we have another opinion piece by a con tool idiot. Crusader, I am so concerned. You know how much I value your opinion.

You don't value the opinion of anyone who isn't a blood-shooting-out-the-ears lolberal pinhead like you....So we might as well just go ahead with the mockery and lulz.

I never take the opinon of anyone I do not know well. And some of those that I know fairly well, I know better than to take their opinion on anything. And you would fit well among the latter.
What I might suggest is that you do what the knowledgeable have always done, and use impartial sources for proof. Sorry that is so foreign to you.,

 

[Rshermr]

Being against federal spending on bullet trains that run between two small cities in central California is not the same as being opposed to infrastructure spending. If bullet trains actually made sense, it wouldn't take 3 trains and longer than it takes to fly from San Francisco to New York to take a bullet train from San Francisco to Los Angeles. We would also see private sector investment in making it happen, the same way we see private sector investment in maintaining rail lines for freight trains.

Please, I beg you, try to justify investing in 19th century technology in the 21st century and call yourself a progressive, I enjoy trashing the idiots who think trains are new.

I understand your point.

However, when it comes to transportation, infrastructure is everything. Without it, no investment is really possible. Think about the amount of infrastructure that supports air travel. Most of the worlds airports are owned by government bodies who then lease to commercial entities to run them. Then there's TSA and the FAA. While it could be argued that commercial companies should provide all of these things, the fact is they don't, and if you remove all of that infrastructure there is no air travel, and hence no investment in air travel.

I agree that the "infrastructure" buzz word is widely misunderstood, and often used in debates with little to no authoritativeness. I also agree and understand that nobody will invest in a form of transportation, or anything else for that matter, unless it will turn a profit. However, when it comes to transportation, the issue is not as simple as manufacturing a new widget.

Whether or not high-speed rail is viable is debatable, and not really what I'm getting at. Somebody traveling from Los Angeles to San Francisco may very well choose high-speed rail at 200 MPH over the hassles of air travel today. I don't know for sure. What I do know is that such an investment is not possible without massive infrastructural support, so without it we will never know. I am in your corner in that I tend to favor entrepreneurial innovation over anything spearheaded by the government. However, there are exceptions, and transportation is one of them.

You actually missed my point.

The federal government should not support local projects, period. The gasoline tax raises more than enough money to maintain the interstate highway system, but we waste it on building bike lanes and hiking trails so that congresscritters can get votes and pay off favors.

By the way, the only way a high speed train from LA to San Francisco could travel 200 mph is if it didn't stop anywhere in between. They already have over 20 different stops planned, for the route, and a few of the people involved say that the current plans will require passengers to change trains twice. No one here actually wants the damn thing, and it shouldn't get federal money unless it crosses a state line, which it won't.

And again windbag makes pronouncements with no links to prove them. Opinion, only, windbag. And you know how much I value your opinion.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What I might suggest is that you do what the knowledgeable have always done, and use impartial sources for proof. Sorry that is so foreign to you.,

yes and how odd that his impartial sources always take the libturd point of view????

 

[Rshermr]

What I might suggest is that you do what the knowledgeable have always done, and use impartial sources for proof. Sorry that is so foreign to you.,

yes and how odd that his impartial sources always take the libturd point of view????

But to a con tool, everything has a liberal tint to it, except the dogma from their own favorite bat shit crazy con tool sites.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I understand your point.

However, when it comes to transportation, infrastructure is everything. Without it, no investment is really possible. Think about the amount of infrastructure that supports air travel. Most of the worlds airports are owned by government bodies who then lease to commercial entities to run them. Then there's TSA and the FAA. While it could be argued that commercial companies should provide all of these things, the fact is they don't, and if you remove all of that infrastructure there is no air travel, and hence no investment in air travel.

I agree that the "infrastructure" buzz word is widely misunderstood, and often used in debates with little to no authoritativeness. I also agree and understand that nobody will invest in a form of transportation, or anything else for that matter, unless it will turn a profit. However, when it comes to transportation, the issue is not as simple as manufacturing a new widget.

Whether or not high-speed rail is viable is debatable, and not really what I'm getting at. Somebody traveling from Los Angeles to San Francisco may very well choose high-speed rail at 200 MPH over the hassles of air travel today. I don't know for sure. What I do know is that such an investment is not possible without massive infrastructural support, so without it we will never know. I am in your corner in that I tend to favor entrepreneurial innovation over anything spearheaded by the government. However, there are exceptions, and transportation is one of them.

You actually missed my point.

The federal government should not support local projects, period. The gasoline tax raises more than enough money to maintain the interstate highway system, but we waste it on building bike lanes and hiking trails so that congresscritters can get votes and pay off favors.

By the way, the only way a high speed train from LA to San Francisco could travel 200 mph is if it didn't stop anywhere in between. They already have over 20 different stops planned, for the route, and a few of the people involved say that the current plans will require passengers to change trains twice. No one here actually wants the damn thing, and it shouldn't get federal money unless it crosses a state line, which it won't.

And again windbag makes pronouncements with no links to prove them. Opinion, only, windbag. And you know how much I value your opinion.

I'm sorry, I wasn't paying attention.

Did you say something?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Being against federal spending on bullet trains that run between two small cities in central California is not the same as being opposed to infrastructure spending. If bullet trains actually made sense, it wouldn't take 3 trains and longer than it takes to fly from San Francisco to New York to take a bullet train from San Francisco to Los Angeles. We would also see private sector investment in making it happen, the same way we see private sector investment in maintaining rail lines for freight trains.

Please, I beg you, try to justify investing in 19th century technology in the 21st century and call yourself a progressive, I enjoy trashing the idiots who think trains are new.

I understand your point.

However, when it comes to transportation, infrastructure is everything. Without it, no investment is really possible. Think about the amount of infrastructure that supports air travel. Most of the worlds airports are owned by government bodies who then lease to commercial entities to run them. Then there's TSA and the FAA. While it could be argued that commercial companies should provide all of these things, the fact is they don't, and if you remove all of that infrastructure there is no air travel, and hence no investment in air travel.

I agree that the "infrastructure" buzz word is widely misunderstood, and often used in debates with little to no authoritativeness. I also agree and understand that nobody will invest in a form of transportation, or anything else for that matter, unless it will turn a profit. However, when it comes to transportation, the issue is not as simple as manufacturing a new widget.

Whether or not high-speed rail is viable is debatable, and not really what I'm getting at. Somebody traveling from Los Angeles to San Francisco may very well choose high-speed rail at 200 MPH over the hassles of air travel today. I don't know for sure. What I do know is that such an investment is not possible without massive infrastructural support, so without it we will never know. I am in your corner in that I tend to favor entrepreneurial innovation over anything spearheaded by the government. However, there are exceptions, and transportation is one of them.

You actually missed my point.

The federal government should not support local projects, period. The gasoline tax raises more than enough money to maintain the interstate highway system, but we waste it on building bike lanes and hiking trails so that congresscritters can get votes and pay off favors.

By the way, the only way a high speed train from LA to San Francisco could travel 200 mph is if it didn't stop anywhere in between. They already have over 20 different stops planned, for the route, and a few of the people involved say that the current plans will require passengers to change trains twice. No one here actually wants the damn thing, and it shouldn't get federal money unless it crosses a state line, which it won't.

No, I got it. I had simply noted a perspective about transportation infrastructure that I didn't entirely agree with, and from much earlier in the thread. I may have been reaching back too far.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Only 6% of our scientists are Republicans, and Deany says our infrastructure is crumbling. Hmmmm

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What I might suggest is that you do what the knowledgeable have always done, and use impartial sources for proof. Sorry that is so foreign to you.,

yes and how odd that his impartial sources always take the libturd point of view????

But to a con tool, everything has a liberal tint to it, except the dogma from their own favorite bat shit crazy con tool sites.

Conservative/libertarian dogma comes from Aristotle Jefferson Friedman. If you have an objection to it try to state it or admit that you lack the IQ to do so.

 

[Oddball]

What I might suggest is that you do what the knowledgeable have always done, and use impartial sources for proof. Sorry that is so foreign to you.,

yes and how odd that his impartial sources always take the libturd point of view????

But to a con tool, everything has a liberal tint to it, except the dogma from their own favorite bat shit crazy con tool sites.

Good thing you don't project....Much...