Liberals Scream"Spend More on Infrastructure..."

[candycorn]

Yes, GWB really limited government quite a bit...didn't he?

If you think I'm a big fan of GWB and his massive expansion of government, you're wrong.

Well, gee, who was the last Republican President to trim the size of government?

Reagan would have, congress kept blocking him. If he had is way we wouldn't have wasted another trillion on the DOE.

But he didn't. The same guy you say would have shrunk government what...quadrupled military spending. In his book "My American Journey", Colin Powell talks about how him and Cap Weinberger moved from their budget to their "wish" list to their "dream" list at the behest of the White House.

It worked...don't get me wrong.

I've often commented that Reagan doesn't deserve a place on Mt. Rushmore...he deserves his own mountain (I predict in the next 100 years or so, he'll have a memorial in DC on the mall somewhere--if MLK deserves one, Reagan most assuredly does for ending communism as we knew it).

But please don't sit there and tell us he was some sort of small government fundamentalist.

Carter decimated our military, Reagan knew defense is the primary function of the federal government. When Reagan was elected morale was in the tank, military equipment was falling apart, hell were still driving 1940's jeeps. Like you said, most every dime spent on the military was worth it. Unfortunately the dems didn't learn the lesson of Reagan, every one since has undermined the military. Just a note, I served under Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton. Reagan did a lot of good with Tip O'Neill but reducing the size of government wasn't one of them, even though he tried.

So basically he gets 100% of the credit and the Dems in Congress got 100% of the blame. Amazing.

 

[Andylusion]

Does anyone know of a nation on the planet earth that has a rail system and a government that does not subsidize it? Perhaps if we could find that nation we could use their system for a model. Also, has their ever been a time in the history of America since railroads appeared that the government has not subsidized them?

Is there a dog on this planet that doesn't have fleas?

The "everybody does it argument" doesn't even fool small children.

What a stupid response.

Yeah, right. It's "stupid" because it shows the pure idiocy of your so-called "logic." Because 'A' is always found with 'B' it doesn't fallow that 'A' is beneficial to 'B.' Libturds often resort to this fallacy when they can't prove their case using actual logic and facts.

Rail transport is an important piece of infrastructure which Americans turned over to private enterprise, trusting they would keep it up in a more efficient, cost effective manner than government. Clearly, that hasn't happened.

Americans didn't "turn it over to private enterprise." Private enterprise created it and then developed it for the next 100 years. Passenger rail wouldn't exist if it wasn't for private enterprise, dingbat. Then, in the 1959s, the government built the interstate highway system and made passenger rail service uneconomic. It's hard to compete with a system the government subsidizes to the tune of $150 billion every year.

The American belief that private enterprise does everything better and cheaper than government is a conservative myth that deserves to die. Cheaper, yes, because they don't have to tender every project and giving contracts to the lowest bidder isn't always the most cost efficient way to go. But operating infrastructure on a bottom line basis means that running locomotives with one engineer is cheaper but not safer. Not providing infrastructure improvements is cheaper but not safer. Failure to maintain tracks and equipment is cheaper but not safer.

Sometimes the cheapest way of doing things, is not the safest or the best.

It's not a myth. It's a fact. Government can't even make a profit on a the $9.00 hamburger it sells on the AMTRAK Acela.

Just look at the infrastructure built by private enterprise. Look at all those skyscrapers down town. Look at Disney World and Universal Studios. They are all gleaming and well maintained. Then look at the roads in your city - full of pot holes in most of the cities I've been in. I don't know where anyone could get the idea that government does a better job of maintaining infrastructure. There's absolutely no evidence of it.

All you libs were screaming that that the AMTRAK wreck was cause by bad infrastructure, so you look rather stupid claiming that government does a better job of maintaining infrastructure. The disaster in New Orleans that occurred during hurricane Katrina was the result of government not spending enough on maintaining the levies. How much more proof do you need that government does a bad job of maintaining infrastructure?

Building of the American rail system was a shared endeavor by government and private business. The railroads could have and would have never been built without contributions of public lands and government action to create right of ways across private land. The rest of your rant of nonsense ignores the landscape of littered failed businesses that have left the debris of damage and bankruptcy in it;s wake. Seriously, world famous destination tourist attractions used as comparisons to roads, rail systems, power grids, etc. If we could charge everyone what it cost to go to an amusement park for a day to use our highways and roads for the day we would probably do great.

That is somewhat true..... But then you must realize that you setup your own failure. If the government confiscates land, then of course the rail roads have no choice but to go to government to get the land they need.

There is no justification for claiming that had the land been in private hand from the beginning that they could not have purchased the land. Just because something didn't happen that way, doesn't mean it could not have happened any other way.

A perfect example of this is the State of Gujarat India.
The Gujarat miracle There is no denying the major economic advances the state has made under Narendra Modi - The Times of India
2001 Gujarat earthquake - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Gujarat s astonishing rise from rubble of 2001 quake - BBC News

Gujarat India was in the 1990s, the poorest of all India provinces. In 2001, they suffered a devastating Earthquake that wiped out what little Gujarat had. The biggest of cities in Gujarat was wiped out, reduced to rubble.

The local government of Gujarat, with literally nothing to lose, and without local opposition...... engaged in a move towards unlimited unbridled Capitalism.

The government reduced regulation. Eliminated red tape. Opened the entire province to nearly unlimited investment. The government created Tax-Free zones. Business could open up shop, and have guaranteed tax-free operation for 5-years straight. No import duties either.

As a result the largest sea port in India, is now in Gujarat.... and get this..... it was privately built. No "infrastructure spending" by the government. The companies built the entire thing themselves.

They also built the rail lines, to transport goods to and from the port.... privately. They also built a four-lane highway for transport of trucked goods..... PRIVATELY.....

Gujarat is home to two of the largest power plants in India, one a 4 GW, and 4.6 GW power plants.... built PRIVATELY. As a result, Gujarat was the first to offer 24-hour continuous power service even to rural areas.

Gujarat is now the industrial manufacturing capital of India. Sewer systems, power grid, water supply, roads and rail..... most of which was built PRIVATELY.

Ford Motors is building a plant in Gujarat India.

My point.....

Private companies, can.... and do..... build infrastructure themselves. The question is will the government let them. Yeah, you have government buy up all the land... and then you say companies couldn't do it without government giving them the land? Duh. Get rid of the regulations... get rid of the taxes.... get rid of the red tape.... allow capitalism to work, and you'll have all the infrastructure you could possibly need.

 

[Andylusion]

If you think I'm a big fan of GWB and his massive expansion of government, you're wrong.

Well, gee, who was the last Republican President to trim the size of government?

Reagan would have, congress kept blocking him. If he had is way we wouldn't have wasted another trillion on the DOE.

But he didn't. The same guy you say would have shrunk government what...quadrupled military spending. In his book "My American Journey", Colin Powell talks about how him and Cap Weinberger moved from their budget to their "wish" list to their "dream" list at the behest of the White House.

It worked...don't get me wrong.

I've often commented that Reagan doesn't deserve a place on Mt. Rushmore...he deserves his own mountain (I predict in the next 100 years or so, he'll have a memorial in DC on the mall somewhere--if MLK deserves one, Reagan most assuredly does for ending communism as we knew it).

But please don't sit there and tell us he was some sort of small government fundamentalist.

Carter decimated our military, Reagan knew defense is the primary function of the federal government. When Reagan was elected morale was in the tank, military equipment was falling apart, hell were still driving 1940's jeeps. Like you said, most every dime spent on the military was worth it. Unfortunately the dems didn't learn the lesson of Reagan, every one since has undermined the military. Just a note, I served under Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton. Reagan did a lot of good with Tip O'Neill but reducing the size of government wasn't one of them, even though he tried.

So basically he gets 100% of the credit and the Dems in Congress got 100% of the blame. Amazing.

Credit where credit is due, and blame where blame is due.

Military equipment isn't like a solid cement bunker that lasts forever. If you don't maintain what is built, it won't be around very long.

I happen to go to a military air force base back in 2006. Half the base had been shut down in 1996, and sold off as un-used land to the local city counsel which did nothing with it. In just 10 years, the hangers, gates and fences, and most importantly all the air strips... utterly ruined. I was shocked that in just 10 years, some areas of the old runway were almost gravel.

This is what people on the left don't seem to grasp about military spending. The cost to maintain something, is a tiny fraction of the cost to replace something.

Oh we don't need tanks right now. Let's moth ball our M-1 Abram tanks. Give that 5-years, and now all those tanks are junk, and have to spend billions replacing hundreds of decayed useless tanks.

Oh we don't need air bases right now. Give that a decade, and we'll have to spend billions completely demolishing, and rebuilding an entire air base.

Ironically, it was just five years ago, 2010, in which we had a huge debate over building tanks. We don't need tanks. We have no use for tanks. The military said they didn't need them. Congress said we don't need them. Big huge debate, let's eliminate our tanks, and our tank building factories. We have no use for them. What possible reason should we still make them?

.... then.... fast forward 5 years, and Russia rolls tanks into Crimea and Ukraine....... huh...... well gee golly..... I guess we do need tanks.... I wonder how many billions we'll have to spend to replace all those tanks we didn't need?

So yes... Democrats do get the blame. Reagan rightly, and correctly, built up our military. Clinton, Bush and Obama, have done their best to tear it down. Credit where credit is due, and blame where blame is due.

 

[bripat9643]

Governments have been chintzing on infrastructure maintenance because it doesn't impress voters. Telling constituents that you fixed the old bridge doesn't make a big impression. Telling them you got them a shiny NEW bridge, gets you votes.

So infrastructure dollars go to new things. And infrastructure maintenance is the first item cut from budgets. It's spending nobody notices so it's easy to cut.

But you have been telling us that government is better at maintaining infrastructure. No you're telling us exactly the opposite.

 

[bripat9643]

You mean as long as there is a dem president? I think the republican congress would be very open to it.

Yes, GWB really limited government quite a bit...didn't he?

If you think I'm a big fan of GWB and his massive expansion of government, you're wrong.

Well, gee, who was the last Republican President to trim the size of government?

Reagan would have, congress kept blocking him. If he had is way we wouldn't have wasted another trillion on the DOE.

But he didn't. The same guy you say would have shrunk government what...quadrupled military spending. In his book "My American Journey", Colin Powell talks about how him and Cap Weinberger moved from their budget to their "wish" list to their "dream" list at the behest of the White House.

It worked...don't get me wrong.

I've often commented that Reagan doesn't deserve a place on Mt. Rushmore...he deserves his own mountain (I predict in the next 100 years or so, he'll have a memorial in DC on the mall somewhere--if MLK deserves one, Reagan most assuredly does for ending communism as we knew it).

But please don't sit there and tell us he was some sort of small government fundamentalist.

Reagan only increased military spending by about 30%. Whenever a lib starts spewing about the defence budget, it's almost guaranteed to be a lie.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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!

And you are the asshole using the dead to push an agenda. You are the miserable cretin who screams "if we had invested in our infrastructure, those people wouldn't be dead!"

How dare you call yourself a decent human being? You know no shame whatsoever.

We spend about 2-3% of the federal budget on infrastructure.

And? Does it pay for funerals?

f we wish to have the best,,,well, we better be ready to pay for it.

Oh sure. Eight innocent Americans paid for it. Happy now? I'm pretty sure you're delighted to have an excuse.

Of course, you don't want us to be the best! Your plan is Slash, cut and burn!!!

If we have to be the best whilst standing on the backs of the dead, count me out. If we must bandy the corpses of innocent citizens in the air to make a false point, then I am truly ashamed. If this is what America will become, then let it fall by the wayside. As long as there are people like you running America, it is surely damned.

You know in your heart of hearts the infrastructure had nothing to do with the crash, yet you carry on with your filth. Your plan is to lie through your teeth, use any means of exploitation to get your way, even if it means using the dead as your pawns.

You disgust me, all you so called "liberals" do. You are completely incorrigible malcontents.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm issuing an open challenge. Show us how the infrastructure (or lack thereof) caused the accident. Be specific. If you want to justify your sick little game, justify it.

 

[Dragonlady]

Oh the drama!!!!

 

[bodecea]

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.

Let's not...and see what happens.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh the drama!!!!

Care to take the challenge? Or are you too afraid to admit the infrastructure has nothing to do with the crash?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Do you guys even care about those who died? Seriously, do you?

 

[kiwiman127]

Yeah, we shouldn't spend money on our infrastructure, we just should spend money on defense.

 

[Kosh]

Yeah, we shouldn't spend money on our infrastructure, we just should spend money on defense.
View attachment 41337

Spoken like a true far left drone!

 

[candycorn]

Yes, GWB really limited government quite a bit...didn't he?

If you think I'm a big fan of GWB and his massive expansion of government, you're wrong.

Well, gee, who was the last Republican President to trim the size of government?

Reagan would have, congress kept blocking him. If he had is way we wouldn't have wasted another trillion on the DOE.

But he didn't. The same guy you say would have shrunk government what...quadrupled military spending. In his book "My American Journey", Colin Powell talks about how him and Cap Weinberger moved from their budget to their "wish" list to their "dream" list at the behest of the White House.

It worked...don't get me wrong.

I've often commented that Reagan doesn't deserve a place on Mt. Rushmore...he deserves his own mountain (I predict in the next 100 years or so, he'll have a memorial in DC on the mall somewhere--if MLK deserves one, Reagan most assuredly does for ending communism as we knew it).

But please don't sit there and tell us he was some sort of small government fundamentalist.

Reagan only increased military spending by about 30%. Whenever a lib starts spewing about the defence budget, it's almost guaranteed to be a lie.

A: It happened during peace time
B: According to your graphic, the spending rose from below about 400B to about 600B--a $200B increase. That is near a 50% rise. Your source not mine.

 

[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.

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

OK fine... let's look at that from a different angle. The NE corridor parallels I95 which - as anyone who has to drive that road can tell you - has too many cars for too little road surface. On top of that, US Census data shows that every year we can expect the number of vehicles using that road to increase by around 2% due to population growth alone. Since it's a major route, more businesses have been placed in areas with quick access - which further congests it, especially in and around metro areas and burns millions of gallons of fuel every year just waiting for the traffic ahead to clear. I95 is a federal road, which means that when it falls into disrepair it's the government which funds it - and with more traffic than every hitting that roadway, it will fall into disrepair with greater regularity. There's a limit as to how wide you can make the road and the cost of widening will also fall on the government to fund. So, either way you look at it, the government is going to spend money... lots of it.

I think, if you look at it, transportation is in the national interest. Commuter rails have been proven not only to reduce the number of vehicles on the roads (if you don't believe that, try commuting from Oakland to San Francisco during a BART strike), but reduces oil consumption. And, if we're going to have to pay for transportation anyway, we should actually be looking to be efficient as possible and develop ways of getting around that has a much longer limit timeline.

LOL, this is the classic argument, you make it sound like you've come up with an angle no one has thought of.

Yes, the I-95 corridor is hell. I lived a bunch of time in the DC area and a bunch of time in the NY area. I used to go up and down 95 quite a bit. At least a decade ago, it just got so painful I stopped and when I was driving I started driving up through Pennsylvania. Further but faster.

However, here's what's wrong with your argument. Look at the # of people who travel on the train versus by car on those roads. It's a pittance, they add almost nothing to the roads. Then you look at the cost of keeping the train running. It's a feel good argument with no substance.

That isn't the argument's fault at all. The average speed of an AMTRAK train is 57mph in the NE corridor - and much slower going through congested areas with lots of crossings. When the road is clear, you can drive 65-70 mph with far fewer stops. This gets you where you want to be in much less time than taking a train. Our train system was designed in the 1800s and the layout really hasn't changed much. But if you could commute between DC and NY in a couple of hours or less (trains that reach a speed of 200+mph already exist), do you think there might be more riders? How about if there was a fast and easy connection to and from more suburbs?

BART in SF is not a high speed rail, but there is really no other way I could find to ease the commute into and out of the city. Even with delays, my travel time was cut significantly. And I knew quite a folks who left a junker parked in the city for when they got off the train so they could get around town and parked it overnight when they went home again. It saved hours of inching (literally) over a 5 lane bridge.

On 95, hell yeah if they could do 200 mph there would be more riders. That was what held me back from using it. The 5 hour train trip was just too long with constant shuttles flying. You get it down to a couple hours and then you're in the game with the time to get in and out of airports and avoid the endless weather delays.

I lived in the bay area also, San Jose. The whole area is a parking lot, yes, BART as miserable as it can be is a good option if it's viable on your travel route. I consider BART and Amtrak entirely different discussions though. Regional transportation makes a lot more sense for government involvement than traveling between cities

However, again, on Amtrak, if people won't pay for it on their own, why would it make sense for government to do it?

Well, consider this - all transportation, public as well as private, is subsidized by the government whether it's roads or rails. None of them turn a profit. When you take a bus, you pay a small fraction of the actual cost for maintenance of the fleet. If you drive, you pay excise taxes for your vehicle and the tires you buy which pays for a fraction of the maintenance of the roads you drive on. None of these fees even comes close, in aggregate, to paying for actual expenses - they're shared costs. The remainder is funded through direct taxation - you pay for public transit whether you use it or not, OTH people who don't drive also pay for roads. So why would you expect Amtrak, which is entirely a government owned transit system, to do anything different? There is only one government entity which provides a service to citizens which actually makes money - the Postal Service (and Congress wants to see that privatized... makes you wonder, huh?).

 

[oldernwiser]

Parking in SF is horrrible and expensive, and was when I last lived in The City nearly 40 years ago. However, one can park at Daly City*** BART overnight for free, or a dollar if they now charge to park. This way someone can have a junker and park without fear of tows or tickets as long as they don't leave the are longer than 24 hours.

*** Daly City is the most northern city in San Mateo Co. and its BART Station is less than half a mile from the SF City line.

Yes, I remember Daly City. Driving up from San Jose as you say that was the last exit before going into SF. You look at the cost of housing in SF, is living somewhere else and renting a parking spot in SF really worse? And as oldernwiser pointed out, traffic there is unbelievable, and I lived in NY, DC and Atlanta areas as well. I've lived in eight states from coast to coast, I've never seen traffic like there

Believe it or not, it's even worse in Los Angeles. I could never tell when rush hour was on the 5. Even late Sunday nights it was worse than Boston traffic at 5pm on a Friday.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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 wasn't aware income from factory jobs was taxed any differently than income from other jobs.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Still nothing, eh?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh the drama!!!!

Care to take the challenge? Or are you too afraid to admit the infrastructure has nothing to do with the crash?

Actually it did because lack of funding was one of the reasons the automated train control system was not in place.

 

[Kosh]

Oh the drama!!!!

Care to take the challenge? Or are you too afraid to admit the infrastructure has nothing to do with the crash?

Actually it did because lack of funding was one of the reasons the automated train control system was not in place.

Another far left drone post that proves that the far left would much rather watch the world burn than admit they are wrong!