Liberals Scream"Spend More on Infrastructure..."

[kaz]

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

Who does that? Link?



I crack myself up. Like I'm going to get one from you. Then you'll turn around and whine and scream for other people to provide them.

 

[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 The network of embassies and consulates that we have now is based on some outdated concepts.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.

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.

Just asking for the facts....

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.

.

Well, she's not in government right now. If she gets back in, it will be because she wins an election by getting the most votes.

 

[BlackSand]

Just asking for the facts...

No you aren't ... Because they have already been given and/or are easy enough to Google.
You are attempting to make nonexistent excuses and being obtuse in the process ... At least be honest with yourself enough to understand that ... I do.

.

 

[candycorn]

Just asking for the facts...

No you aren't ... Because they have already been given and/or are easy enough to Google.
You are attempting to make nonexistent excuses and being obtuse in the process ... At least be honest with yourself enough to understand that ... I do.

.

Look, you brought up the relationship between HRC and Boeing, correct? Correct. Now, I asked you how much (if anything) Boeing gave before she was SoS and after. As I pointed out, you seem to be an expert so obviously you'd have the data at your fingertips.

Your assertion is that there is something crooked going on. I'm pretty sure you are not a fan of Ms. Clinton or the Clintons or Democrats or liberals or something as I can gleem from your petty sniping. No worries. I'm simply saying tell the whole story. I have no idea what the facts will indicate. But, again, from your unwillingness to tell the entire story I can only gleem that it doesn't support your position.

Have a nice day.

 

[longknife]

Blaming the Amtrak Derailing on Lack of Infrastructure


The cited article asks what happened to the $787 BILLION that Obama asked for and got to “improve the nation's infrastructure”?


That's a damned good question! Just another empty promise? I did he use it to pay back those who got him into office?


So, the media makes its usual stupid take on a tragedy that was in fact a criminal act.


Read more with links @ Doug Ross Journal BEST RESPONSE TO LIBERAL MEDIA S LATEST LIE Lack of Infrastructure Spending Caused Amtrak Crash

 

[BlackSand]

Just asking for the facts...

No you aren't ... Because they have already been given and/or are easy enough to Google.
You are attempting to make nonexistent excuses and being obtuse in the process ... At least be honest with yourself enough to understand that ... I do.

.

Look, you brought up the relationship between HRC and Boeing, correct? Correct. Now, I asked you how much (if anything) Boeing gave before she was SoS and after. As I pointed out, you seem to be an expert so obviously you'd have the data at your fingertips.

Your assertion is that there is something crooked going on. I'm pretty sure you are not a fan of Ms. Clinton or the Clintons or Democrats or liberals or something as I can gleem from your petty sniping. No worries. I'm simply saying tell the whole story. I have no idea what the facts will indicate. But, again, from your unwillingness to tell the entire story I can only gleem that it doesn't support your position.

Have a nice day.

If you want to know something not related to what I mentioned ... You look it up yourself, I am not your secretary.
If you want to make a point that contradicts my assertions ... Then do so ... I am not chasing your tail.

I didn't suggest there was something crooked going on ... I pointed out what it was.
You having no idea what the story is in no way amounts to my story being wrong ... You aren't that special.

If you don't want petty sniping ... Step up, present your case, or shut the fuck up!
It is your choice ... The more you look into the story the more damning it will become.

You will better benefit from your own research ... You don't have to take my word for it.
If you need help learning how to use the computer ... Shoot me a PM and will assist you if and when it suits me.

.

 

[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.

 

[oldernwiser]

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.

.

Of course military contractors benefit from the government. This happens regardless of who's in charge. YOU want a strong military, that doesn't come cheap. And wherever money flows in the unchecked quantity that it flows to the military, there will certainly be abuses and questionable applications. You can't point at Hillary, her predecessors or even future candidates. As long as the system remains what is, and we the people maintain the attitude that a mighty military is THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT then corruption charges will continue. How well did Haliburton fare in the last administration?

 

[candycorn]

Just asking for the facts...

No you aren't ... Because they have already been given and/or are easy enough to Google.
You are attempting to make nonexistent excuses and being obtuse in the process ... At least be honest with yourself enough to understand that ... I do.

.

Look, you brought up the relationship between HRC and Boeing, correct? Correct. Now, I asked you how much (if anything) Boeing gave before she was SoS and after. As I pointed out, you seem to be an expert so obviously you'd have the data at your fingertips.

Your assertion is that there is something crooked going on. I'm pretty sure you are not a fan of Ms. Clinton or the Clintons or Democrats or liberals or something as I can gleem from your petty sniping. No worries. I'm simply saying tell the whole story. I have no idea what the facts will indicate. But, again, from your unwillingness to tell the entire story I can only gleem that it doesn't support your position.

Have a nice day.

If you want to know something not related to what I mentioned ... You look it up yourself, I am not your secretary.
If you want to make a point that contradicts my assertions ... Then do so ... I am not chasing your tail.

That is pretty much what I thought you'd say when having to decide between taking pot-shots and telling the whole story.

I didn't suggest there was something crooked going on ... I pointed out what it was.
You having no idea what the story is in no way amounts to my story being wrong ... You aren't that special.

No you cherry-picked two facts and put a spin on it. The people will decide on Ms. Clinton. I'd start practicing referring to her as President Clinton or Clinton II if I were you however; that way you can beat the Christmas rush.

If you don't want petty sniping ... Step up, present your case, or shut the fuck up!
It is your choice ... The more you look into the story the more damning it will become.

All that right presents is petty sniping. That is because the right wing Congress that was elected last November is doing zilch. It's hard to be the party of "no" when you're in the majority. So snipe away.....it's just as meaningless as you are.

 

[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

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.

 

[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.

 

[AntiParty]

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.

Holy crap my brain is melting reading this..

There is a difference between necessary and unnecessary taxation. THAT divides the smart people. What divides the stupids is topics like this.

NAAFTA is why our Industrial jobs was sent oversea's. All parties wanted it. Ross Perot said there would be a giant sucking sound of jobs going away. The Left tried to pass a bill in 2010 that would give tax breaks to people who hired in America and stop tax breaks for outsourcing and the Right voted it down. THAT is jobs.

Infrastructure? It's been talked about for a decade that the "I hate taxation" knuckle draggers are going to cost us many lives due to their lack of understanding of taxation. "I hate taxes" is what they know and that is all. Grover Norquist and his list proved that.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Horseshit. AMTRAK can't even make a profit on the food service for the Acela train, and that's on a train where your customers can't go anywhere else for food. Customers pay $9.00 for a hamburger that costs AMTRAK $17.00 to make.

AMTRAK hasn't opened any new lines, so your accusation is absurd on it's face.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

you're delusional if you think Congress is every going to eliminate programs.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Parking a car in San Francisco is going to cost you about $20/day, so I find that claim rather incredible.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

you're delusional if you think Congress is every going to eliminate programs.

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

 

[candycorn]

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.

you're delusional if you think Congress is every going to eliminate programs.

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?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

you're delusional if you think Congress is every going to eliminate programs.

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

I'll bet you would be surprised by what a Republican Congress does even when a Republican is in the White House. The theory that reversing the damage caused by the federal government can be accomplished by electing the right politicians has proved to be a delusion. A politician has nothing to gain by eliminating government programs, which guarantees that it will never happen.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

you're delusional if you think Congress is every going to eliminate programs.

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?

Bush was a liberal, so that's no surprise.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

you're delusional if you think Congress is every going to eliminate programs.

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.