Liberals Scream"Spend More on Infrastructure..."

[candycorn]

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

What would be the consequences to cutting ........ the care and support of illegal immigrants, building mosques on foreign soil, supplying weapons to drug lords and terrorists, most of the foreign aid given to foreign governments, exploring the far reaches of the universe, stupid projects such as the fence along our southern border, no-bid government contracts, unnecessary military spending, subsidies to rich farmers and big oil, bribes paid to North Korea and Iran, unnecessary government travel, the ridiculous perks and benefits given to members of Congress, lavish White House vacations, studying the sex habits of cockroaches, looking for water on the surface of Mars, and giving tax refunds to dead people?

Well Sonny...

I see you're back to your gloom and doom mindset. I'll take the first and last.

When I worked in public health, we had a refugee program that provided medications to refugees that were anti-parasite, anti-fungal, and anti-bacterial. The thought was that if you are going to have these people in the community since we didn't build that "stupid fence", it was better to have them without tapeworms. Not sure how many lives we saved but I would put it in the hundreds.

And the tax refunds to dead people. When you hear about the GOP talking about "cutting spending to the bone", usually this means the guy who does such things as removing the dead from tax rolls is furloughed to avoid paying her/him a salary.

Typical government logic. They should have furloughed the guy spending all the money.

huh?

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Dragonlady]

Reagan's solution to high unemployment was to expand government employment by 1,000,000 workers. At the time he said that government workers buy things too.

 

[Leweman]

Reagan's solution to high unemployment was to expand government employment by 1,000,000 workers. At the time he said that government workers buy things too.

Not sure what your point is regardless, but you are a liar. Federal government employment only increased by 300,000 from 1981 to 1988.

 

[Camp]

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.

As a matter of fact, yes, there are millions of dogs on this planet that do not have fleas. Technology and methods of keeping fleas off of dogs has been around for decades, maybe longer. Anyone who would think that fleas on dogs is unavoidable is an uneducated idiot.
Obviously you can not answer the question or are trying to avoid it. If you can not provide the name of a nation that has a rail system and does not subsidize, explain why you suppose that fact exist. Why would every country on planet earth that have rail systems choose to subsidize them?

 

[Redfish]

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.

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.

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.

where shall we get the money to subsidize them? print it, borrow it, or raise taxes on all americans? Those are the only 3 options. We are already 18 trillion in debt, we are paying only the interest, the principal grows by millions every hour, printing more money will deflate the value of every dollar, taking more from americans will reduce their spending power, taking more from businesses will force them to lay off employees.

There is only one answer--------------cut government spending. If I was king I would cut all government programs, every fricken one of them, by 30%.

 

[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.

As a matter of fact, yes, there are millions of dogs on this planet that do not have fleas. Technology and methods of keeping fleas off of dogs has been around for decades, maybe longer. Anyone who would think that fleas on dogs is unavoidable is an uneducated idiot.
Obviously you can not answer the question or are trying to avoid it. If you can not provide the name of a nation that has a rail system and does not subsidize, explain why you suppose that fact exist. Why would every country on planet earth that have rail systems choose to subsidize them?

I have never seen a dog that has never had flees.

And the fact that every country may or may not do whatever, doesn't mean that's the way it should be done.

Light-rail doesn't benefit the economy. Greece should be the economic power-house of Europe if light-rail subsidies were the key to economic growth.

Instead, all the light-rail in the world didn't help Greece. There is little, if any, benefit to it. In the case of Greece, they had so much government money poured into light-rail, that they could have paid private taxis to transport each passenger they had on the rail, and saved money doing it.

It doesn't benefit the economy. In fact, in some cases it may harm the economy. Because now you have to tax money away from profitable economy boosting companies, to give to money losing government funded rail service.

 

[candycorn]

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.

As a matter of fact, yes, there are millions of dogs on this planet that do not have fleas. Technology and methods of keeping fleas off of dogs has been around for decades, maybe longer. Anyone who would think that fleas on dogs is unavoidable is an uneducated idiot.
Obviously you can not answer the question or are trying to avoid it. If you can not provide the name of a nation that has a rail system and does not subsidize, explain why you suppose that fact exist. Why would every country on planet earth that have rail systems choose to subsidize them?

I have never seen a dog that has never had flees.

And the fact that every country may or may not do whatever, doesn't mean that's the way it should be done.

Light-rail doesn't benefit the economy. Greece should be the economic power-house of Europe if light-rail subsidies were the key to economic growth.

Instead, all the light-rail in the world didn't help Greece. There is little, if any, benefit to it. In the case of Greece, they had so much government money poured into light-rail, that they could have paid private taxis to transport each passenger they had on the rail, and saved money doing it.

It doesn't benefit the economy. In fact, in some cases it may harm the economy. Because now you have to tax money away from profitable economy boosting companies, to give to money losing government funded rail service.

I think there is some need for subsidy at the outset of any new reach into the unknown. Nobody that I know of is going to take a train from LA to El Paso unless they cannot drive or fly. The same with Denver to St. Louis, Houston to New Orleans or Chicago to Seattle. It's a wonderful service but we just can't afford everything we want....

Now, if the train traveled 300 mph...now you may have something. Imagine living in Minneapolis but working in Chicago or working in Dallas but living in Galveston or Corpus Christi. One hour from LA to San Fran.... Anyway, Get it operational in 5 years, subsidize it for 20 then get out of the business all together.

But these century long subsidies are a thing of the past. Public TV and Radio should be done away with. I'm positive a white knight investor would subsidize much of what NPR already does. Television may be a different thing due to higher costs.

 

[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.

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

But parking your car at a BART station doesn't cost anything at all - or didn't when I lived there, things might have changed in the last 7 years. Din't forget too that you have your car with you during the time of day that most meters operate. Most cities allow you to park free overnight.

 

[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.

As a matter of fact, yes, there are millions of dogs on this planet that do not have fleas. Technology and methods of keeping fleas off of dogs has been around for decades, maybe longer. Anyone who would think that fleas on dogs is unavoidable is an uneducated idiot.
Obviously you can not answer the question or are trying to avoid it. If you can not provide the name of a nation that has a rail system and does not subsidize, explain why you suppose that fact exist. Why would every country on planet earth that have rail systems choose to subsidize them?

I have never seen a dog that has never had flees.

And the fact that every country may or may not do whatever, doesn't mean that's the way it should be done.

Light-rail doesn't benefit the economy. Greece should be the economic power-house of Europe if light-rail subsidies were the key to economic growth.

Instead, all the light-rail in the world didn't help Greece. There is little, if any, benefit to it. In the case of Greece, they had so much government money poured into light-rail, that they could have paid private taxis to transport each passenger they had on the rail, and saved money doing it.

It doesn't benefit the economy. In fact, in some cases it may harm the economy. Because now you have to tax money away from profitable economy boosting companies, to give to money losing government funded rail service.

I think there is some need for subsidy at the outset of any new reach into the unknown. Nobody that I know of is going to take a train from LA to El Paso unless they cannot drive or fly. The same with Denver to St. Louis, Houston to New Orleans or Chicago to Seattle. It's a wonderful service but we just can't afford everything we want....

Now, if the train traveled 300 mph...now you may have something. Imagine living in Minneapolis but working in Chicago or working in Dallas but living in Galveston or Corpus Christi. One hour from LA to San Fran.... Anyway, Get it operational in 5 years, subsidize it for 20 then get out of the business all together.

But these century long subsidies are a thing of the past. Public TV and Radio should be done away with. I'm positive a white knight investor would subsidize much of what NPR already does. Television may be a different thing due to higher costs.

We have numerous examples of rail service throughout the world. Not one of them actually turns a profit. Not one. Ever.

Now back in the day, when cars and airplanes were not there, yes, they were profitable. But the people voted with their money, and passenger rail service is a thing of the past..... UNLESS.... it's subsidized.

Well does subsidized mean? It means you take away the right to vote, by coercing people who do not support the service, to pay for it anyway.

I am completely against rail service. But I pay for it..... because if I don't, people with guns show up, and cart me off to jail.

No passenger rail service the world over, works without coercion.

And people on the left talk about how Republicans are those who support the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer...... right?

So Amtrak, has lost a billion dollars a year, over the past 40 years. In fact, I don't think there has ever been a single year in which Amtrak was profitable. Now in any other context of losing money, we would expect the company to close, and stop wasting money.

But in this case, the CEO of Amtrak, Joseph H Boardman, is paid $350,000 a year.... to operate a company that loses $1.3 Billion last year.... that YOU and ME, are paying for.

We get poorer...... he get's richer..... and who supports Amtrak? Democrats or Republicans? Which one support the rich getting richer, and poor getting poorer?

 

[bripat9643]

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?

 

[Camp]

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.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

"Shared endeavour?" That's a devious way of putting it. What actually happened is that private businesses developed the first railroads. When everyone saw what a boon they were to the towns and cities they served, then everyone wanted one, so state governments got into the business. The government run railroads all turned out to be financial disasters rife with corruption and graft. So in a few years the voters refused to approve any more such ventures.

Railroads then remained almost totally a privately run industry that government stayed out of. That is until Lincoln got elected, and then Congress approved subsidies to build the transcontinental railroads. in typical fashion, these railroads also turned out to be financial disasters rife with corruption and graft. The Credit Mobilier scandal was a product of the transcontinental railroads. All the railroads involve in building the government subsidized transcontinentals eventually went bankrupt. After that railroads were almost all entirely privately run until government built the interstate highway system which put passenger rail out of business.

Your claim that railroads couldn't be built without eminent domain is totally unsubstantiated. It's mostly a matter of faith with those who worship government.

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.

Bankruptcy is what makes capitalism work. When a company is using resources that consumers would rather have used elsewhere, that company goes bankrupt. The resources are then freed up and diverted to a more productive use.

Government agencies, on the other hand, never go out of business, no matter how wasteful they are. They keep producing whatever they were setup to produce whether the consumers want those products and services or not.

A one-way ticket on the ACELA from Washington DC to New York CIty is $123 dollars. That's about what it cost to go to Disney World, and that's only one way.

Private railroads are perfectly well maintained. Derailments from poor maintenance on track are virtually unheard of.

 

[bgr39]

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

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

IF we don't have the money to maintain our infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc), why are we building more infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc) that we cannot afford to maintain?
Maybe we need to put an immediate stop to any new construction and divert that money to maintaining our current infrastructure, for maybe 10 years or so.
What ever happened to obama's stimulus?
I thought the stimulus was suppose to go for shovel-ready jobs?

 

[Dragonlady]

It did. But it went for new projects, not maintenance.

And infrastructure includes government offices, schools, libraries, hospitals, not necessarily roads, bridges, and railways corridors.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

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.

 

[candycorn]

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.

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.

 

[Sonny Clark]

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

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

IF we don't have the money to maintain our infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc), why are we building more infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc) that we cannot afford to maintain?
Maybe we need to put an immediate stop to any new construction and divert that money to maintaining our current infrastructure, for maybe 10 years or so.
What ever happened to obama's stimulus?
I thought the stimulus was suppose to go for shovel-ready jobs?

I agree that we need to spend on upgrades and repairs. Also, never believe anything Obama says. The truth isn't in him. He's a professional politician, and professional politicians are liars. Just telling it like it is.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

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.