quote:


Well, his portrayal doesn't fit the reality, like the interstates and our extensive road network, were pushed hard by the automotive industry, while they at the same time were buying up mass transit, and trashing them, or deliberately running them inefficiently to encourage people to buy cars, and drive them on the shiny new interstates. Now, of course some interstates are good, but the extent and fervor was corporate induced.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls

Yes, I was aware of Bush's treasonous behaviour on Immigration, cheap labor, and open borders, and so was half the republican party. Why do you think conservatives turned on him and McCain???

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls

Here's what's funny. You liberals are so determined to get the last word in, that you continously follow me around, and all it does is get my threads even more visibility. That's hilarious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:


Well, his portrayal doesn't fit the reality, like the interstates and our extensive road network, were pushed hard by the automotive industry, while they at the same time were buying up mass transit, and trashing them, or deliberately running them inefficiently to encourage people to buy cars, and drive them on the shiny new interstates. Now, of course some interstates are good, but the extent and fervor was corporate induced.

Your grasp of the history of the of the interstate highway system is a little shakey. You might start by reading about the "Veterans March on Washington" and how Walter Waters moved almost 20,000 men across country without an interstate highway system.
Then notice that Dwight Eisenhower (who with MacArthur and Patton ran the "Bonus Army" out of Washington) tried to duplicate the move with military troops and vehicles. It was his abject failure to accomplish this that caused him to champion the interstate highway system as a "necessary strategic enterprise" when he became president.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls

I didn't want to have to pull out the big guns, but I knew sooner or later you people would stick your foot in your mouth.

How many zeros in a billion?
This is too true to be funny.

quote:

we certainly didn't build all of these to facilitate military travel.

quote:



What is vertical clearance and why did the Department of Defense (DOD) object to the minimum vertical clearance for the Interstate System in the 1950s?

“Vertical clearance” is the distance from the top of the pavement to the bottom of structures crossing over the highway. It is typically at least 1 foot higher than the legal vehicle height, plus an allowance for future resurfacing that could raise the top of the pavement.

Although the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 added the words “and defense” to the name of the Interstate System (now the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways), the primary justification for the network was its civilian benefits, such as economic opportunity, safety, relief of congestion, and evacuation of cities. At the height of the Cold War and with an atomic or hydrogen bomb attack a conceivable possibility, Congress added “and Defense” to the name in recognition of the fact that the Interstate System would benefit the military, too. However, the emphasis on civilian needs was consistent with the position of the Department of War (now Defense, of course) dating to the early 1920s—if we build a road network adequate for civilian needs, it will serve defense needs as well, with some additions to connect with bases or military plants. It would not be possible to justify such an expenditure solely on the basis of military needs.

In developing minimum design standards for the Interstate System, the State highway agencies and the Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) agreed in July 1956 to include a minimum vertical clearance of 14 feet in Policy on Design Standards – Interstate System prepared by the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO) and adopted by the BPR for use on Interstate projects. This figure wasn't pulled out of thin air. The DOD had previously indicated, in 1949 and 1955, that a 14-foot vertical clearance was adequate for most military vehicles. However, after the Soviet Union launched its Sputnik satellite in October 1957, the DOD determined that a 17-foot vertical clearance was needed for some larger equipment, such as the Atlas intercontinental ballistic missile, that could not be transported by rail.

This change led to a debate between the DOD and the BPR that that was resolved by a compromise in 1960. On January 27, 1960, the BPR issued instructions to its field offices changing the minimum standard to 16 feet for Interstate highways in rural areas. In urban areas, “application of the 16-foot clearance shall be limited to a single routing where the revised vertical clearance can be developed most economically, even though that single route is indirect.” All projects under design or construction were to be revised according to the new standard. The first construction project affected by the change was in Michigan, where highway officials using hydraulic jacks lifted the Clear Lake Road overpass on I-94 near Lansing from a clearance of 14-feet, 6-inches to 16-feet, 3-inches.

As for the routes built to the old standard, DOD, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and AASHO agreed in 1969 on a 26,000-mile priority network that had 350 deficient structures and served about 95 percent of the major military installations. On the priority network, the States were encouraged to implement, as rapidly as practical, those modifications necessary to obtain a 16-foot clearance. Off the priority network, the 16-foot clearance would be implemented only in conjunction with other construction work. The FHWA explained that, “If the work necessary to obtain the clearance is a logical addition and the cost is not excessive, it should be incorporated into the overall project.”

The DOD remains concerned about vertical clearance. Today, the minimum vertical clearance standards apply to all rural Interstates (not just a priority network) and a single Interstate through each urban area. All exceptions to this requirement, whether for new construction or a reconstruction project that does not provide for the 16-foot minimum vertical clearance, would be coordinated with the DOD. The FHWA stressed that this agreement applied to the full roadway width, including shoulders for the through lanes, as well as ramps and collector-distributor roadways in Interstate-to-Interstate interchanges. The vertical clearance policy has been incorporated into Policy on Design Standards – Interstate System.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

You know, something, cuckold, I actually went to the trouble to start up a thread in which I specifically asked liberals to state what they liked about expanding government services.  Several posted thoughtful reasoned posts there.  You chose to give some off topic stuff about Maxine Waters rather than read anything there.

You may want to revisit the thread.  This time, read and try to comprehend.

quote:

you continously follow me around

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

You know, something, cuckold, I actually went to the trouble to start up a thread in which I specifically asked liberals to state what they liked about expanding government services.  Several posted thoughtful reasoned posts there.  You chose to give some off topic stuff about Maxine Waters rather than read anything there.

You may want to revisit the thread.  This time, read and try to comprehend.

To start such a post is to suggest a presumption that there is a difference between liberals and so-called conservatives...there is little when it comes to spending and the size of govt. with the exception of Clinton who did actually reduced the size of govt. by 200,000 employees.

Each side or party loves govt. when it serves their interest. From every repub 'conservative' pres. starting with  Reagan, the govt. has become bigger and spending more and borrowing more.

If there is one difference, it is each side's constituency that they most often seek to serve. Repubs...business. Dems...people.

Repub expansion of services: Medicare drug benefit, expansion of farm subsidies, creation of a damaging, totally unecessary artificial market for ethanol with our tax money with a .31 cent subsidy and now considering an increase (expansion) in that subsidy. Plus, a 51. cent per gal. tariff on foreign ethanol where say for example Brazil...kicks our ass. Not to mention the rest of the 'expansion' of govt. 'services' of protecting profits with tariffs on lumber and steel.

Otherwise liberals listened to one of THE conservatives...Cheney "deficits don't matter." The right didn't bother to even account for 2 wars (of expanding govt.)  leaving them 'off-books.'

Liberals put little tabs like wars and things like that back on the books so the people of our great  'democratic republic' of the US...actually knows what we are really spending.

Any discussion about govt. and any differences between liberals and so-called conservatives beyond their rather obvious constituencies...is essentially rhetorical.

quote:

Well, his portrayal doesn't fit the reality, like the interstates and our extensive road network, were pushed hard by the automotive industry, while they at the same time were buying up mass transit, and trashing them, or deliberately running them inefficiently to encourage people to buy cars, and drive them on the shiny new interstates. Now, of course some interstates are good, but the extent and fervor was corporate induced.

That's the kind of idealist thing I'm talking about, he views the interstates as an achievement of government, which to some degree they were, but the extent we pushed road travel, was a product of corporations will against mass transit and marketing by them.

Hoover dam was a good thing..

Medicare and Social Security are not successful in my book either, as they will bankrupt us very soon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Well, his portrayal doesn't fit the reality, like the interstates and our extensive road network, were pushed hard by the automotive industry, while they at the same time were buying up mass transit, and trashing them, or deliberately running them inefficiently to encourage people to buy cars, and drive them on the shiny new interstates. Now, of course some interstates are good, but the extent and fervor was corporate induced.

That's the kind of idealist thing I'm talking about, he views the interstates as an achievement of government, which to some degree they were, but the extent we pushed road travel, was a product of corporations will against mass transit and marketing by them.

Hoover dam was a good thing..

Medicare and Social Security are not successful in my book either, as they will bankrupt us very soon.

As criticism goes, that's pretty weak.

Your first to attempts to whack at his "idealism," turns out you essentially agree. Ask truck drivers how they feel about interstates.

The last part is also weak. Social Security has been successful for 75 years, both in terms of solvency and in eliminating the problem it was designed to address. As government programs go, that's amazing! And it STILL has a surplus. Bankrupt us soon? Not if we take a few common sense steps to account for the baby boomer anomaly.

Medicare has been successful for 35 years, also a damn good record, and has largely eliminated the problems it was designed to address as well. The problem here is rapidly rising health care costs, a problem far larger than Medicare.

Failure to address health care will cripple our economy for sure. Trashing existing programs to exacerbate the problem is just stupid.

quote:



The recession has pushed Americans by the hundreds of thousands onto benefit rolls. That, in turn, has sped up the day of reckoning when the baby boom generation burns through the money set aside for its retirement.

More than 2.7 million piled into the program last year as job prospects dwindled, up almost half a million from a busy year in 2008.

"This is the biggest jump in modern times," a spokesman for the agency observed.

quote:


Fixing Social Security inevitably involves raising taxes and cutting future benefits, and that's the problem. Doing one and not the other would fail politically, and no fancy new gimmick can take the place of those hard decisions.

Only one group of Americans can expect to feel no pain: During the failed effort to reform Social Security in 2005, all sides agreed that current beneficiaries and those on the verge of retirement would be protected. So the 55 and older crowd can count on getting paid in full, at least with more confidence than younger Americans.

Congress last reformed Social Security only as it was going broke in 1983. That legislation has raised much more money than the system has been spending. So even though Social Security will run in the red again this year, it won't blow through the $2.5 trillion "trust fund" it has amassed for a long time — 2037 at the latest.

Running Social Security to the brink of failure once more, however, would be courting big trouble.