RE: Infrastructure Spending

RE: Infrastructure Spending (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

subrosaDom -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/22/2014 2:56:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You mean the '09 stimulus law that spent more than 100 billion on infrastructure improvements? That's exactly the one, Ken. Wasted money on overlays and feelgood bullshit, or, as the producer of the ballsweat you find so delectable put it, it turned out not so shovel ready as we thought. No go bust a battery connection on your Prius in a pothole that came right back, because it wasn't fixed right, before they paved over it. Can't you read drunk? That was $100 billion on infrastructure. And the major projects are listed. I personally saw miles and miles of streets in perfect condition resurfaced twice (all with signs touting the Federal program). First they ripped up the streets to resurface. Then after they did that and finished, they started again by installing all those tactile curbs, which forced them to rip up the streets a second time. And non-blind elderly people in wheelchairs, they really love those tactile curbs. Younger kids on bikes, too. Also excellent for baby carriages. And the tactile curbs of course replace earlier government-mandated/ADA ramps. More money still.

Sanity -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/22/2014 4:13:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom I personally saw miles and miles of streets in perfect condition resurfaced twice (all with signs touting the Federal program). First they ripped up the streets to resurface. Then after they did that and finished, they started again by installing all those tactile curbs, which forced them to rip up the streets a second time. And non-blind elderly people in wheelchairs, they really love those tactile curbs. Younger kids on bikes, too. Also excellent for baby carriages. And the tactile curbs of course replace earlier government-mandated/ADA ramps. More money still. And today the tactile material is fractured and broken on many curbs already

cloudboy -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/22/2014 6:00:01 AM)
Have you been following this? > President Obama on Tuesday pressed Congress to break a deadlock over a long-term transportation spending bill, arguing that Republicans were more interested in trying to “score points on cable TV” than in fixing the country’s roads and bridges. The debate is complicated by the structural design of the Highway Trust Fund, which is financed by gasoline taxes that are not indexed to inflation. Officials have struggled to find additional revenue sources to keep the same level of activity without the political risk of either raising taxes or even seeming to raise taxes. The gas tax has been stuck at 18.4 cents a gallon since 1993, and during those 21 years it has lost 39 percent of its value to inflation.< The upshot is that Republicans in Congress don't want to raise taxes to pay for the highways. So, without tax revenue, how do you fund the highway system? Here's the NYT view: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/opinion/16wed1.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region Here were letters to the editor http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/21/opinion/Who-Should-Pay-for-Our-Highways-Gas-Tax.html?mabReward=RI%3A6&action=click&pgtype=Homepage®ion=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine&_r=0 ----- From an old thread: How should the USA fund it Highway System

GotSteel -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/22/2014 7:42:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Not at all, trying to change the subject? Hey Sanity where did you go? I thought you were going to make Darwin role over in his grave by claiming his work in evolutionary theory backed the position that nature "intended" things. Where did you go I'm waiting? [sm=popcorn.gif]

Sanity -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/22/2014 9:02:47 AM)
You're not worth this much, but... Grow up some, learn some manners, and others may engage with you in conversation.

Gauge -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/22/2014 9:21:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity You're not worth this much, but... Grow up some, learn some manners, and others may engage with you in conversation. Your logical fallacy is ad hominem One day you might understand.

Sanity -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/22/2014 10:05:17 AM)
Honest, helpful advice isn't the same as an ad hominem And the same advice applies to you, as well

Gauge -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/22/2014 10:11:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Honest, helpful advice isn't the same as an ad hominem And the same advice applies to you, as well You implied he was worthless, immature, ill mannered... sounds pretty ad hominem to me, and you take yet another opportunity to personally insult me. Well done. As far as my manners are concerned, I treat you with more respect than most do. My maturity is quite evident in the fact that I do not lower myself into childish insults, and as far as my worth is concerned, broken down into the basic elements... about $0.46 give or take. So, how are your solutions that I asked you for coming along? Or do you need more time to work on them?

DomKen -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/22/2014 10:22:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You mean the '09 stimulus law that spent more than 100 billion on infrastructure improvements? That's exactly the one, Ken. Wasted money on overlays and feelgood bullshit, or, as the producer of the ballsweat you find so delectable put it, it turned out not so shovel ready as we thought. No go bust a battery connection on your Prius in a pothole that came right back, because it wasn't fixed right, before they paved over it. Can't you read drunk? That was $100 billion on infrastructure. And the major projects are listed. I personally saw miles and miles of streets in perfect condition resurfaced twice (all with signs touting the Federal program). First they ripped up the streets to resurface. Then after they did that and finished, they started again by installing all those tactile curbs, which forced them to rip up the streets a second time. And non-blind elderly people in wheelchairs, they really love those tactile curbs. Younger kids on bikes, too. Also excellent for baby carriages. And the tactile curbs of course replace earlier government-mandated/ADA ramps. More money still. Are you an engineer? Did you test the road surface? And those tactile curbs are meant to give the visually impaired the ability to live independently and they are not actually and impediment to anyone else who pays attention. Plus in places where it ices up they make the curb cutouts much less slippery.

GotSteel -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/22/2014 11:21:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge You implied he was worthless, immature, ill mannered... sounds pretty ad hominem to me, and you take yet another opportunity to personally insult me. Well done. Keep in mind he's made a claim that's fractally absurd, in reality Darwins work debunked previous ideas that there was agency at work here, so much so that it caused Darwins deconversion from a Christian to an agnostic. If I were to guess why he made that claim it was probably on account of some christian right consense he heard that won't hold up to the light of day. If he tried to look up a source and figured it out what are his options? Changing his beliefs in light of new information isn't really in the lexicon of the traditionalists who call themselves conservatives so he's pretty much left with faux rage that he isn't being treated more politely then he treats others and then running for it tail between his legs.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/22/2014 3:45:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge ... and as far as my worth is concerned, broken down into the basic elements... about $0.46 give or take. What is that indexed to? Is that "Current" dollars, or FY2000 (or other) dollars? Either way, it's still likely 4x mine. lol

Sanity -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/22/2014 7:19:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Honest, helpful advice isn't the same as an ad hominem And the same advice applies to you, as well You implied he was worthless, immature, ill mannered... sounds pretty ad hominem to me, and you take yet another opportunity to personally insult me. Well done. As far as my manners are concerned, I treat you with more respect than most do. My maturity is quite evident in the fact that I do not lower myself into childish insults, and as far as my worth is concerned, broken down into the basic elements... about $0.46 give or take. So, how are your solutions that I asked you for coming along? Or do you need more time to work on them? If you find that an accurate description of yourselves is insulting, then I recommend that each of you change your behavior.

TheHeretic -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/22/2014 7:29:39 PM)
They painted over rust, Ken. And they ran up the credit card to do it. Even a chaplain's aide on the Great Lakes ought to understand that analogy.

DomKen -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/22/2014 9:06:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic They painted over rust, Ken. And they ran up the credit card to do it. Even a chaplain's aide on the Great Lakes ought to understand that analogy. Because the cons refused to go along with the amount of investment needed or are you denying the facts of history? The President shifted a bunch of the stimulus law into tax cuts to satisfy your side to try and get it to be a bipartisan bill. If he had just passed it with Democrats it would have been much larger and much more of it would have been directly infrastructure spending but you know that don't you? It's why you were throwing around the ad hom. trying to start a flame war rather than actually discussing the topic.

Gauge -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/22/2014 10:03:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity If you find that an accurate description of yourselves is insulting, then I recommend that each of you change your behavior. Yeah, not falling for the bait, but thanks for playing. Are you actually going to try to have a reasonable discourse with me or are you just going to keep up the way you normally do without saying anything in response to my question for you? Or was my question out of line too?

TheHeretic -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/22/2014 10:43:10 PM)
Give up with the stupid lies, Ken. Get past the press releases and emails from Squealer. Look to the President himself admitting that "shovel ready" was a term he never understood. Paint over rust. And now that the rust is bubbling the fresh paint right back off again, useless fuckwits like yourself want to recycle the scrapings into campaign fodder.

cloudboy -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/23/2014 6:43:59 AM)
Snark and unsubstantiated claims. You always rant on Obama but never really have rational reasons for it. Why is that? Let's go to a more pertinent issue, highway funding. Why won't Congress simply index the gasoline tax to inflation? Might we simply conclude that because the "free market" doesn't pay for roads, bridges, water systems, waste disposal, railways, etc. that Republicans will refuse to find the government funding to maintain them?

DomKen -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/23/2014 9:45:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Give up with the stupid lies, Ken. Get past the press releases and emails from Squealer. Look to the President himself admitting that "shovel ready" was a term he never understood. Paint over rust. And now that the rust is bubbling the fresh paint right back off again, useless fuckwits like yourself want to recycle the scrapings into campaign fodder. You do know we all lived through 2009 right? Sober up.

Gauge -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/23/2014 9:52:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Let's go to a more pertinent issue, highway funding. Why won't Congress simply index the gasoline tax to inflation? Might we simply conclude that because the "free market" doesn't pay for roads, bridges, water systems, waste disposal, railways, etc. that Republicans will refuse to find the government funding to maintain them? It is short sighted to index the gas tax to inflation. Fuel efficiencies are rising dramatically, electric cars are becoming a thing, what you will lose in taxes for those fuel efficient cars, you will not gain back. It is no wonder we are dependent on fossil fuel like we are... we rely on it too heavily to fund our infrastructure... but the times are changing and we need to find a better way.

cloudboy -> RE: Infrastructure Spending (9/23/2014 1:48:30 PM)
Would you recommend an extensive toll system instead?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625