Support NeoGAF

[TacticalFox88]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/transportation-infrastructure-cost_n_911207.html?1311795208

Deteriorating Transportation Infrastructure Could Cost America $3.1 Trillion

Time to invest in some future proofing Infrastructure. We don't need the latest and greatest ALL the time, but what we have now is downright pathetic.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Time to invest in some future proofing Infrastructure.

Sounds like an orgy of government spending. Don't you know we're broke?

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Whose word is this?

Mine, of course...
And
The Hill
and anonymous Republican rep "lots of movement toward Boehner, this may not even be close."

 

[UltimaPooh]

Time to invest in some future proofing Infrastructure. We don't need the latest and greatest ALL the time, but what we have now is downright pathetic.

All of it is going to have to be fixed at some point. This is what Republicans fail to realize with their spending cuts. These things have to be done.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Sounds like an orgy of government spending. Don't you know we're broke?

Gotta pay those defense contracts, man!

 

[Jackson50]

Right, which means you were perfectly okay with putting two wars on the credit card, Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act, torture, and the handling of economic policies that directly contributed to the mess we are in now.

But apparently, that shit is good enough for a B-grade as a self-proclaimed conservative.

Yeah. I do not understand how someone can criticize Bush for the spending and deficits, yet mostly support the policies which engendered the spending and deficits. You cannot have one without the other. It is laughably incongruous.

The reality is the American people are stupid, short-sighted, and will blame whoever is in office at the time of their woes regardless of fault. So the Republican are living in reality. Their main objective is to make Obama a 1-term president, McConnell says it himself.

Their goal may be to defeat Obama, but they do not want to throw the babies (themselves) out with the bathwater. While Obama would lose the most politically, they would also suffer consequences; the GOP Congressional leadership primarily. They are beholden to certain special interests that want to avoid reaching the statutory limit. They do not want to draw the ire of those interests. That is why GOP leadership is in a precarious position.

 

[Particle Physicist]

shame that didn't translate into votes during the midterms

Democrats didn't really vote during the midterms... but after this debt ceiling crap, I don't see them sitting out during the presidential election.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Whose word is this?

Word on through the e-mail vine list/repub forums. You know, where they all get their talking points and crap.

 

[Oblivion]

Time to invest in job growing tax cuts for millionaires.

Fixed.

 

[Chichikov]

Gotta pay those defense contracts, man!

Also China will come and demand we buyback our t-bills, or something.
Good luck finding us without roads!

Suckers!

Time to invest in job growing tax cuts for millionaires.

Fixed.

Millionaires?
MILLIONAIRES?

THIS IS OUR WORD.

You call us Job Creator Americans.

 

[loosus]

I think one thing is clear: the feds need to completely stop paying for transportation infrastructure. Let the states start taking it over completely by raising their own taxes as much as needed.

Why? Because at first, states will refuse to do anything, and our roads and bridges will be shitty as fuck. But out of 50 states, there will be some that buck the trend and decide to have decent roads. When Americans travel, they WILL see the difference between the "kept up" state and their own in the quality of their infrastructure, which will eventually lead to that citizen's shitty state to catch up.

So basically, it would accomplish two goals: (a) giving stupid voters (and those who didn't bother to vote) a taste of exactly what they voted for and (b) an eventual (hopefully) epiphany that shit costs money, that we need shit, and that the costs have to come out of the wallets of the public as a whole.

 

[TacticalFox88]

I think one thing is clear: the feds need to completely stop paying for transportation infrastructure. Let the states start taking it over completely by raising their own taxes as much as needed.

Why? Because at first, states will refuse to do anything, and our roads and bridges will be shitty as fuck. But out of 50 states, there will be some that buck the trend and decide to have decent roads. When Americans travel, they WILL see the difference between the "kept up" state and their own in the quality of their infrastructure, which will eventually lead to that citizen's shitty state to catch up.

So basically, it would accomplish two goals: (a) giving stupid voters (and those who didn't bother to vote) a taste of exactly what they voted for and (b) an eventual (hopefully) epiphany that shit costs money, that we need shit, and that the costs have to come out of the wallets of the public as a whole.

You want state's to handle this issue? Fuck, that. By the time the "trend" catches on, it'll be extremely fucking shitty. Leave this one to the feds.

 

[reilo]

I think one thing is clear: the feds need to completely stop paying for transportation infrastructure. Let the states start taking it over completely by raising their own taxes as much as needed.

Why? Because at first, states will refuse to do anything, and our roads and bridges will be shitty as fuck. But out of 50 states, there will be some that buck the trend and decide to have decent roads. When Americans travel, they WILL see the difference between the "kept up" state and their own in the quality of their infrastructure, which will eventually lead to that citizen's shitty state to catch up.

So basically, it would accomplish two goals: (a) giving stupid voters (and those who didn't bother to vote) a taste of exactly what they voted for and (b) an eventual (hopefully) epiphany that shit costs money, that we need shit, and that the costs have to come out of the wallets of the public as a whole.

Eh? Local roads are already funded locally for the most part.

Besides, we are talking about more than just local infrastructure. Things like interstate highspeed rails, highways, etc. don't make much sense to be funded locally.

 

[teruterubozu]

I think one thing is clear: the feds need to completely stop paying for transportation infrastructure. Let the states start taking it over completely by raising their own taxes as much as needed.

Why? Because at first, states will refuse to do anything, and our roads and bridges will be shitty as fuck. But out of 50 states, there will be some that buck the trend and decide to have decent roads. When Americans travel, they WILL see the difference between the "kept up" state and their own in the quality of their infrastructure, which will eventually lead to that citizen's shitty state to catch up.

So basically, it would accomplish two goals: (a) giving stupid voters (and those who didn't bother to vote) a taste of exactly what they voted for and (b) an eventual (hopefully) epiphany that shit costs money, that we need shit, and that the costs have to come out of the wallets of the public as a whole.

LOL. The states already determine and prioritize which roads the allocated federal funds (if any) go towards. That means under your plan, the shitty roads will get even shittier.

 

[mckmas8808]

I think one thing is clear: the feds need to completely stop paying for transportation infrastructure. Let the states start taking it over completely by raising their own taxes as much as needed.

Why? Because at first, states will refuse to do anything, and our roads and bridges will be shitty as fuck. But out of 50 states, there will be some that buck the trend and decide to have decent roads. When Americans travel, they WILL see the difference between the "kept up" state and their own in the quality of their infrastructure, which will eventually lead to that citizen's shitty state to catch up.

So basically, it would accomplish two goals: (a) giving stupid voters (and those who didn't bother to vote) a taste of exactly what they voted for and (b) an eventual (hopefully) epiphany that shit costs money, that we need shit, and that the costs have to come out of the wallets of the public as a whole.

I understand where you are coming from, but wouldn't that hurt businesses that travel from state to state?

 

[loosus]

I understand where you are coming from, but wouldn't that hurt businesses that travel from state to state?

I am honestly to a point where I don't care. I think the only way you can treat extreme stupidity is letting whatever they want to happen. It's like having a child (who is 23 years old) who is insistent on putting their penis in a stove. Eventually, you're just going to have to let them burn their balls so they'll understand why people don't fucking do that.

 

[Jackson50]

The CBO released an updated estimate of the potential healthcare costs for the veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over the forthcoming decade, the CBO estimates that healthcare for the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan could cost between $40 billion and $55 billion. Musculoskeletal disorders and mental health problems are the most common diagnoses.

According to VHA data, since 2002, a total of about 377,000 OCO veterans, or 55 percent of those who had ever been treated by VHA, had received a diagnosis for a musculoskeletal condition. In addition, 350,000 such veterans, or 51 percent of the total, had been diagnosed with a mental health condition.9 (Those numbers are not mutually exclusive; veterans may be diagnosed with multiple conditions.)"

 

[SlipperySlope]

Right, which means you were perfectly okay with putting two wars on the credit card, Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act, torture, and the handling of economic policies that directly contributed to the mess we are in now.

But apparently, that shit is good enough for a B-grade as a self-proclaimed conservative.

The two wars should have been financed by cutting spending elsewhere. So, yes, you can agree with the wars, and not agree with how they were not paid for.

The Patriot Act and torture are mostly meh to me. Don't really care one way or the other. If they can be used to get intel on future attacks, then good. If not, oh well. I just don't see them as this huge infringing on our rights that others see the Patriot Act as.

Medicare Part D is one of the spending things he did that I do not agree with. Thus it is one of the things that contributed to dropping him to a D.

There is little that he could have done as president to prevent the housing bust. All that he could have done is try to convince people not to buy houses, which wouldn't have flown. Or repealing the Clinton thing that allowed lower-income people to own homes. Also wouldn't have flown. Those two things were basically untouchables that no president would have been able to stop, no matter how hard they tried.

Or the fed interest rates that promoted home buying and borrowing. The president does not have control over the Fed.

Edit - The thing about Bush, is he was a social conservative. Not a fiscal one. Thus his rating.

 

[segarr]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/transportation-infrastructure-cost_n_911207.html?1311795208

Deteriorating Transportation Infrastructure Could Cost America $3.1 Trillion

That's a good investment then. Can't let the country fall apart.

 

[TacticalFox88]

That's a good investment then. Can't let the country fall apart.

You'd be surprised at how many people would argue against infrastructure spending.

 

[Oblivion]

The loneliest tea party:

Despite featuring Tea Party icons Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Rand Paul (R-KY), among others, a gathering outside the Senate organized by the Tea Party Express to urge Republicans to stand firm against a compromise bill drew only a handful of attendees.

Reporters, many of whom came to interview presidential candidate Herman Cain, appeared to easily outnumber protesters. And despite being the most prominent attendee, Cain ended up not addressing the crowd and instead watching from the sidelines.

Talking Points Memo on FacebookThe dismal showing comes as Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations are waging an aggressive campaign against a plan by Republican leaders to raise the debt ceiling with a two-tiered set of cuts and no promise of a balanced budget amendment.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...t-at-tea-party-rally-against-boehner-plan.php

 

[AbsoluteZero]

I posted this in the youtube thread and I have to post it here to.

Critics of the So. Central Los Angeles Tea Party (Race Baiting / Racism / NAACP)

The interviewer/reporter playing along at 3:00 is hilarious.

Some definite pot calling kettle black situations up in there.

 

[Dartastic]

All of it is going to have to be fixed at some point. This is what Republicans fail to realize with their spending cuts. These things have to be done.

Wouldn't it be great if we could spend less on the middle east and more on ourselves?

 

[loosus]

Wouldn't it be great if we could spend less on the middle east and more on ourselves?

Republicans are extreme right now, though. If we ended the two wars right now, Republicans would not only not spend on infrastructure but they'd lower income taxes, too.

 

[A Human Becoming]

Time to invest in some future proofing Infrastructure. We don't need the latest and greatest ALL the time, but what we have now is downright pathetic.

Who do you think Obama is, FDR?

EDIT: Quoted the wrong person.

 

[polyh3dron]

The loneliest tea party:

That's what happens when you don't have Dick Armey's Freedomworks to bus in a bunch of gullible old people and unemployed rednecks.

 

[RPGamer92]

Could someone make a summary of the stuff that's happened in the past month to make PoliGAF easier to get into? I don't have the time to go back through the whole thread.

 

[eznark]

Could someone make a summary of the stuff that's happened in the past month to make PoliGAF easier to get into? I don't have the time to go back through the whole thread.

You come here
No you come here
No you
No you
you
you
u
u

 

[Chichikov]

Could someone make a summary of the stuff that's happened in the past month to make PoliGAF easier to get into? I don't have the time to go back through the whole thread.

No one is expecting anyone to read the whole thread.
Either post articles that you feel is relevant or join in whatever conversation is taking place.

Just don't feed or pet the eznark.

 

[GaimeGuy]

*pets the eznark*

 

[RustyNails]

Could someone make a summary of the stuff that's happened in the past month to make PoliGAF easier to get into? I don't have the time to go back through the whole thread.

 

[Chichikov]

*pets the eznark*

 

[HylianTom]

Caveat: we're going to be driving less in the future, not more. Energy prices will see to that. While highly maintaining some key infrastructure makes sense, adding more automobile-centric infrastructure does not.

 

[RustyNails]

Caveat: we're going to be driving less in the future, not more. Energy prices will see to that. While highly maintaining some key infrastructure makes sense, adding more automobile-centric infrastructure does not.

Depends on your definition of future. I don't think automobiles are gonna be phased out anytime soon in our lifetimes. What we are going to probably see is more advancement in fuel technology leading to more fuel efficient vehicles. When the adoption rates of fully electric cars climbs enough, they will start mass replacing non-electric vehicles. That doesn't necessarily mean that people will be driving less though, at least not in USA. For this reason, infrastructure needs to be taken care of for the foreseeable future.

 

[speculawyer]

The two wars should have been financed by cutting spending elsewhere. So, yes, you can agree with the wars, and not agree with how they were not paid for.

Yeah. They should have just printed on both sides of the paper and that would have pretty much covered it.


Statements like that are such magical thinking. Like there is some giant department of wasteful spending out there . . . just cut it a little to pay for the way.

If you want the war by cutting elsewhere then cut elsewhere BEFORE YOU START THE WAR. If you can't do it, then no war.

But no . . . just put it on the credit card and then support not paying the bill later . . . brought to by people who claim to be 'fiscal conservatives'. Right.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Yeah. They should have just printed on both sides of the paper and that would have pretty much covered it.


Statements like that are such magical thinking. Like there is some giant department of wasteful spending out there . . . just cut it a little to pay for the way.

If you want the war by cutting elsewhere then cut elsewhere BEFORE YOU START THE WAR. If you can't do it, then no war.

But no . . . just put it on the credit card and then support not paying the bill later . . . brought to by people who claim to be 'fiscal conservatives'. Right.

George Bush, only US president to lower taxes and go to war at the same time.

 

[Chichikov]

Yeah. They should have just printed on both sides of the paper and that would have pretty much covered it.


Statements like that are such magical thinking. Like there is some giant department of wasteful spending out there . . . just cut it a little to pay for the way.

If you want the war by cutting elsewhere then cut elsewhere BEFORE YOU START THE WAR. If you can't do it, then no war.

But no . . . just put it on the credit card and then support not paying the bill later . . . brought to by people who claim to be 'fiscal conservatives'. Right.

There's nothing wrong with funding a war through debt, we did it before and it worked just fine.
It even looked badass -

The issue is this sudden freakout over debt.
What was the net interest last year?
5% of the federal budget?
OH NOES! WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF MONEY, THE CHINAMAN WILL COME AND TAKE OUR HOUSE!!!

 

[Oblivion]

The two wars should have been financed by cutting spending elsewhere. So, yes, you can agree with the wars, and not agree with how they were not paid for.

The Patriot Act and torture are mostly meh to me. Don't really care one way or the other. If they can be used to get intel on future attacks, then good. If not, oh well. I just don't see them as this huge infringing on our rights that others see the Patriot Act as.

Medicare Part D is one of the spending things he did that I do not agree with. Thus it is one of the things that contributed to dropping him to a D.

There is little that he could have done as president to prevent the housing bust. All that he could have done is try to convince people not to buy houses, which wouldn't have flown. Or repealing the Clinton thing that allowed lower-income people to own homes. Also wouldn't have flown. Those two things were basically untouchables that no president would have been able to stop, no matter how hard they tried.

Or the fed interest rates that promoted home buying and borrowing. The president does not have control over the Fed.

Edit - The thing about Bush, is he was a social conservative. Not a fiscal one. Thus his rating.

What about the $3 trillion in tax cuts for millionaires/billionaires job creators?

 

[Oblivion]

Ma boy, Steve Benen raises a good point:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is obviously scrambling to secure as much Republican support for his budget plan as possible, and took his sales pitch to Laura Ingraham’s radio show this morning. One line in particular stood out:

A large number of conservative Republicans are opposing Boehner’s proposal, arguing it does not go far enough in reducing government spending.

But Boehner said he couldn’t understand why any Republicans would position themselves with Democrats opposing his plan.

“Barack Obama hates it, Harry Reid hates it, Nancy Pelosi hates it,” he said, naming off the Democratic leadership.



Now, at a certain level, it makes sense that the House Speaker would try to rally his side by leveraging partisan feelings. Boehner probably figures Republicans will be more likely to support a plan that Democrats “hate.”

But let’s not lose sight of the larger context here. The United States is in the midst of a crisis of Republicans’ making, and a potentially catastrophic deadline is just days away. We have a Republican-led House, a Democratic-led Senate, and a Democratic White House, so the nation will need a solution that can generate approval from all three institutions.

Speaker Boehner, meanwhile, isn’t just abandoning the search for a bipartisan solution; he’s publicly bragging about pushing a plan he knows isn’t a bipartisan solution.

I support this leads to two questions some enterprising reporter may want to ask the Speaker:

1. If you know the Senate leadership and the White House hate your plan, why are you intent on pushing it six days before Aug. 2?

2. On Monday night, you used the word “bipartisan” five times. If bipartisanship is important, why are you bragging about Democratic opposition to your plan?

Say hello to Boehner Brand Bipartisanship: the kind where one side gets what it wants, and the other should expect to be blamed for wanting a compromise.

 

[PhoenixDark]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/transportation-infrastructure-cost_n_911207.html?1311795208

Deteriorating Transportation Infrastructure Could Cost America $3.1 Trillion

Don't worry, after we cut trillions from the deficit the issue of debt/deficit will be off the table, and republicans will be willing to discuss infrastructure spending.

...right Obama?

 

[Salazar]

There's nothing wrong with funding a war through debt, we did it before and it worked just fine.
It even looked badass -

Psshhaw.

 

[Byakuya769]

The scariest thing out of this whole debacle is that the creators of dysfunctional government benefit from it politically. People may see that Republicans are at fault, but at the end of the day they are becoming more and disillusioned with our government's failure to handle issues. I think that sentiment will depress voter turnout, and we all know who does best when turnout is low.

 

[DEO3]

At some point that Republican is going to back himself off a cliff, I only hope that Obama can remember his way back when that happens.

 

[TacticalFox88]

The scariest thing out of this whole debacle is that the creators of dysfunctional government benefit from it politically. People may see that Republicans are at fault, but at the end of the day they are becoming more and disillusioned with our government's failure to handle issues. I think that sentiment will depress voter turnout, and we all know who does best when turnout is low.

Voters have the memory of a goddamn goldfish, I swear.

 

[eznark]

Psshhaw.

And Halloween right around the corner? Thanks!!

 

[Chichikov]

Psshhaw.

Psshhaw right back at ya!

p.s.
Deep cut motherfuckers!

 

[SoulPlaya]

Man, MSNBC has really become the left equivalent of Fox News. Everything they report is slanted, and they seem, as a whole, to just care about Democrats getting elected, instead of promoting actual left policies. Ed seems different, because he'll occasionally show outrage at Democrats who talk like they're leftists, but their actions don't reflect that, but they've buried him in the lineup.

A few days ago, I was watching the Sharpton program, and he had on one "Republican" (Buchanan), and four "Democrats" going against him. Hilarious to me, because that is a classic Fox tactic.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Man, MSNBC has really become the left equivalent of Fox News. Everything they report is slanted, and they seem, as a whole, to just care about Democrats getting elected, instead of promoting actual left policies. Ed seems different, because he'll occasionally show outrage at Democrats who talk like they're leftists, but their actions don't reflect that, but they've buried him in the lineup.

A few days ago, I was watching the Sharpton program, and he had on one "Republican" (Buchanan), and four "Democrats" going against him. Hilarious to me, because that is a classic Fox tactic.

I'd LOVE for you to point out where they've mislead their viewers and deny reality. Please. By all means

 

[Plinko]

Caveat: we're going to be driving less in the future, not more. Energy prices will see to that. While highly maintaining some key infrastructure makes sense, adding more automobile-centric infrastructure does not.

"Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads."

 

[HylianTom]

"Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads."

Nah.. I'm thinking more like..
"My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet airplane. His son will ride a camel."