kallend 1,651 #1 August 3, 2007 GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty recently vetoed a bi-partisan transportation bill that would have appropriated funds for projects like proper maintenance of the (recently collapsed)35W bridge. However, $522 million was spent on a new Twins baseball stadium! The stadium is being built a stone’s throw from the collapsed bridge. Apparently government officials decided funding a stadium for a billionaire's sports team was more important than maintaining infrastructure.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #2 August 4, 2007 QuoteGOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty recently vetoed a bi-partisan transportation bill that would have appropriated funds for projects like proper maintenance of the (recently collapsed)35W bridge. However, $522 million was spent on a new Twins baseball stadium! The stadium is being built a stone’s throw from the collapsed bridge. Apparently government officials decided funding a stadium for a billionaire's sports team was more important than maintaining infrastructure.Com'n. You expect anything less from a politician? Line my pockets baby!I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #3 August 4, 2007 Won't argue with your point there. Unfortunately, it's like that all over the country. Infrastructure investment has dwindled in order to fund all manner of silly projects, including a lot of abused, ineffective social programs.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #4 August 4, 2007 Rather like building casinos in NO instead of levees.... craziness!!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #5 August 4, 2007 QuoteWon't argue with your point there. Unfortunately, it's like that all over the country. Infrastructure investment has dwindled in order to fund all manner of silly projects, including a lot of abused, ineffective social programs. Well, golly gee! I wonder which abused, inneffective 'social' program is draining off the lion's share of those funds??----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jpjc2000 0 #6 August 4, 2007 From current info on the bridge, the problem started WAY before Pawlenty took office. Where did the problem REALLY start? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #7 August 4, 2007 QuoteFrom current info on the bridge, the problem started WAY before Pawlenty took office. Where did the problem REALLY start? With EVERY legislator and executive who refuses to appropriate funds for infrastructure maintenance in order to appeal to those who like services but don't like paying taxes to support them.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Low-Mao 0 #8 August 4, 2007 Refrences? PleaseBest Regards, Corey Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #9 August 4, 2007 I guess that they need a bridging loan about now (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #10 August 4, 2007 QuoteQuoteWon't argue with your point there. Unfortunately, it's like that all over the country. Infrastructure investment has dwindled in order to fund all manner of silly projects, including a lot of abused, ineffective social programs. Well, golly gee! I wonder which abused, inneffective 'social' program is draining off the lion's share of those funds?? Take your pick. Social programs and entitlements consume the lion's share of the federal budget. Social security alone dwarfs DoD's budget. America's social programs have a nasty habit of "enabling" instead of giving a "hand up" Once upon a time, up to 20% of spending programs were devoted across the nation to infrastructure (especially California when Reagan and Brown were Governors). Once the Eisenhower Interstate System was "completed" projections were likely never accurately revised to account for changes in our growth rate. I'm not saying we need to divert that much now, but in the grand scope of things, I heard a report that handling all of the nations bridges now would amount to approximately $180B. I would have no issue with taking $50B from SSA, HHS, DOT, DOD now. People would cry about the war, but it's being funded through emergency appropriations. DoD could defer research programs for a year. And it would be very good jobs program as well (thus getting people off f**k**g welfare for good).So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #11 August 5, 2007 Too complicated, I am having pork bbq on Sunday. "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #12 August 5, 2007 Quote Quote Won't argue with your point there. Unfortunately, it's like that all over the country. Infrastructure investment has dwindled in order to fund all manner of silly projects, including a lot of abused, ineffective social programs. Well, golly gee! I wonder which abused, inneffective 'social' program is draining off the lion's share of those funds?? All of them"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #13 August 5, 2007 QuoteGOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty recently vetoed a bi-partisan transportation bill that would have appropriated funds for projects like proper maintenance of the (recently collapsed)35W bridge. However, $522 million was spent on a new Twins baseball stadium! The stadium is being built a stone’s throw from the collapsed bridge. Apparently government officials decided funding a stadium for a billionaire's sports team was more important than maintaining infrastructure. It's not just the Twins. The Orioles threaten to leave Baltimore, unless the tapayers coughed up the cash. The same in St.Louis. The Cardinals used the same tactic. Studies have shown that the return is minimal, if any at all and they continue to drain tax dollars while owners revenues go up."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #14 August 5, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Won't argue with your point there. Unfortunately, it's like that all over the country. Infrastructure investment has dwindled in order to fund all manner of silly projects, including a lot of abused, ineffective social programs. Well, golly gee! I wonder which abused, inneffective 'social' program is draining off the lion's share of those funds?? All of them But you don't mind taxpayer handouts to Billionaires.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #15 August 5, 2007 QuoteSocial programs and entitlements consume the lion's share of the federal budget. Social security alone dwarfs DoD's budget. The SS budget is not included in the Federal budget as SS is a trust fund and is raised seperate from income taxes collected. Uncle Sammy only started adding the SS figures back during the Vietnam War. By doing so, it only appears that social spending is larger than DoD spending. In reality, social spending is at or around 30-35% while military is up towards 51% (reported by the CDI, Center for Defense Information) which includes current and past. Note that SS is included in the Human Resources table, which makes social spending of income taxes collected appear larger than it really is. Current Military $727 billion: • Military Personnel $136 billion • Operation & Maint. $249 billion • Procurement $111 billion • Research & Dev. $70 billion • Construction $10 billion • Family Housing $4 billion • DoD misc. $6 billion • Retired Pay $52 billion • DoE nuclear weapons $17 billion • NASA (50%) $9 billion • International Security $10 billion • Homeland Secur. (military) $31 billion • Exec. Office of President $1 billion • other military (non-DoD) $1 billion • plus ... anticipated supplemental war spending requests of $20 billion in addition to $141 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan wars already incorporated into figures above Past Military, $461 billion: • Veterans’ Benefits $85 billion • Interest on national debt $376 billion (80% est. to be created by military spending) Human Resources $748 billion: • Health/Human Services • Soc. Sec. Administration • Education Dept. • Food/Nutrition programs • Housing & Urban Dev. • Labor Dept. • other human resources. General Government $295 billion: • Interest on debt (20%) • Treasury • Government personnel • Justice Dept. • State Dept. • Homeland Security (17%) • International Affairs • NASA (50%) • Judicial • Legislative • other general govt. Physical Resources $116 billion: • Agriculture • Interior • Transportation • Homeland Security (17%) • HUD • Commerce • Energy (non-military) • Environmental Protection • Nat. Science Fdtn. • Army Corps Engineers • Fed. Comm. Commission • other physical resources"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #16 August 6, 2007 QuoteQuoteSocial programs and entitlements consume the lion's share of the federal budget. Social security alone dwarfs DoD's budget. The SS budget is not included in the Federal budget as SS is a trust fund and is raised seperate from income taxes collected. Uncle Sammy only started adding the SS figures back during the Vietnam War. By doing so, it only appears that social spending is larger than DoD spending. Here's an easier table to read. I stand by my statement. I didn't say SSA is part of the budget.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #17 August 6, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Won't argue with your point there. Unfortunately, it's like that all over the country. Infrastructure investment has dwindled in order to fund all manner of silly projects, including a lot of abused, ineffective social programs. Well, golly gee! I wonder which abused, inneffective 'social' program is draining off the lion's share of those funds?? All of them But you don't mind taxpayer handouts to Billionaires. Oh man, the famous kallend mis-direct. Well done"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #18 August 6, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Won't argue with your point there. Unfortunately, it's like that all over the country. Infrastructure investment has dwindled in order to fund all manner of silly projects, including a lot of abused, ineffective social programs. Well, golly gee! I wonder which abused, inneffective 'social' program is draining off the lion's share of those funds?? All of them But you don't mind taxpayer handouts to Billionaires. Oh man, the famous kallend mis-direct. Well done At least you don't deny it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #19 August 6, 2007 If you remove the SS spending from that table as it is included in reporting for Health and Human Services (don't believe me? check it out by doing a quick search), you get a much smaller number. Likewise, if you add the 50% of NASA spending, Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs and all other dept. that actually fall under defense spending, you get a much larger number. Same goes with Human Resources, minus SS. Add in Labor Dept., Housing and Urban Developement and other departments that actually fall under social programs and the defence dept. is still spending more."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #20 August 6, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Won't argue with your point there. Unfortunately, it's like that all over the country. Infrastructure investment has dwindled in order to fund all manner of silly projects, including a lot of abused, ineffective social programs. Well, golly gee! I wonder which abused, inneffective 'social' program is draining off the lion's share of those funds?? All of them But you don't mind taxpayer handouts to Billionaires. Oh man, the famous kallend mis-direct. Well done At least you don't deny it. Again!!! man, you are good"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #21 August 6, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Won't argue with your point there. Unfortunately, it's like that all over the country. Infrastructure investment has dwindled in order to fund all manner of silly projects, including a lot of abused, ineffective social programs. Well, golly gee! I wonder which abused, inneffective 'social' program is draining off the lion's share of those funds?? All of them But you don't mind taxpayer handouts to Billionaires. Please show these income tax refunds that the billionaires are getting...thanks.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #22 August 6, 2007 Wow, this really was the cheapest, tackiest, tactic taken by the left to capitalize on the tragedy. various responses here, but the easiest (and just as weak) are: 1 - wasted moneys over the last half decade on failed light rail system - (and diverting money's from roads and bridges to this system) 2 - the left wing of the legislature was the ones that pushed for the Twins stadium. The right wing fought this unnecessary expense, as well as the crappy light rail, as well as last years campaign to divert 100's of millions of dollar to dedicate to enrich road construction and mass transit companies (billionaires). it's a very left wing state - surprise that bridges break while the legis debates on the best way to feed and house the bums that immigrate from other states and on how to take moneys from outlying cities and give it to failed metro areas it's a bit more involved than just parroting some extreme left wing congressman's opportunistic classless speech from last week further, elimination of carpool lanes and stoplights would have eliminated the problem anyway ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #23 August 6, 2007 QuoteGOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty recently vetoed a bi-partisan transportation bill that would have appropriated funds for projects like proper maintenance of the (recently collapsed)35W bridge. However, $522 million was spent on a new Twins baseball stadium! The stadium is being built a stone’s throw from the collapsed bridge. Apparently government officials decided funding a stadium for a billionaire's sports team was more important than maintaining infrastructure. Wow. You make it sound like an either/or situation. Was that the case? Or was this just a bit of dishonest trollery? What does the stadiums proximity to the collasped bridge have to do this? More trollery? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #24 August 6, 2007 You're looking down the on ramp to the Interstate 35W Mississippi River Bridge. The most traveled bridge in the state of Minnesota - capable of carrying 180,000 vehicles each day. Now at some point in the past this bridge had 6 years left in it. But I can't remember when that was. It might have been 4 years ago, or 5 years ago, or it might have been 6 years ago. The thing you've got to ask yourself is "Do I feel lucky today? Well, do you commuter?"" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #25 August 6, 2007 I didn't think it was trollery. It seems like a valid question (or comment) on the prorities of modern civilization. We'd rather subsidize the billionaires club that operates professional sports than maintain our infrastructure. A couple of previous generations built much of the infrastructure we take for granted. We prove the taking-for-granted attitude in the setting of our priorities." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
