major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| Right
This news story is just polishing the turd. The real news is that our illustrious federal leaders prefer to spend a billion dollars per month on an illegal war instead of keeping us safe from our crumbling infrastructure.  |
|
inteller
Sociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK | now why would we want to rebuild our own country when it is much more exciting to dodge bullets while rebuilding another country where everyone hates us?
--
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!" |
|
Jonbo298
join:2004-01-12
Council Bluffs, IA
| reply to major marco
said by major marco  :This news story is just polishing the turd. The real news is that our illustrious federal leaders prefer to spend a billion dollars per month on an illegal war instead of keeping us safe from our crumbling infrastructure. Yeah, thats the funny part of it all. Bush demands billions of dollars to fund a WAR that wasn't necessary but yet doesn't care about his own country it seems. He's more interested in funneling more billions upon billions to another country, rather then helping his own!
I think it was michael moore (yes yes, boooo hisssss) recently who said "Lawmakers can't say we don't have the money to fund things inside the US when we are spending billions for the war" (not an exact quote but pretty close) |
|
Tomek
Premium
join:2002-01-30
Brooklyn, NY
 ·Packet8
| reply to major marco
Good Point
said by major marco :This news story is just polishing the turd. The real news is that our illustrious federal leaders prefer to spend a billion dollars per month on an illegal war instead of keeping us safe from our crumbling infrastructure. Or doubling arms funding to Israel.
Gov't must set its priorities.
But back to the topic.
It clearly shows that govt "controlled" network works better for the public than commercial alternatives.
Now imagine network neutrality and muni-bans
--
Semper Fi |
|
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
3 edits | reply to major marco
You sir, are an ...
I hope that was sarcastic...
Not that I'm a fan of furor Bush, but let's be realistic here...
If our beloved "inventor of the Internet" Al Gore was pres this bridge still would have collapsed...
The last transportation spending bill that went through congress was like $250B I believe, but last night on CNN they were saying that's about $90B short of what it needed to be. Thank you congress! The problem: Pet highway projects ate up most of the funds... ie remember Ted Stevens and his bridge to nowhere anyone?
BTW this is far from the worst bridge disaster in US History. I think the highest is like 48 deaths or something, I don't remember exactly but the History Internationl channel had a special on last night, and there were countless stories of failed bridges that killed people.
In fact I'm really surprised the media has given this as much attention as it has.
Flame on! |
|
Jonbo298
join:2004-01-12
Council Bluffs, IA
1 edit | Its not just Bush. I directed it at that because he's the one demanding funding in the 10's of billions for the war and yet we want to cut things inside the US.
I know that the whole government is corrupt and needs to be banished. But unfortunately, if it was, we'd all be gone within a month. Democrats and Republicans act like they care, but when the time comes to show they truly care, they try to spin what their excuse is for not pushing funding on things that truly are needed.
Remember too, there's still soemthing like 30 missing, so that death toll number could very well rise in the next week. maybe not the worst but it is a pretty major bridge to collapse.
I know that if the I-80 or I-480 bridge (or the cruddy old South omaha bridge road) was to ever collapse, it would be a huge problem here in Omaha since its well, a major bridge since one connects Iowa to Downtown Omaha, and the other is a majorly traveled road across the US |
|
Nuts
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH
| reply to major marco
Re: Right
The States could raise their own taxes to take care of these things. Why do we always think it's the federal governments job. I'd like to see the feds do away with their gas tax and tell the states they can handle it. Along with a long list of other programs |
|
satellite68
join:2007-04-11
Louisville, KY
1 edit | 
Turd Polish |
said by Nuts :The States could raise their own taxes to take care of these things. Why do we always think it's the federal governments job. I'd like to see the feds do away with their gas tax and tell the states they can handle it. Along with a long list of other programs Uh, no, that's an Interstate Highway bridge. I guess the Eisenhower Highway System, started by and funded by the feds, is somehow a bad idea? You've never travelled on an interstate highway at any time in the past fifty years?? |
|
halfband
Premium
join:2002-06-01
Huntsville, AL
 ·Comcast
| reply to Nuts
said by Nuts :The States could raise their own taxes to take care of these things. Why do we always think it's the federal governments job. Alabama has been doing this for more than 10 years now. Partly through a gas tax they are replacing or rebuilding all the old bridges in the entire state. A huge number of the major river bridges and the smaller creek and minor river bridges have already been replaced. Surely the rest of the country can keep up with Alabama! 
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812 |
|
MightyPez
join:2002-05-01
Saint Paul, MN
·Comcast
| reply to major marco
I'm not trying to take any side of any particular ideology, but I need to point this out, MNDot has already come out saying funding was not the issue. There was plenty of money to fix the bridge. Word is they didn't want to drill new holes to place rivets in the current structure because it would have weakened it even more.
I'm sure there is plenty of reasons this happened, but lack of funds was not one of them. |
|
MemphisPCGuy
Senior Systems Engineer
Premium
join:2004-05-09
Memphis, TN
·Comcast
| said by MightyPez : Word is they didn't want to drill new holes to place rivets in the current structure because it would have weakened it even more. That's seriously misguided and someone should go to jail.
--
»www.memphispcguy.com |
|
MightyPez
join:2002-05-01
Saint Paul, MN
·Comcast
| said by MemphisPCGuy :That's seriously misguided and someone should go to jail. I should probably qualify this a bit. They didn't want to do it at that time. It was still negligent as hell, but they weren't just sitting on their hands not doing anything. |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to major marco
Hey, I don't particularly like the guy either (who does at this point?) but pinning this on Bush is just asinine.
In 1990, this bridge was labeled "structurally deficient" by the federal government. At that time, they stepped up the bridge inspections to every year, and it was determined at every inspection that there was no imminent danger of this bridge failing.
From an engineering standpoint, it's more than alarming that a 40 year old structure would fail in such a way. This particular failure was probably related to the extra weight placed on it due to ongoing refitting of the deck, the fact that all traffic was diverted to the outer most lanes for that construction, and the deck truss design of the bridge.
According to the Minnesota DOT, this bridge wasn't considered a candidate for replacement until 2020. Yes, that's a whole 13 years from now.
Now if you want to review the facts, and make a reasonable and researched point, I say go for it.
If you want to spout off about how everything is Bush's fault, or the war in Iraq's fault, then go on sounding like a brainwashed idiot. The choice is yours.
Sources:
»www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/···87.shtml
»www.wral.com/news/national_world···1663671/
--
Welcome to cat noise Wednsday!! |
|
Nuts
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH
| reply to satellite68
quote:
While Interstate Highways usually receive substantial federal funding and comply with federal standards, they are owned, built, and operated by the states in which they are located. The only exception is the federally-owned Woodrow Wilson Bridge on the Capital Beltway (I-95/I-495).
»http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Int···y_System
Also, the Minn. state govenor said in a press interview today, that he had wanted to raise the state gas tax to help pay for road work.
quote:
You've never travelled on an interstate highway at any time in the past fifty years??
I trave at least 10 hrs a week on them, and have racked up over 13,000 miles since April. Had over 55,000 miles last year on them. |
|
acs12798
join:2006-03-13
| reply to satellite68
Hate the break it to you, but even the interstate highway system is maintained by the states and always has been. The feds helped fund it, and organize it, but it was always the states job to take care of the roads. Thus MTA in NY charges on I-87 and I-90 for large portions. So the person you replied to and tried to put down was in fact correct. |
|
satellite68
join:2007-04-11
Louisville, KY
| reply to Nuts
You started with:
quote:
The States could raise their own taxes to take care of these things. Why do we always think it's the federal governments job
Clearly, without the "significant federal funding" involved, the system probably wouldn't be as fabulous as it is, warts and all-or even built, for that matter.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate···y_System
quote:
Of course, a state that lost federal highway funding could theoretically threaten to stop maintaining its highways, if that were politically palatable to its residents
Good luck with that idealogy. You claim to drive so much on these roads-could Ohio maintain all of its interstates without federal funding? Hardly. Could Ohio have built these interstates by themselves? Not by a country mile.
I always love it when people say things like "Why do we always think it's the federal governments job?" when they clearly use/benefit from the federal government's involvement in the very thing they're railing against.
To wit:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_funds
quote:
In the United States, many projects in the various states and communities are partially funded with federal grants with a requirement for matching funds. For example, the Interstate Highway System was primarily built with a mix of 90% FHWA funds from the Highway Trust Fund and 10% matching state DOT funds.
So basically...you're advocating using only 10% of the road? Or should Ohio raise it's taxes to get the other 90%? Keep in mind-since you're advocating keeping the feds out of the interstate highway building business (Why do we always think it's the federal governments job?), the highway you drive on would never have been built in the first place. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to inteller
Sarcasm aside, that's actually the real reason. "Spent $6 billion to rebuild some roads and bridges" isn't a eye catching campaign item. "Spent $6 billion hunting down and capturing terrorists intent on destroying America" is. The latter is likely to woo voters than the former so that's how the politicians spend our money. They only care about these "non-sexy" items when something catastrophic happens. (In which case, it suddenly becomes politically "sexy" to care about it.) |
|
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
|  reply to major marco
said by major marco :This news story is just polishing the turd. The real news is that our illustrious federal leaders prefer to spend a billion dollars per month on an illegal war instead of keeping us safe from our crumbling infrastructure. So true, it's not funny.....
--
"I'm a Geek, Are You?" |
|
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| reply to Jason Levine
said by Jason Levine :Sarcasm aside, that's actually the real reason. "Spent $6 billion to rebuild some roads and bridges" isn't a eye catching campaign item. "Spent $6 billion hunting down and capturing terrorists intent on destroying America" is. The latter is likely to woo voters than the former so that's how the politicians spend our money. They only care about these "non-sexy" items when something catastrophic happens. (In which case, it suddenly becomes politically "sexy" to care about it.) Not for me... I'd rather they spend my money on something I am actually going to use versus having them spend it on killing some assholes and camels in a tent in the middle of the Sahara. 
-Tzale
--
"I'm a Geek, Are You?" |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| No argument there. But politicians see these things as "boring." We need to put an anti-terrorism spin on it....
"Al Qaeda has plans on infiltrating America, going onto our bridges, and stomping real hard thus knocking them down and killing thousands. We must funnel billions in anti-terrorism funds to repair our nation's bridges!"  |
|
