minneapolis bridge collapse

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

that are infrastructure is old and failing is true, and I think most people are aware of it. but for the pols its not such a sexy item, "elect me and we'll repair our bridges!". <yawn>

I imagine that this tragedy will get some attention to it.
we are not building and modernizing things such as dams, bridges, power plants, refineries, levees, rail, public transport, etc. it requires long term thinking and we don't excel at it.
of course the other small problem is paying for it.

Which is where you will end up hearing people blame the Bush administration for it.

Not that it's his fault really, because nobody before him did anything either -- but now that the issue is front and center, people will start talking, start looking for the money, and realizing where it's all going, how wildly far in debt we are, and why we can't do anything about it even if we want to now.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Which is where you will end up hearing people blame the Bush administration for it.

Not that it's his fault really, because nobody before him did anything either -- but now that the issue is front and center, people will start talking, start looking for the money, and realizing where it's all going, how wildly far in debt we are, and why we can't do anything about it even if we want to now.

it's called prioritizing...and as was said above, it's not a sexy, elect me i'll fix the roads type subject. it appears we continue to ignore problems--as if katrina wasn't enough to force us to look to ourselves. this stuff doesn't last forever, and takes maintenance to keep fit.

it's a shame that with us being the richest nation in the world, that we have things such as what happened yesterday.
but then, after seeing a show on discovery that showed a major highway down in south america, i said i'd never complain about our roads again. it was a main thorofare, and was nothing more than a rutted dirt road--and not wide enough to allow comers and goers.

you'd think there would be a rotating plan on road and highway and bridge repairs.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Which is where you will end up hearing people blame the Bush administration for it.

Not that it's his fault really, because nobody before him did anything either -- but now that the issue is front and center, people will start talking, start looking for the money, and realizing where it's all going, how wildly far in debt we are, and why we can't do anything about it even if we want to now.

yeah if i were trying to make the argument for that side that's how I would play it, although its sorta bogus because even though the war is a huge cost, the infrastructure has been neglected for decades.

[SentToStud]

at least there's a Quarter of A Billion dollars for this:

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feat...ges/index.html

Alaska is the 48th most populated State.

Alaska is the 4th biggest recipient of ($900 Mil +) of funds from the recent Transportation Act.

What a country.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

at least there's a Quarter of A Billion dollars for this:

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feat...ges/index.html

Alaska is the 48th most populated State.

Alaska is the 4th biggest recipient of ($900 Mil +) of funds from the recent Transportation Act.

What a country.

but i believe i read the other day that alaska has almost NO infrastructure. can't transport if you haven't got the means to do so.
it would be so nice if the federal govt got cut back down to doing federal things, and the states could/would/SHOULD take care of their part.

hey, the built a new sport complex here....too many gravel roads to count, but we have ballfields to replace the ballfields we already had....makes sense to me!

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

at least there's a Quarter of A Billion dollars for this:

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feat...ges/index.html

Alaska is the 48th most populated State.

Alaska is the 4th biggest recipient of ($900 Mil +) of funds from the recent Transportation Act.

What a country.

Stevens, a Republican(oh my) is one of the "Kings of Porkbarrell legislation" Yes...I really said that!

[Danzig]

ah, yes, stevens.....

it's why there should be term limits, so that no one can stay up there long enough to get as much power as some of these characters.
the president is limited, why not congressman? the longer they stay, the more deeply entrenched, and the more power they wield. it's not supposed to be that way.

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by Danzig

ah, yes, stevens.....

it's why there should be term limits, so that no one can stay up there long enough to get as much power as some of these characters.
the president is limited, why not congressman? the longer they stay, the more deeply entrenched, and the more power they wield. it's not supposed to be that way.

AGREE! It's time for Ted Kennedy to go!!!!!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

AGREE! It's time for Ted Kennedy to go!!!!!

that man has the biggest head i've ever seen on a human....

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Stevens, a Republican(oh my) is one of the "Kings of Porkbarrell legislation" Yes...I really said that!

i think the whole senate is nothing but porkers.

political sparing and porkbarreling (earmarks),

what does this body produce that's of any value?

oh yeah the allnight pajama party a few weeks ago was kinda neat.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

i think the whole senate is nothing but porkers.

political sparing and porkbarreling (earmarks),

what does this body produce that's of any value?

oh yeah the allnight pajama party a few weeks ago was kinda neat.

Was that a Democratic bacchanal?

[Bigsmc]

My niece commuted across that bridge every day. Luckily she crossed it a couple hours before the collapse.

I'm all for replacement of all deficient bridges, it's my line of work (i.e. more money for Bigs). Problem is, as others have already stated, someone has to pay for them.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

yeah if i were trying to make the argument for that side that's how I would play it, although its sorta bogus because even though the war is a huge cost, the infrastructure has been neglected for decades.

While I normally am a culprit in trying to make arguments for the left side, I'm not trying to do that.

All I'm saying is that, while it's not Bush's fault that this happened because nobody has done anything major forever, it's just going to be a fine place for some to point out how poorly our finances have been managed in the last six and a half years.

Can they blame Bush for the bridge? No. But it will be a great partisan time for blasting a total lack of fiscal responsibility from the party of alleged fiscal responsibility when we get this in our face and go looking for money to make repairs to try to avoid a repeat in the future.

That's all I'm saying. Even I can't blame Bush for everything. Just most.

[timmgirvan]

There is a Democrat named Hughes who says it's Bushs' fault, but no matter! Congress is the one who sets up funding for this stuff, and from what I've heard today...they are much more interested in building new than reparing old bridges. As Danzig said...that bridge is 40yrs old and was never meant to hold all the traffic it did yesterday. The new catchword is "redundancy" which means more than 1 beam supporting a truss. Redundancy allows support to bridge in case 1 beam stresse out, the others can bear up! 80-100,000 bridges in US need to be checked....problem is Fed guidelines and state guidelines are used. Feds will build a bridge for you and pay 80% of cost but they insist on being indemnified...so no lawsuits on Feds!