minneapolis bridge collapse

[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!