ADVERTISEMENT

Infrastructure Bill passes with bipartisan votes

So the government will run charging stations?

$66 billion for Amtrack, that already requires massive subsidizing, seems absurd.
I think it's just subsidizing the construction of them. Didn't get that far into the detail. Good question. I would hope somebody would find a way to profit off them and just needs a lift on the initial capital investment.

As to Amtrak, sure we can argue about it, but it will create jobs. Good paying ones most likely. I could think of worse ways to spend money.
 
Americans with common sense have faith in them.. Much more than the last administration. Although common sense isn't very common these days so probably more accurate to go with sense.
Yes, this bitch has tons of common sense--


I suppose if you're talking about Plains states you may need to count RVs.
 
Yes, this bitch has tons of common sense--


I suppose if you're talking about Plains states you may need to count RVs.

You resort to name calling because you can't refute her point?

You calling her a bitch says more about you than anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
28%. Holy hell, that is horrible. How can she possibly be on a ticket in '24?
The left screwed the pooch letting AOC and The Squad set the narrative. Midterms will be a disaster. If they pivot more to the center there's plenty of time for the party to recover imo. Dump the social spending bill. Temper the identity politics. People like the infrastructure bill. The party can still do well, and use that time to groom someone else to run in her place. My 2 cents
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crayfish57
I think it's just subsidizing the construction of them. Didn't get that far into the detail. Good question. I would hope somebody would find a way to profit off them and just needs a lift on the initial capital investment.

As to Amtrak, sure we can argue about it, but it will create jobs. Good paying ones most likely. I could think of worse ways to spend money.
Oh, you can be sure someone will profit off the government largess. And it will be those evil "rich".

If spending money creates so many jobs, why don't we just make it $10 Trillion?

You realize that, by raising taxes - especially for 'the rich' - it will destroy jobs. Right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crayfish57
You resort to name calling because you can't refute her point?

You calling her a bitch says more about you than anything.
You've got chutzpa, I'll give you that.

You accuse me of eating shit and being on Trump's dick, but you're whining about being calling someone a 'bitch'. Ever listen to any of the popular music these days? ****ing hilarious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crayfish57
I have never visited Europe, how do they run their highway system without going through cities? It appears Ike liked that idea, not going into cities:

The President referred to a previous conversation with General Bragdon. He went on to say that the matter of running Interstate routes through the congested parts of the cities was entirely against his original concept and wishes; that he never anticipated that the program would turn out this way. He pointed out that when the Clay Committee Report was rendered, he had studied it carefully, and that he was certainly not aware of any concept of using the program to build up an extensive intra-city route network as part of the program he sponsored. He added that those who had not advised him that such was being done, and those who had steered the program in such a direction, had not followed his wishes.​

 
Oh, you can be sure someone will profit off the government largess. And it will be those evil "rich".

If spending money creates so many jobs, why don't we just make it $10 Trillion?

You realize that, by raising taxes - especially for 'the rich' - it will destroy jobs. Right?
Spending money the right way creates jobs. I probably have more confidence in our federal agencies than you do, but spending will create jobs. I do hope it's done accountably, efficiently, and transparently. Dare to dream
 
Spending money the right way creates jobs. I probably have more confidence in our federal agencies than you do, but spending will create jobs. I do hope it's done accountably, efficiently, and transparently. Dare to dream
I have no idea why you'd think government can spend or manage money effectively.

Spending will create jobs. It will also cause inflation and supress the economy when 'the rich' start pulling back investing in businesses when their tax rates go up.

I looked into taking a train trip a while ago. There is no way Amtrack should be as inefficient as it is. It's shouldn't take forever to travel to NYC or Alberta, Canada from Chicago. It was more efficient 100 years ago.
 
I have no idea why you'd think government can spend or manage money effectively.

Spending will create jobs. It will also cause inflation and supress the economy when 'the rich' start pulling back investing in businesses when their tax rates go up.

I looked into taking a train trip a while ago. There is no way Amtrack should be as inefficient as it is. It's shouldn't take forever to travel to NYC or Alberta, Canada from Chicago. It was more efficient 100 years ago.
I suspect there were far more trains and tracks 100 years ago. At least in the midwest. For passenger travel at least.

Amtrak's problems aren't soley due to govt ineffectiveness/inefficiency. Rail has been on the chopping block of the auto industry and transportation industry for years. I suspect Amtrak is pretty vital in the NE. Not so much anywhere else.

Also, i just went to Amtrak's site to book a train from Chicago to NYC for the week before Thanksgiving. Now, mind you, I don't ever take trains but it seems pretty straightforward. They have straight thoughs and multi train trips.

for a two person room I'm looking at $1300. Obviously that's way more expensive than just taking a plane but I suspect the allure of traveling by train has a cost.

Trip times are about 20 hours each way. If we want bullet trains, that's a whole other conversation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
I wonder how many train tracks have been turned into walking trails.
 
I suspect there were far more trains and tracks 100 years ago. At least in the midwest. For passenger travel at least.

Amtrak's problems aren't soley due to govt ineffectiveness/inefficiency. Rail has been on the chopping block of the auto industry and transportation industry for years. I suspect Amtrak is pretty vital in the NE. Not so much anywhere else.

Also, i just went to Amtrak's site to book a train from Chicago to NYC for the week before Thanksgiving. Now, mind you, I don't ever take trains but it seems pretty straightforward. They have straight thoughs and multi train trips.

for a two person room I'm looking at $1300. Obviously that's way more expensive than just taking a plane but I suspect the allure of traveling by train has a cost.

Trip times are about 20 hours each way. If we want bullet trains, that's a whole other conversation.

lol $1300 is a joke. Traveling by train is stupid for medium and longer routes unless we’re taking local (metro-based).

It’s an antiquated option. to invest in it is even more stupid, might as well start some horse and carriage routes too.

bullet trains make some logical sense, but the environmental impact has to be massive I would imagine.
 
lol $1300 is a joke. Traveling by train is stupid for medium and longer routes unless we’re taking local (metro-based).

It’s an antiquated option. to invest in it is even more stupid, might as well start some horse and carriage routes too.

bullet trains make some logical sense, but the environmental impact has to be massive I would imagine.
Give the money to Musk. San Fran to LA in a half hour
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
lol $1300 is a joke. Traveling by train is stupid for medium and longer routes unless we’re taking local (metro-based).

It’s an antiquated option. to invest in it is even more stupid, might as well start some horse and carriage routes too.

bullet trains make some logical sense, but the environmental impact has to be massive I would imagine.
Well, yeah. That's why i think Amtrak really only matters in the NE. Everywhere else it's for shits and giggly vacations.

America's too big for trains for cross country travel when we have planes.
 
Im just saying, he can easily come back with something like 'newborns aren't concerned with your work schedule nor do they apologize for not being convenient' when that gets tossed his way (which it will and you and McM will owe me a beer when he bats it back).

Just saying, he's got leverage in this argument.
Holy crap man, calm down .
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC
lol $1300 is a joke. Traveling by train is stupid for medium and longer routes unless we’re taking local (metro-based).

It’s an antiquated option. to invest in it is even more stupid, might as well start some horse and carriage routes too.

bullet trains make some logical sense, but the environmental impact has to be massive I would imagine.
Trains are still ideal for heavy bulk transit. If you had anything to eat today that was made with wheat or corn, it's 90% likely that it traveled by train at some point in time.
Also, probably something like 70% of all coal transport is by train.

There is just currently nothing as efficient as train travel when trying to transport large quantities of heavy materials. If we let rail maintenance fall by the wayside, we are absolutely and totally screwed.
 
I suspect there were far more trains and tracks 100 years ago. At least in the midwest. For passenger travel at least.

Amtrak's problems aren't soley due to govt ineffectiveness/inefficiency. Rail has been on the chopping block of the auto industry and transportation industry for years. I suspect Amtrak is pretty vital in the NE. Not so much anywhere else.

Also, i just went to Amtrak's site to book a train from Chicago to NYC for the week before Thanksgiving. Now, mind you, I don't ever take trains but it seems pretty straightforward. They have straight thoughs and multi train trips.

for a two person room I'm looking at $1300. Obviously that's way more expensive than just taking a plane but I suspect the allure of traveling by train has a cost.

Trip times are about 20 hours each way. If we want bullet trains, that's a whole other conversation.
20 hours. Pffft. You can drive faster.

$1300 for a subsidized railroad? That's nowhere near what it costs in Europe for a comparable trip. "allure of traveling" ineed!

If you still think government can spend money after your example, I don't know what to tell you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hookyIU1990
lol $1300 is a joke. Traveling by train is stupid for medium and longer routes unless we’re taking local (metro-based).

It’s an antiquated option. to invest in it is even more stupid, might as well start some horse and carriage routes too.

bullet trains make some logical sense, but the environmental impact has to be massive I would imagine.
I am all for an Interurban system like that was in place 100 years ago. Or, at least some point-to-point direct connections. You don't need locomotives for that type of system.

But we're propping up an antiquated system in Amtrack. Unless it's the Northeast Corridor, trains are not on time, or very slow, and even routes canceled. They're just not reliable.

I could get behind an effort to fund a study how to make the system better, but throwing money at Amtrack for a $1300 train ride to New York for 2 is ridiculous.
 
Trains are still ideal for heavy bulk transit. If you had anything to eat today that was made with wheat or corn, it's 90% likely that it traveled by train at some point in time.
Also, probably something like 70% of all coal transport is by train.

There is just currently nothing as efficient as train travel when trying to transport large quantities of heavy materials. If we let rail maintenance fall by the wayside, we are absolutely and totally screwed.
It's far more than rail maintenence.
 
Well, yeah. That's why i think Amtrak really only matters in the NE. Everywhere else it's for shits and giggly vacations.

America's too big for trains for cross country travel when we have planes.
I'd much rather take a 2 hour train ride from Chicago to Indianapolis than fly.

But you can't do it. That can be fixed, but we'd rather prop up an ineffective system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
Obviously I will not change your mind, but if a high profile person believes family leave is an important issue why would using it be virtue signaling and not be a case study on why it is good for all Americans?
Yes, but his brand of family leave is 2 gay men choosing to adopt. Whetever they want to choose to do and where do the rights of the adoptees come in to play? Whatever on all of that. He took a high profile job because of basically he is gay , that is his biggest qualification. It isnt like he suddenly became pregnant and needed time off. If he can't schedule this and he is in charge of transportation? oh wait how well is that going?
 
The quote below sums up the problem. Blighted neighborhoods were chosen as a form of urban renewal. What determined blight?

This is a ‘melting pot’ area and is literally honeycombed with diverse and subversive racial elements. It is seriously doubted whether there is a single block in the area which does not contain detrimental racial elements … It is hazardous residential territory and is accorded a general medial red grade – Original FHA evaluator report for Boyle Heights, California​

Roads were the tool used to eliminate Black working poor neighborhoods which Whites called blight. That doesn't mean every inch of interstate had this problem. Certainly not. But wherever possible redlined districts were sought for removal. Redlining was a racist policy, is that fair to say? So targeting redlined neighborhoods is somehow clean from any racism? Add in the fact redlining depressed home and business values in these districts and it is clear the residents were screwed.

And back to Pete's point, again the man who made the claim in the book worked for Moses for a number of years. What makes everyone so convinced he must be lying about the overpasses?
What runs along the border of Boyle Heights? The 5, 10, 101 fwys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marvin the Martian
Anything from Jim Crow south being racist isn’t surprising. I never denied there could be examples of segregation imbedded in urban design including highways. I do deny that was a dominant priority for the interstate system as you and Boots seem to imply.

And talking about racism in terms of desperate impact is laughable, which was a big takeaway from your link. But keep on yacking about racism, that seems to be the only talking point liberals have.

As far as the Port Savannah is concerned, a few days ago, I was up next to the ships and cranes in a small boat with my Stoker and a friend touring the port and nearby nature preserve. Glorious sunny day and being at sea level, I don’t think the air was thin. I took the guide’s deposition about port operations including how they keep track of the thousands of containers, how they keep track of incoming and outgoing containers, how they get them on their way, the order they are loaded and unloaded, who owns and operates the port and much more. I wish Mayor Pete was with us. I now know more about ports than he does.
Another "View from CVS" post, huh? This is some HVAC level insight. Couldn't find a tandem tho?
 
Yes, but his brand of family leave is 2 gay men choosing to adopt. Whetever they want to choose to do and where do the rights of the adoptees come in to play? Whatever on all of that. He took a high profile job because of basically he is gay , that is his biggest qualification. It isnt like he suddenly became pregnant and needed time off. If he can't schedule this and he is in charge of transportation? oh wait how well is that going?
Seems like you have a problem with him being gay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Trains are still ideal for heavy bulk transit. If you had anything to eat today that was made with wheat or corn, it's 90% likely that it traveled by train at some point in time.
Also, probably something like 70% of all coal transport is by train.

There is just currently nothing as efficient as train travel when trying to transport large quantities of heavy materials. If we let rail maintenance fall by the wayside, we are absolutely and totally screwed.

so let’s invest in rail transport not passenger transport (Amtrak)
 
I have never visited Europe, how do they run their highway system without going through cities? It appears Ike liked that idea, not going into cities:

The President referred to a previous conversation with General Bragdon. He went on to say that the matter of running Interstate routes through the congested parts of the cities was entirely against his original concept and wishes; that he never anticipated that the program would turn out this way. He pointed out that when the Clay Committee Report was rendered, he had studied it carefully, and that he was certainly not aware of any concept of using the program to build up an extensive intra-city route network as part of the program he sponsored. He added that those who had not advised him that such was being done, and those who had steered the program in such a direction, had not followed his wishes.​

It’s not about the roads, it’s about the cars. Thank Henry Ford and his Model T for the American Highway system. The Model T brought car ownership to the masses. Before that, cars were a plaything for the rich. Other manufacturers followed suit and car ownership soon became available to almost every American. They soon used the cars to get to work instead of public transit. Public transit started to wane here in the 30’s. Then along came the post war suburban housing boom and then we needed modern highways to serve suburbia.

Europe never had a Henry Ford or the Model T. Ordinary folks couldn’t afford a car so they rode street cars and public transit. That’s why transit is still more viable in Europe than here. Hitler with his Volkswagen was the only significant effort to bring car ownership to the common people. The war cut that off. Other car companies in France tried with low-priced cars but the war messed that up too. Post war Europe did not experience the single family suburban housing boom we did. Combine the lack of affordable cars and no suburbs and you get no or few highways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crayfish57
It’s not about the roads, it’s about the cars. Thank Henry Ford and his Model T for the American Highway system. The Model T brought car ownership to the masses. Before that, cars were a plaything for the rich. Other manufacturers followed suit and car ownership soon became available to almost every American. They soon used the cars to get to work instead of public transit. Public transit started to wane here in the 30’s. Then along came the post war suburban housing boom and then we needed modern highways to serve suburbia.

Europe never had a Henry Ford or the Model T. Ordinary folks couldn’t afford a car so they rode street cars and public transit. That’s why transit is still more viable in Europe than here. Hitler with his Volkswagen was the only significant effort to bring car ownership to the common people. The war cut that off. Other car companies in France tried with low-priced cars but the war messed that up too. Post war Europe did not experience the single family suburban housing boom we did. Combine the lack of affordable cars and no suburbs and you get no or few highways.

That makes sense but raises the question of what did Ike expect. Did he just not want the mass use of eminent domain? Did he foresee suburban sprawl with urban decay? Did he just not want to pay for it? There is probably no way of knowing, but not running interstates through cities seems like it would have had a massive change in future history.
 
Disparate impact of benign acts is not racism
How do you know an act is benign? It sounds like there can never be racism without admission of racism. Even in 1963 very very few people would admit to carrying out an act because of racism.

Ambrose mentions in one of his books the use of the word "bigot" to describe those in the know about D-Day. When planning meetings occurred, MPs would ask generals showing up if they were bigoted. This was chosen because the natural inclination is to not admit to being bigoted, so anyone showing up and immediately saying yes was almost certainly allowed in. He tells of one general saying something like, "well, I don't know that they are equal but I wouldn't say I'm bigoted". Onk, wrong answer.

Will you admit that rarely will bigoted people admit that they are doing something out of bigotry? If that is accurate, doesn't that create a problem in determining what is the result of bigotry and what is not?
 
That makes sense but raises the question of what did Ike expect. Did he just not want the mass use of eminent domain? Did he foresee suburban sprawl with urban decay? Did he just not want to pay for it? There is probably no way of knowing, but not running interstates through cities seems like it would have had a massive change in future history.
Ike focused on military logistics. One of the purposes of Ike’s road system was internal movement of military units. The PR signs posted throughout the construction areas included references to national defense highways. The Act authorizing construction also noted defense purposes. In one of Ike’s books, he wrote about his 1919 experience and the difficulties in the coast to coast convoy he commanded. Thus, Ike intended an inter-urban system.


When President Dwight D. Eisenhower took office in January 1953, however, the states had only completed 6,500 miles of the system improvements. Eisenhower had first realized the value of good highways in 1919, when he participated in the U.S. Army's first transcontinental motor convoy from Washington, DC, to San Francisco. Again, during World War II, Eisenhower saw the German advantage that resulted from their autobahn highway network, and he also noted the enhanced mobility of the Allies, on those same highways, when they fought their way into Germany. These experiences significantly shaped Eisenhower's views on highways and their role in national defense. During his State of the Union Address on January 7, 1954, Eisenhower made it clear that he was ready to turn his attention to the nation's highway problems. He considered it important to "protect the vital interest of every citizen in a safe and adequate highway system."​
 
The left screwed the pooch letting AOC and The Squad set the narrative. Midterms will be a disaster. If they pivot more to the center there's plenty of time for the party to recover imo. Dump the social spending bill. Temper the identity politics. People like the infrastructure bill. The party can still do well, and use that time to groom someone else to run in her place. My 2 cents
Amy K is someone I seriously would have considered voting for. She talks the progressive talk at times, but I think she’s a blue dog to her core.
 
How do you know an act is benign? It sounds like there can never be racism without admission of racism. Even in 1963 very very few people would admit to carrying out an act because of racism.

Ambrose mentions in one of his books the use of the word "bigot" to describe those in the know about D-Day. When planning meetings occurred, MPs would ask generals showing up if they were bigoted. This was chosen because the natural inclination is to not admit to being bigoted, so anyone showing up and immediately saying yes was almost certainly allowed in. He tells of one general saying something like, "well, I don't know that they are equal but I wouldn't say I'm bigoted". Onk, wrong answer.

Will you admit that rarely will bigoted people admit that they are doing something out of bigotry? If that is accurate, doesn't that create a problem in determining what is the result of bigotry and what is not?
First of all, bigotry is not the same as racism and the two words should not be used interchangeably .

Secondly, I think racism requires deliberation. Legitimate disparate impact cases can’t be racism even if some actors are shown to be racist. This is the source of the big quarrel I have with the whole anti-racism/CRT thing. I also cringe at the concept of institutional racism. I think IR is a dodge for those who recognize the problem of black underachievement but are too cowardly to talk about the real issues. The real issue revolves around low expectations which shows itself in public education and which also leads liberals to talk in terms of black peoples not being able to obtain identification cards or being able to sign up for vaccines on the internet. Low expectations is it’s own form of racism.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT