Basically, we need 1.6 trillion over the next 5 years to improve existing roads. Hundreds of billions more to build new ones. And bridges, yes bridges. "Of the more than 116,000 NHS bridges, over 6,000 are structurally deficient and more than 17,000 are functionally obsolete."
How can you fault real infrastructure improvements? Come on man, you're a car guy.
I won't argue that our roads and bridges need work. Take a drive in my Miata track car and see how much of your dental work is still there. I drove it to New Jersey once and had to buy two new wheels and tires when I got back.
But, while the money to create the roads and bridges is largely funded the federal government (taxpayers), the maintenance after the system is built is the responsibility of the states (taxpayers). Some funding is provided by the federal government - if the state asks correctly and the funding is approved - but then the state decides where to spend that money.
Here's where it takes a turn for the worse. Remember that bridge collapse in Minneapolis last year? The collapse was due to two factors - the original design, and maintenance. Where was the state spending its money? Same place many states spend their money: Building sports arenas. Tennessee (my state) has done the same thing. Governor Phil Bredesen (D) took highway funds and moved them into the general fund. Which was illegal. Is Governor Bredesen under indictment? No. The state legislature merely passed another law, which only reiterated the original law. Sort of a
"and this time, we mean it!" law.
And believe it or not, but I'd like to see an investment made in public transport, something we're sorely lacking here in the South. Just think, roads would last longer and we would live longer if all the elderly people who couldn't pass their post-65 driving tests (something else we need, but the AARP lobbies too well aginst it) were removed from the roads and put on buses and trains. People would feel safer driving smaller cars and motorcycles. Even Al Gore could get behind that! (Not personally, of course, as he won't give up his hybrid SUV and flying on private jets.)
Firstly- women still get lower salaries up to 20% in the uk and 50% in the us on average.
Where and when was
that study?!?
Not only are the current and most recent companies I've worked for both
owned by women, but my female co-workers at the last comany were paid at the same rate scale as everyone else.
Second- She may have attracted fiscal conservatives, but she nonetheless also attracted these extremists and put forth an image which catered to them.
Again, the difference is those "extremists" were going to vote for McCain anyway, whereas the fiscal conservatives were not.
And I'm not going to get into the whole stupid "Obama is Muslim" thing, for the simple reason that these organisations- the Christian Coalition, Moral Majority etc- openly state that they want such things to happen. With Obama and Islam it is all suspicions, but these people shamelessly admit that's what they want.
So does CAIR.
Third- I am not trying to remove the blame from democrats or blame Bush for everything. I don't think he was a good president but nonetheless he did try to create oversight on these companies. What I am saying is the US needs some of the liberal policies, not necessarily liberal people.
Um, riiiight.
Fourth-I suppose it IS marxist, but I won't retract it nonetheless. As I said, ideally there is always some balance, and without a tiny little pinch on socialism, or a good portion of capitalism, we would have an unjust system. The CEO wages are one of the things this little bit of socialism can cover. And don't go saying every socialist policy is bad; I have experienced US and UK healthcare, and the quality is much the same (crappy) but we get it for free and with better medicine, and the US gets the same low quality AND has to pay. Lesser of two evils.
You don't get it for free. You have this thing called
taxation...
Fifth- how much they spend has nothing to do with being much too conservative.
Um, it has quite a lot to do with it, actually.
Has the republican party lost its values, though? Probably. I have never been with them in the moral sector since the American Civil War, but their policies themselves have changed.
You do realize that it was the Republicans that fought to end slavery, right? In fact, that's why the party was started. It was also the Republicans who who supported women's right to vote, and the Civil Rights acts of 1964.
Not that we get any thanks for it.
Nonetheless, could we have managed with a traditional, old-time republican right now either?
Managed? More like "desperately need". But hey, maybe we'll have one running in 2012 after people are reminded what four years of McGovern/Carter/Obama is like.
Finally- Yes, I thought that was funny too. Perhaps the little wasted bridges could be a bit more practical than one wasted bridge, (Mudboggers rejoice!) but I think the whole thing is a bit wasteful- how about diverting all that money into making America's roads better? Not necessarily building more, but fixing the broken ones? I have gone back to the US on holiday several times and some roads are awful.
As I addressed it above, I agree that the quality of our roads - especially in the Northeast - really needs to be addressed. Same for the bridges. Both the federal and state governments have been too distracted by shiny pretty things to do proper boring maintenance of existing structures.