Has the nation that built the Hoover Dam, brought electricity to the rural South...

[swerus]

You can edit your previous posts, you know, instead of just adding new ones.

They are such profound statements they need their own thread.

 

[EagleKeeper]

We are teetering on collapse because we had the Republican party, which has no clue or interest in proper governing of this country in charge for too long. Their interest is in proving government doesn't work, even if it means running this nation into ruin.

Both parties want to extend the handouts and not worry how to cover the costs.

Handing out $1T with minimal oversight and allowing political connections to determine where the $$ go is a example that the Dems recently did.

Both parties will come up with excuses on what the other has done and why things have to change.

But the actual desire to change when one is in control is not there - it weakens ones hold on the purse.

 

[theeedude]

Both parties want to extend the handouts and not worry how to cover the costs.

Handing out $1T with minimal oversight and allowing political connections to determine where the $$ go is a example that the Dems recently did.

Both parties will come up with excuses on what the other has done and why things have to change.

But the actual desire to change when one is in control is not there - it weakens ones hold on the purse.

It's not about being inept, it's about deliberately sabotaging the governance of this country to "prove" that big government doesn't work.

 

[K1052]

Both parties want to extend the handouts and not worry how to cover the costs.

Handing out $1T with minimal oversight and allowing political connections to determine where the $$ go is a example that the Dems recently did.

Both parties will come up with excuses on what the other has done and why things have to change.

But the actual desire to change when one is in control is not there - it weakens ones hold on the purse.

Which is why the Infrastructure Bank is such a good idea, though Obama shouldn't get credit for it since it is hardly a new thing.

Now is also the time to create it since there is a massive sea of private capital sitting idle or in bonds which are paying virtually nothing out of uncertainty. This can be tapped with a relatively modest initial investment by the Federal Government for the bank's start up capital.

Ideally the bank's directors and board (made up of financial and engineering experts) should be appointed to staggered 5-15 year terms to isolate it from the whims of whoever is in power at the time yet promote enough turn over to keep it relevant.

 

[theeedude]

We have cheap money and cheap labor sitting on the sidelines. The private sector does not have capital and labor intensive projects they want to start in the US to utilize these two untapped resources. There is never going to be a better time for the government to connect the two and get major infrastructure projects rolling. Otherwise we are going to lose the productive potential of a generation of workers and let their skills deteriorate. And we are going to get pathetic returns on capital that could have been invested in making this country more competitive.

 

[techs]

Which is why the Infrastructure Bank is such a good idea, though Obama shouldn't get credit for it since it is hardly a new thing.

Now is also the time to create it since there is a massive sea of private capital sitting idle or in bonds which are paying virtually nothing out of uncertainty. This can be tapped with a relatively modest initial investment by the Federal Government for the bank's start up capital.

Ideally the bank's directors and board (made up of financial and engineering experts) should be appointed to staggered 5-15 year terms to isolate it from the whims of whoever is in power at the time yet promote enough turn over to keep it relevant.

wtf? Who are you and what did you do with K1052?
I'm shocked that you agree this is a good idea.

 

[Darwin333]

unemployment checks are spent into the economy. This benefits even you a knuckle dragging fuck nut.

I bet paying people to work is more productive for the economy than paying them to not work.

 

[Dekasa]

I bet paying people to work is more productive for the economy than paying them to not work.

But no one will pay them to work. There are no jobs (yes, there *are* jobs, but there are a LOT more of people wanting to work than there are jobs) And starting a business right now isn't the brightest idea, not even huge companies with loads of cash are expanding.

 

[hal2kilo]

It's communism if we build dams, but hippies if we don't?

And there you have it, wingnut logic at its best. They can even disagree or agree with themselves who is to blame, just that they're pissed and it's those poor people and liberals that are draggin us down. Sometimes they are fascists and other times they are communists. One things for sure tho, "They want their country back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" what ever that means.

 

[Mursilis]

We are teetering on collapse because we had the Republican party, which has no clue or interest in proper governing of this country in charge for too long. Their interest is in proving government doesn't work, even if it means running this nation into ruin.

I agree with that in a lot of ways, but then how do they get into office? Mostly by allowing the Dems to screw up enough that the GOP seems like a good choice by comparison. The Dems have a huge advantage in charisma - pols like Clinton, Obama, etc., come across as dynamic natural leaders. The GOP hasn't had a leader like that since Reagan. They've been led by either clowns like Gingrich, tired has-beens like Dole and McCain, or out-of-touch borderline incompetents like W for the last 20+ years, and yet they've held both Congress and the White House during that time. You have to ask yourself why. Maybe the Dems can't govern worth a damn either. Or maybe big gov't really doesn't work (by it's nature).

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Or maybe big gov't really doesn't work (by it's nature).

I'll toss in my usual thoughts on this. It isn't that government in itself can't work, but it's a poor tool when party considerations come into play. Once a government program starts the chance of real reform when needed are slim. The political inertia of something like Medicaid (which I use most often as an example simply because I see how it works in practice) is so great that it's going to be expanded without any changes, and it needs them. "Health care" reform is another example. It wasn't health care, it was insurance, and while I'd support limited changes the Dems wanted to make stir fry by putting everything in the pan at once not even knowing what the ingredients should be. You get a mess. But that didn't matter. What was important was getting it rammed through. The Reps are clueless because they simply opposed everything. They too decided to ignore the issue and focus on bashing the Dems.

Government is one big dysfunctional family with people in charge forcing representatives to go what is against the best interest of the nation for the good of the party. That political whips are allowed to exist is clear evidence of that. The Constitution allows us to pick people to represent the state or district to represent us. No where does it require them to be subservient to a political organization. Unfortunately it doesn't prevent it either.

 

[Mursilis]

I'll toss in my usual thoughts on this. It isn't that government in itself can't work, but it's a poor tool when party considerations come into play. Once a government program starts the chance of real reform when needed are slim. The political inertia of something like Medicaid (which I use most often as an example simply because I see how it works in practice) is so great that it's going to be expanded without any changes, and it needs them. "Health care" reform is another example. It wasn't health care, it was insurance, and while I'd support limited changes the Dems wanted to make stir fry by putting everything in the pan at once not even knowing what the ingredients should be. You get a mess. But that didn't matter. What was important was getting it rammed through. The Reps are clueless because they simply opposed everything. They too decided to ignore the issue and focus on bashing the Dems.

Government is one big dysfunctional family with people in charge forcing representatives to go what is against the best interest of the nation for the good of the party. That political whips are allowed to exist is clear evidence of that. The Constitution allows us to pick people to represent the state or district to represent us. No where does it require them to be subservient to a political organization. Unfortunately it doesn't prevent it either.

There's a lot of truth there, but I think you're overstating party considerations to a degree. I just think big organizations are inherently inefficient, just by nature of their size. The German sociologist Max Weber had some interesting writing about this. The bigger the organization, the more opinions have to be taken into consideration to reach consensus, and the more inertia created. In the private sector, the market usually rewards nimbleness, so big organizations have internal incentives to either fight to keep processes at least minimally efficient, or fail (see GM/Chrysler). In the gov't, however, there are no such market forces at work, so where's the incentive to streamline processes or utilize resources efficiently? See my carpet story, above. My agency spent a large chunk of $$ putting in new carpet, knowing the building was going to get gutted and refurbished in about a year, including ripping out all the new carpet. I think that was wasteful, but where's the incentive not to spend money wastefully in gov't?

 

[werepossum]

There's a lot of truth there, but I think you're overstating party considerations to a degree. I just think big organizations are inherently inefficient, just by nature of their size. The German sociologist Max Weber had some interesting writing about this. The bigger the organization, the more opinions have to be taken into consideration to reach consensus, and the more inertia created. In the private sector, the market usually rewards nimbleness, so big organizations have internal incentives to either fight to keep processes at least minimally efficient, or fail (see GM/Chrysler). In the gov't, however, there are no such market forces at work, so where's the incentive to streamline processes or utilize resources efficiently? See my carpet story, above. My agency spent a large chunk of $$ putting in new carpet, knowing the building was going to get gutted and refurbished in about a year, including ripping out all the new carpet. I think that was wasteful, but where's the incentive not to spend money wastefully in gov't?

Very good points. One fundamental nature of all large entities is that budgets become "use it or lose it". If you don't spend all your budget, chances are next year it will be cut and you may not be able to get things you actually need, so you buy carpet knowing that in a year it will become trash.

 

[piasabird]

Not much potable water in China??? I would not be lauding their over-poluted landscape. What you have to realize is many building projects in China are built by carrying cement on a workers back. No Trucks, No cranes.

 

[Pocatello]

Not much potable water in China??? I would not be lauding their over-poluted landscape. What you have to realize is many building projects in China are built by carrying cement on a workers back. No Trucks, No cranes.

China has always been infamously known for putting people to work - to death, even before communism.

 

[theeedude]

I agree with that in a lot of ways, but then how do they get into office? Mostly by allowing the Dems to screw up enough that the GOP seems like a good choice by comparison. The Dems have a huge advantage in charisma - pols like Clinton, Obama, etc., come across as dynamic natural leaders. The GOP hasn't had a leader like that since Reagan. They've been led by either clowns like Gingrich, tired has-beens like Dole and McCain, or out-of-touch borderline incompetents like W for the last 20+ years, and yet they've held both Congress and the White House during that time. You have to ask yourself why. Maybe the Dems can't govern worth a damn either. Or maybe big gov't really doesn't work (by it's nature).

Why is junk food selling well? Because it's good for you? Marketing.

 

[bfdd]

We are teetering on collapse because we had the Republican party, which has no clue or interest in proper governing of this country in charge for too long. Their interest is in proving government doesn't work, even if it means running this nation into ruin.

That's because you're sitting in the back seat and are only awake half the time. It's like Ma and Pa took us on a road trip across the country and take turns driving. Instead of Walley World though our destination is collapse. These kind of things generally don't just happen over night senseamp and are years in the making. An accumulation of bullshit from both sides has stacked up to high for our levees to handle and it's just going to bathe us in shit.

 

[bfdd]

But no one will pay them to work. There are no jobs (yes, there *are* jobs, but there are a LOT more of people wanting to work than there are jobs) And starting a business right now isn't the brightest idea, not even huge companies with loads of cash are expanding.

Make them go dig a hole, then another one next to it filling the previous hole with the dirt from the second. Then they can go back and forth digging holes. It will give them vital job experience while making them "work" for a living.

 

[bfdd]

And there you have it, wingnut logic at its best. They can even disagree or agree with themselves who is to blame, just that they're pissed and it's those poor people and liberals that are draggin us down. Sometimes they are fascists and other times they are communists. One things for sure tho, "They want their country back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" what ever that means.

just like a "wingnut" to assume shit they know nothing about. keep on fighting the "good cause."

moron