Obama: I love debt! I want to owe China more!

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Ahahahahaha.

Infrastructure projects are just a gimmick and a total waste of money.

Roads are still there and they function well.

I would trash the rest of the post, but it's too nonsensical.

What about the 1000000000 other functioning bridges? One faulty bridge and the entire US road system is in shambles? :roll:

Since apparently you weren't curious enough to click around on the infrastructure report card, here you go: 27% of the bridges in the US are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.

So no, I guess only a bit less than 30% of the US bridge system is in shambles. Do you ever take the time to look into something before you post?

Dude, why don't you READ what you post first. You cross a bunch of bridges everyday I'm sure. It can be something as small as a highway crossing to a creek crossing to anything.

Structurally deficient or functionally obsolete doesn't mean they're wooden bridges with nails falling out ready to give away any second. The fucking Golden Gate Bridge is structurally deficient yet it survived 1989's earthquake, and if anything the Bay Bridge (East Span) is a higher priority in getting fixed because its the bridge that won't survive the next quake.

A structurally deficient bridge is closed or restricted to light vehicles because of its deteriorated structural components. While not necessarily unsafe, these bridges must have limits for speed and weight. A functionally obsolete bridge has older design features and, while it is not unsafe for all vehicles, it cannot safely accommodate current traffic volumes, and vehicle sizes and weights. These restrictions not only contribute to traffic congestion, they pose such major inconveniences as school busses or emergency vehicles taking lengthy detours.

Hmm, so because the Bay Bridge doesn't allow flammable vehicles, it's on the verge of falling apart right? Deceptive you are.

Hey Yoda, why don't you try and make an argument without resorting to hilariously obvious strawmen?

While I couldn't imagine why the number or size of bridges that I drive across every day would matter as it relates to public policy, I'm quite aware of what I drive over. I obviously never stated that a bridge being structurally deficient meant that it was built out of wood, tinker toys, or anything else. My post directly rebutted JS80's stupid one that stated the US road and bridge system is fine, when it most certainly is not, as every agency and watchdog group associated with it clearly states.

And yes, I consider major bridges and thoroughfares that cannot accommodate modern traffic loads to be a significant problem that should be addressed. I would think that anyone taking a reasonable assessment of the situation would feel the same. Just because 'structurally deficient' could mean a lot of things doesn't mean that the term wasn't defined by competent, nonpartisan authority.