The fiasco that is the Oakland Bay Bridge Span just keeps on getting better.

[K1052]

Thanks for the information.

K1052: What do you think is the chance your proposal would see the light of day and be enforced? It just feels like there has to be some kind of cost sharing between the contractor and state when costs exceed the initial bid by so much.

States could easily mandate it but as cabri notes lobbying would probably kill such a proposal unless there was a lot of public pressure. Obviously there will be times when circumstances out of the control of either party that will require negotiation/arbitration (unknown environmental conditions, natural disasters, etc) but unless the contractor has substantial risk there is little reason for them not to go whoopsie....the cost is now three times the bid so pay up or we're gone. Design-build doesn't solve all the problems by any means but it helps limit the ability of the contractor to take the taxpayer for a ride once the project is awarded and usually shortens timelines substantially.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's a political issue. Economically, as long as there is slack in labor and production capacity, and interest is below inflation, there should have been even more government spending.

Why, that's Keynesian crazy talk. That's the time to cut, cut, cut! & for the uber wealthy to ride the 99% into the dirt. The victims are already bent over the log, so fucking as many of them as possible is obviously the answer.

 

[rudeguy]

But don't Republicans always argue that Detroit, Baltimore, etc are poor because they elect Democrats?

I don't know about Baltimore, but yes Detroit went bankrupt because of the Democrats they elected.

Please prove me wrong. I beg you.

 

[Darwin333]

What is horrible is the main contract company who built the bridge went over a Billion dollars over budget on the last bridge in California, and over 5 years over schedule. They have a very poor record, but the give money to the right people so they get contracts.

In my state the state can't legally block a bidder on a public project despite long history of fucking up jobs, going over budget, going over time and even straight up walking off of half finished projects.

I've made a lot of money finishing one particular contractors work on numerous different projects that they walked off of. It costs the state a TON more money for me to come in and finish their work because I have to go back over potentially shoddy work, bring it up to industry standards, and then guarantee it. Yet the state can't exclude them from bidding on new work.

 

[werepossum]

Good enough for now. We can fix it next time there is a recession and we need to create infrastructure construction jobs.

Nothing says stimulus like a few hundred cars dropping into the bay, I guess.

Its like someone fat fingered their mouse in sim city and it doesn't even go straight.

lol +1

 

[Humpy]

In my state the state can't legally block a bidder on a public project despite long history of fucking up jobs, going over budget, going over time and even straight up walking off of half finished projects.

I've made a lot of money finishing one particular contractors work on numerous different projects that they walked off of. It costs the state a TON more money for me to come in and finish their work because I have to go back over potentially shoddy work, bring it up to industry standards, and then guarantee it. Yet the state can't exclude them from bidding on new work.

They don't use 'qualified bidder' in the request for bid language?

What state?

 

[cabri]

They don't use 'qualified bidder' in the request for bid language?

What state?

Some times the qualified bidder is a front company.

Other times; as long as they can show they have personnel qualified for the job requirements and can get a bond; that is all that is needed.

Quality of work does not count; look at the US government for example.

 

[werepossum]

This is one of the dumbest things ever, you basically support abolishing social security. Please educate yourself.

He didn't oppose the transfer, he just pointed it out.

In my state the state can't legally block a bidder on a public project despite long history of fucking up jobs, going over budget, going over time and even straight up walking off of half finished projects.

I've made a lot of money finishing one particular contractors work on numerous different projects that they walked off of. It costs the state a TON more money for me to come in and finish their work because I have to go back over potentially shoddy work, bring it up to industry standards, and then guarantee it. Yet the state can't exclude them from bidding on new work.

That's the first thing that should be fixed and the last thing that will be fixed. Although if it were to be fixed, then the State would probably arrange its qualifications to bar the legit, quality contractors. "Sorry, your bid did not include Form 144573 detailing your plan to employ more Brazilian aborigine lesbian midgets, so it could not be counted."

They don't use 'qualified bidder' in the request for bid language?

What state?

Generally speaking, 'qualified bidder' in government work means a license, a bond and a pulse. Honestly, I don't think this is due to lobbying so much as to the citizenry's desire to not allow them to send work to their friends and family.

 

[Humpy]

It's true that 'qualified' doesn't really mean 'qualified' when it comes to government work but I thought it was still used as a common legal means to disqualify bidders for whatever reason.

 

[marincounty]

After coming in billions over budget, and a decade or so late the new bridge span is proving to be worse than the section it originally replaced. LOL!


Hmmm...its probably too late to rebuild the old span to replace the disaster that is this "NEW AND IMPROVED" bridge span.

The old bridge was built on a foundation of old logs. There is no way that bridge was ever going to be seismically safe. I saw some bridge expert on TV the other day saying the new bridge is far safer than the old, in spite of all of the problems
I will grant you, this project was completely screwed up. That doesn't remove the need for a new bridge.
Personally, I would have left the old bridge up and charged a buck for people willing to risk their lives crossing it, and built an entirely new bridge next to it.
As far as liberals screwing things up, if it were up to righties- we would have no new bridge.

 

[Humpy]

As far as liberals screwing things up, if it were up to righties- we would have no new bridge.

Like Jesus, righties don't need no f'n bridges.

 

[Drako]

Good enough for now. We can fix it next time there is a recession and we need to create infrastructure construction jobs.

Translation: It's OK to waste taxpayer money, because we can just throw more taxpayer money at it.

 

[DCal430]

He didn't oppose the transfer, he just pointed it out.


That's the first thing that should be fixed and the last thing that will be fixed. Although if it were to be fixed, then the State would probably arrange its qualifications to bar the legit, quality contractors. "Sorry, your bid did not include Form 144573 detailing your plan to employ more Brazilian aborigine lesbian midgets, so it could not be counted."


Generally speaking, 'qualified bidder' in government work means a license, a bond and a pulse. Honestly, I don't think this is due to lobbying so much as to the citizenry's desire to not allow them to send work to their friends and family.

His argument is wrong. His numbers include things like federal employees. He includes the CDC budget as if it was money being transferred to Georgia. That is ridiculous. Same with federal spending on drug and vaccine research. people who post that stupid study seem to think they get no benefit from any federal research. If that is true they need to stop taking drugs, stop vaccinating themselves as they don't want to benefit.

 

[blastingcap]

His argument is wrong. His numbers include things like federal employees. He includes the CDC budget as if it was money being transferred to Georgia. That is ridiculous. Same with federal spending on drug and vaccine research. people who post that stupid study seem to think they get no benefit from any federal research. If that is true they need to stop taking drugs, stop vaccinating themselves as they don't want to benefit.

Your argument makes sense for the 0.000001 microseconds it takes the average third-grader to realize that places like CA *ALSO* have research labs (including some heavy hitters like Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore), NASA facilities, numerous military bases, etc.

So let's not pretend like red states house the entire federal govt's research facilities and military bases, okay? You aren't fooling anyone with that ridiculousness.

If you water down your argument to claim that red states have such a disproportionately high share of federal R&D/military/etc. spending so as to make up for the vast difference in contributions to the federal Treasury, then I'd like to see hard stats. Because that's a huge discrepancy you need to account for.

Hint: you won't find such stats because your argument is simply FALSE. Even the most die hard conservatives know this, which is why the rebuttal you usually hear is how some red states aren't "really" red states because (insert ludicrous reason), and how CA has had a lot of Republican governors and should be considered a purple state, or some such. My, how freaking convenient for conservatives to call CA a hippie blue state when it suits one argument, but take it back when it suits another. (I'm a moderate btw and hate extremist liberals and conservatives both.)

The original stats are from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, and if you want something more readable here you go: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reck..._guess_who_benefits_more_from_your_taxes.html

Visualized: http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/united-states-federal-tax-dollars/

And Were is right: I didn't say I opposed transfers altogether. Rather, I cited to an article in response to the ABSURD implication that California is a "taker" state.

Remember: I didn't start this "CA wants a handout" nonsense, I was just responding to an idiotic post that implied that.

 

[rudeguy]

Your argument makes sense for the 0.000001 microseconds it takes the average third-grader to realize that places like CA *ALSO* have research labs (including some heavy hitters like Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore), NASA facilities, numerous military bases, etc.

So let's not pretend like red states house the entire nation's supply of federal research facilities and military bases, okay? You aren't fooling anyone with that ridiculousness.

If you water down your argument to mean that red states have such disproportionately high share of such spending so as to make up for the vast difference in contributions to the federal Treasury, then I'd like to see hard stats. Because that's a huge discrepancy you need to account for.

Mine are from the Tax Foundation and if you want something more readable here you go: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reck..._guess_who_benefits_more_from_your_taxes.html

And Were is right: I didn't say I opposed transfers altogether. Rather, I cited to an article in response to the ABSURD implication that California is a "taker" state when it is NOT a taker state. Like it or not, tech and media (including movies) are major engines of the economy.

Remember: I didn't start this "CA wants a handout" nonsense, I was just responding to an idiotic post that implied that.

As much as I love bashing Cali, they do pay their own way. Their GDP gives good sized nations a run for the money and their focus on tech makes a positive impact all over the world.

But I'd still be happy if it fell off and floated away :awe:

 

[senseamp]

Translation: It's OK to waste taxpayer money, because we can just throw more taxpayer money at it.

"Wasting" money is better than wasting human potential.

 

[yllus]

Does it help that I think it's a really, really pretty bridge?

 

[DCal430]

Your argument makes sense for the 0.000001 microseconds it takes the average third-grader to realize that places like CA *ALSO* have research labs (including some heavy hitters like Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore), NASA facilities, numerous military bases, etc.

So let's not pretend like red states house the entire federal govt's research facilities and military bases, okay? You aren't fooling anyone with that ridiculousness.

If you water down your argument to claim that red states have such a disproportionately high share of federal R&D/military/etc. spending so as to make up for the vast difference in contributions to the federal Treasury, then I'd like to see hard stats. Because that's a huge discrepancy you need to account for.

Hint: you won't find such stats because your argument is simply FALSE. Even the most die hard conservatives know this, which is why the rebuttal you usually hear is how some red states aren't "really" red states because (insert ludicrous reason), and how CA has had a lot of Republican governors and should be considered a purple state, or some such. My, how freaking convenient for conservatives to call CA a hippie blue state when it suits one argument, but take it back when it suits another. (I'm a moderate btw and hate extremist liberals and conservatives both.)

The original stats are from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, and if you want something more readable here you go: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reck..._guess_who_benefits_more_from_your_taxes.html

Visualized: http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/united-states-federal-tax-dollars/

And Were is right: I didn't say I opposed transfers altogether. Rather, I cited to an article in response to the ABSURD implication that California is a "taker" state.

Remember: I didn't start this "CA wants a handout" nonsense, I was just responding to an idiotic post that implied that.

You must be really stupid. First I already stated the main difference comes from social security. Second while all states have some federal employees, they are not evenly spread like you think. They are concentrated in Maryland, Virginia, and Georgia.

Again the biggest cause is because with social security the more you make the less you collect as a portion to your ccontributions. So of course those states having lower average income plays a big role.

 

[blastingcap]

You must be really stupid. First I already stated the main difference comes from social security. Second while all states have some federal employees, they are not evenly spread like you think. They are concentrated in Maryland, Virginia, and Georgia.

Again the biggest cause is because with social security the more you make the less you collect as a portion to your ccontributions. So of course those states having lower average income plays a big role.

1. Citation or STFU.
2. You won't find a citation because you are making shit up. This isn't about social security. High income people pay more income taxes and high income people tend to be found in blue state cities (think NYC, LA, SF, Boston, Chicago, etc.). Places with stronger environmental regulations, higher support for education, etc.
3. I never said federal workers are evenly distributed. Learn to read. I even EXPLICITLY addressed the argument that there might be some skewing.

You are basically repeating that argument, btw. Stop trying to pretend like federal workers aren't also in blue states. They are. You'd think VA and MD would dominate yet only VA is in the top 10 (barely), and GA and MD aren't. Furthermore, GA is a red state, VA used to be more red and is now more purple, and MD is blue so even if you remove all 3 from the list, it does not change the general trend.

You know what WOULD be a more plausible argument is that retirees tend to move away from cold northern states to warmer southern states. If they are lower income then that would help explain part of the income discrepancy. Sounds good right? Except others have made that argument, but it's not enough to explain the entire gap, and if you look at the top 10 welfare states, social security doesn't appear to be the main culprit even when it's lumped together with pension benefits and medicare. See http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reck..._guess_who_benefits_more_from_your_taxes.html as an example. You have stuff like farm subsidies, military spending, DOT (road maintenance, etc.), anti-poverty programs, etc. as bigger culprits.

Just give it up already and accept that red states tend to be poorer and contribute less to federal coffers. Silicon Valley is a global-scale wealth-creation machine. Farmland in Kansas? Not so much.

I wouldn't kick red states out of the Union, though, even though some red staters might want to do that to CA because they are too stupid to realize how much it would hurt the red states.

I'm not saying end anti-poverty programs or stop repairing roads in Alaska either.

I just took offense to cabri's post that implied that CA isn't pulling its own weight, when it is pulling MORE than its fair share, so the least that red staters could do is to shut the hell up about how CA is allegedly asking for handouts, when it's just the opposite.

 

[werepossum]

His argument is wrong. His numbers include things like federal employees. He includes the CDC budget as if it was money being transferred to Georgia. That is ridiculous. Same with federal spending on drug and vaccine research. people who post that stupid study seem to think they get no benefit from any federal research. If that is true they need to stop taking drugs, stop vaccinating themselves as they don't want to benefit.

The numbers in that particular link may be inaccurate, but the overall point is valid. Red states tend to be lower income, which tends to bring more federal money on balance than is sent since most federal wealth transfer programs are either driven by poverty/income or are taxable. Even Social Security is taxable if one's aggregate income is high enough. Certainly many agencies and organizations that get federal money are in red states, but probably more are in blue states overall, dollar-wise anyway. Same with federal employees - they are heavily concentrated in very blue Maryland and purple Virginia, and otherwise reasonably evenly distributed. Hard to say exactly since the numbers are gamed by both sides, but in general red states tend to get more return per tax dollar than do blue states.

 

[DCal430]

1. Citation or STFU.
2. You won't find a citation because you are making shit up. This isn't about social security. High income people pay more income taxes and high income people tend to be found in blue state cities (think NYC, LA, SF, Boston, Chicago, etc.). Places with stronger environmental regulations, higher support for education, etc.
3. I never said federal workers are evenly distributed. Learn to read. I even EXPLICITLY addressed the argument that there might be some skewing.

You are basically repeating that argument, btw. Stop trying to pretend like federal workers aren't also in blue states. They are. You'd think VA and MD would dominate yet only VA is in the top 10 (barely), and GA and MD aren't. Furthermore, GA is a red state, VA used to be more red and is now more purple, and MD is blue so even if you remove all 3 from the list, it does not change the general trend.

You know what WOULD be a more plausible argument is that retirees tend to move away from cold northern states to warmer southern states. If they are lower income then that would help explain part of the income discrepancy. Sounds good right? Except others have made that argument, but it's not enough to explain the entire gap, and if you look at the top 10 welfare states, social security doesn't appear to be the main culprit even when it's lumped together with pension benefits and medicare. See http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reck..._guess_who_benefits_more_from_your_taxes.html as an example. You have stuff like farm subsidies, military spending, DOT (road maintenance, etc.), anti-poverty programs, etc. as bigger culprits.

Just give it up already and accept that red states tend to be poorer and contribute less to federal coffers. Silicon Valley is a global-scale wealth-creation machine. Farmland in Kansas? Not so much.

I wouldn't kick red states out of the Union, though, even though some red staters might want to do that to CA because they are too stupid to realize how much it would hurt the red states.

I'm not saying end anti-poverty programs or stop repairing roads in Alaska either.

I just took offense to cabri's post that implied that CA isn't pulling its own weight, when it is pulling MORE than its fair share, so the least that red staters could do is to shut the hell up about how CA is allegedly asking for handouts, when it's just the opposite.

You have no clue as to what you are talking about. Those numbers do include social security tax as well as benefits. Social security is around 1/4 of the federal budget, and is the largest party by far of the federal budget. But an idiot like you who doesn't understand shit he reads, and just make shit up doesn't get that. Please educate your self before you speak. You really are an idiot. You link even shows retirement program over and over again as a big factor. What the hell do you think that refers to. It is referring to social security.

You showed.

1. You don't even read the damn links you post, which clearly shows social security is a major factor. It is the factor listed in most of the states. The list you of top 10 list social security over and over again, you really are stupid.
2. You don't even understand how the budget works.
3. You talk about stuff you know nothing about.

Think it out, please. Think for once. One of the main factors of social security is those who pay more subsidize the benefits of those who pay less. So again yes, their will be a net movement of money from richer areas to poorer ones, due to social security alone. Social security being the largest budget item will account the biggest of this. It is so simple.

 

[Greenman]

Like Jesus, righties don't need no f'n bridges.

In this case, that might have been a better option.

 

[blastingcap]

You have no clue as to what you are talking about. Those numbers do include social security tax as well as benefits. Social security is around 1/4 of the federal budget, and is the largest party by far of the federal budget. But an idiot like you who doesn't understand shit he reads, and just make shit up doesn't get that. Please educate your self before you speak. You really are an idiot. You link even shows retirement program over and over again as a big factor. What the hell do you think that refers to. It is referring to social security.

You showed.

1. You don't even read the damn links you post, which clearly shows social security is a major factor. It is the factor listed in most of the states. The list you of top 10 list social security over and over again, you really are stupid.
2. You don't even understand how the budget works.
3. You talk about stuff you know nothing about.

Think it out, please. Think for once. One of the main factors of social security is those who pay more subsidize the benefits of those who pay less. So again yes, their will be a net movement of money from richer areas to poorer ones, due to social security alone. Social security being the largest budget item will account the biggest of this. It is so simple.

You are beyond ridiculous, I EXPLICITLY talked about SS being a factor, I even talked medicare and pensions, along with the farm subsidies, DOT expenses, and many other expenses.

The problem is that you implied the entire discrepancy was due to social security.

Don't you dare pretend like you talked about people moving from north to south, you didn't say anything about that till *I* brought it up, not you.

No, *you* tried to argue that it was due to SS taxes being lower in higher-income areas. In other words, payroll tax, NOT the disbursement of socials security payments. The problem with that is that higher-income areas also pay higher INCOME tax, not just taxes towards SS, but you're too clueless to realize that.

And no, SS is NOT enough to account for the entire discrepancy. Only a complete idiot would think that there is some super-high concentration of old poor people in the red states; given the numbers we're talking about, there would have to be a migration of Biblical proportions. There is not. I even gave you a goddamned LIST of the top 10 taker states' largest expenditures for crissake and you still pull this shit? Do you think you are fooling ANYBODY?

You realize that even the conservative wonks don't try to argue what you just did? They know better. Instead, they try to argue that some red states should not count as red states, or how some blue states are purple, and they argue *at most* that there is *some* transfer due to retirees and federal employee placement. But they know better than to pretend like there is some hugely disproportionate number of them in red states, unlike your clueless ass.

We've seen that you have no citations and are just trolling. You are now on my ignore list for trolling, sheer stupidity, and illiteracy.

 

[cabri]

I didn't bring up this topic in this thread; Cabri did:

Remember when the bridges went down due to an earthquake.

Is there a justifiable need to wait for a recession?

Economics is not paid attention by Mother Nature.

And will there be another round of handouts for CA if all they do is waste money then ask for assistance

He made a flippant remark implying that California asks other states for handouts. It is incumbent on HIM to justify HIS statement. I offered a counterpoint, that is all.

If any of you Cabri apologists wants to defend his statement about "handouts for CA" and make the case that CA a net debtor to the feds, please post your evidence, else stop shooting the messenger.

I made the statement of getting handouts as related to the infrastructure being destroyed.

When the Northridge earthquake happened; the Federal government stepped in and covered costs; not California
Link

Immediately after the Northridge earthquake, Caltrans officials predicted that it would take 12 to 18 months to rebuild bridges on the Santa Monica Freeway and the region's five other damaged freeways. Then officials decided it could be done with greater speed, especially since the federal government would cover 100% of the costs if all work was completed within 180 days.

But when Caltrans announced that the freeways would be restored within six months, many Angelenos were skeptical. Five years after the Loma Prieta earthquake struck the Bay Area, not a single damaged freeway there has been completely rebuilt.

This is an example that when Federal money is used; the work was done quickly; Notice the second paragraph - When California money is used; work does not get done.

My initial comment; which has been completely taken out of context and twisted, has nothing to do with the Red/Blue donor/receiver of federal money between states

 

[blastingcap]

The numbers in that particular link may be inaccurate, but the overall point is valid. Red states tend to be lower income, which tends to bring more federal money on balance than is sent since most federal wealth transfer programs are either driven by poverty/income or are taxable. Even Social Security is taxable if one's aggregate income is high enough. Certainly many agencies and organizations that get federal money are in red states, but probably more are in blue states overall, dollar-wise anyway. Same with federal employees - they are heavily concentrated in very blue Maryland and purple Virginia, and otherwise reasonably evenly distributed. Hard to say exactly since the numbers are gamed by both sides, but in general red states tend to get more return per tax dollar than do blue states.

He's trying to cherrypick an argument and doing a lousy job of it so I helped him out some. The problem is that many others who are more competent have already gone over the data and concluded that despite a wiggle here and a niggle there, those wiggles and niggles don't add up to enough money to change the overall conclusion: in general blue states contribute more to the feds than red states (net).

Not every blue state is a giver and not every red state is a taker. These are generalities.

Specifically, though, CA has been a giver for many, MANY years and that's why cabri's implying that CA asks for "handouts" was so insulting. Hey, as a CA resident I don't mind helping out those in other states, but those people need to stop saying misleading shit about how CA is a taker state. It's not. You'd think common sense would tell you so (hello Silicon Valley, the GLOBAL-scale wealth generation machine.. and CA has other industries too like movies/music/TV, aerospace defense, tourism; it's also an international trade hub thanks to its location along the Pacific Rim and its large ports and airports).

I made the statement of getting handouts as related to the infrastructure being destroyed.

When the Northridge earthquake happened; the Federal government stepped in and covered costs; not California
Link


This is an example that when Federal money is used; the work was done quickly; Notice the second paragraph - When California money is used; work does not get done.

My initial comment; which has been completely taken out of context and twisted, has nothing to do with the Red/Blue donor/receiver of federal money between states

Cabri posted clarification of what he meant, while I was posting the above... but even with his clarification, it's not like CA is the only state that gets FEMA funding. Where do you think money comes from after big hurricanes in the south for instance? And do you think that CA is the only state that wastes money on infrastructure projects (regardless of funding source)?

I'll accept that it's possible CA wastes more money that other states on an absolute numbers basis (we make more money and waste more money due to being the most populous state). If you look at per-capita waste, though, I wouldn't be surprised if there are many other states that waste just as much or more money per resident on infrastructure or other projects. You just don't hear about them as much because they are smaller-scale: not as many zeroes at the end of the bill.

Also let's not look at only the projects gone wrong. There are projects that go right, too (note that this was CA money, contradicting your narrative that when CA money is used, work does not get done): http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/A-MAZE-ING-His-reputation-on-the-line-2592154.php

Finally, although you say that money transfers between states was not what you were talking about, it's very related. CA pays way more into the feds than many other states. So complaining whenever CA gets FEMA or other federal funds to build infrastructure, is kind of petty when a lot of that money came from CA in the first place. Think of it as CA taking back some of its overpayment to Uncle Sam. And remember that other states ALSO take federal funds after disasters, too.