danielost--it has to do with how the funds are allocated across the five pots of FHWA money (bridges being just one). The money (or "obligation authority) has to go back and it has to come out of these pots. FHWA is simply asking the states not to bankrupt one pot only.

i didn't use dredging you idiot i used

The overriding issue is the size of the problem. If we were talking about a few bridges and a dam or two we could alter the allocation on the money. The issue is we have one 8" pie to do what will take 1,000 pies to accomplish. The amount needed in all the states far exceeds their entire budget for YEARS!

It has to do with looking at the long term needs of the country and insuring the resources are available to deal with them. That is simply not being done. The resources we do have are in some cases allocated to things far less important and in other areas we simply do not have nearly enough resources given the size of the issue. The longer we delay acting the more costly it will become when we have no choice like in the bridge collapse!

then tell congress to get to work on it. and stop trying to spend the money on a universal medical program

ditto to that.

Col,

I still await your rebuttal in WWW Link.

None of you know why that bridge collapsed, because it isn't known yet to anybody, not even a preliminary cause is known. Nobody knows how many are dead from it, and you are already assigning blame.

Preliminary evidence suggests it was a bridge in need of repair and that it was identified as "deficient structurally" well folks 70,000 other bridges in this country fall into that category but that doesn't necessarily mean they are expected to fall over tomorrow.

I will suppose that since this type of failure doesn't happen often that it was indeed a combination of things, wide ranging temperature conditions over the past few days, extra stress placed on the side of the bridge the traffic was being bottlenecked through, possible vibrations occurring during the roadwork being performed, human error in the roadwork. There are lots of single possible things that could have occurred, or a combination of things could have. It will probably turn out to be the latter.

One thing we can all agree on is it should not have happened. Nobody should be driving on a bridge that is unsafe, and the inspection process routine should be good enough that when a bridge collapse like this is possible it's repaired/replaces or destroyed.

Assigning blame before the facts are known is irresponsible.

While we are on the topic, I'll further agree that spending more and more money in Iraq gets us no new bridges stateside.

I jumped most of the replies after about half way when I realize that it became a pointless debate over whether the money spent in Iraq would have saved these people or not. The part that disturbs me about all of this senseless debating is that The steam pipeline in New York was around 100 years old and the bridge was around 40. The idea of replacing the steam pipe infrastructure of New York is unrealistic to say the least.

The entire City would be brought to a stand still and millions if not billions of money would be lost due to the streets being block for demolition and reconstruction of the pipes and roads, power lines, phone lines, fiber optic lines, water lines, sewer lines, etc could and would be damages while trying to repair these steam pipelines and the traffic would be 20 times worse than it is at this moment. Unrealistic does not even begin to describe this idea. It takes lots of inspections and analyzing the consequences of the work to even begin to fix a pipe considers too damaged to ignore.

The bridge had been deemed a problem since 1990. Why was nothing done about it back then? Why 17 years later does everyone scream Bush is at fault? Was bush in the White house 17 years ago? Was the war in Iraq happening 17 years ago? What happened to all that money that is claimed to have been taken out of the FHWA by the war before the war started?

All I want to know is why nobody (except me)is raising hell over those who did nothing when we were not at war, when the problem had already been raised, when we had the money to do it, when Bush was not even in office? Why criticize today and ignore the previous responsible people? It's sad how easily we give a free pass to those who are just as much responsible back then as those today simply because they are no longer there.

I think a much FAIRER criticism could have been given to the (fortunately scratched) "road to nowhere" legislation put forth by a DEMOCRAT controlled Congress. The money from that could have addressed the deficiencies on this bridge...and that would have been a more reasonable criticism.

The truth is, there's malfeasance enough to go around...why single out one party or person?

Gid -- Is there another "to nowhere" case that I missed (it sounds like there is). I konw that the "bridge to nowhere" was introduced by/the pet project of Republican Senator Stevens and passed in the last Congress (which was Republican controlled) -- what's the one that you are referring to? Regardless of the specifics, your point seems valid-- money is not making its way to the right places...the quesiton is how does that get fixed.

Reply By: danielost Posted: Friday, August 03, 2007
The longer we delay acting the more costly it will become when we have no choice like in the bridge collapse!


“then tell congress to get to work on it. and stop trying to spend the money on a universal medical program”


I did not propose universal Health. However the Bush and Giuliani plans of granting tax credits to buy private insurance only help those that pay a substantial amount of tax. Of the 47 Million who do not have coverage the Bush/Giuliani plan deals with about 3 Million.

I will tell my congressman and Senators to:

END the Iraq war exception to fight al-Qaeda.

Increase the tax rates on the top 10%

Eliminate the pork and earmarks

Demand stronger enforcement of tax laws is increased especially small business.

Simplify the current tax system – Keep the progressive rates and eliminate all but the basic deductions like Mortgage Interest, Local and State Taxes, Medical, Cash donations to Charities and causality losses not covered by Insurance!

No, you're right, it was the bridge, not the road.

I didn't realize it had passed, and you're right on the Congressional balance. I stand corrected.

The trick of how to fix it, though, is to begin by realizing that both parties have their share of bozos (and good guys). Blaming one person or group of persons for such monumental failure without looking at the other guy is ridiculous. The truth is, in my opinion, this SHOULD have been federal responsibility. The bridge was over a waterway that forms the boundary between two states, meaning it should have been a federal priority due to its need for interstate commerce, which does fall under the jurisdiction of Congress. In addition, it is an INTERSTATE highway, not a state or county road. To my understanding, this would almost certainly make it a federal priority.

The bridge to nowhere is just a top of the head example I can give of money that should have gone to repair this bridge before it collapsed. I'm sure closer research would yield even more examples of money ill spent that could have been sent here. If 70,000 of our bridges meet the same criteria, 70,000 bridges need to be fixed.

In my hometown, there was a bridge collapse just 6 months ago. The only thing that kept it from the CNN front page was the fact that, fortunately, nobody died. They just reopened the roadway, but in the wake of the collapse, they evaluated the other bridges and found they had a lot of work to do.

These bridges do make a good metaphor, though, for the trust we place in our government. I'll have to let my thoughts coagulate for that one, though.

hmmm. I don't see deductions for dependents or EIC on there...seems ColGene wants to up the taxes on the poor, too!

Reply By: Adventure-Dude Posted: Friday, August 03, 2007
Col,

“I still await your rebuttal in WWW Link.”

I have answered that question. I would end the U.S. Involvement in Iraq except for dealing with al-Qaeda operations, Move some of the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and if Pakistan does not eliminate al-Qaeda in the border regions of Pakistan, I would attack them with air, armed drones and I would consider short incursions if needed. However I would take those steps only if Pakistan does deal with al-Qaeda in their country!

Reply By: Gideon MacLeish Posted: Friday, August 03, 2007
Simplify the current tax system – Keep the progressive rates and eliminate all but the basic deductions like Mortgage Interest, Local and State Taxes, Medical, Cash donations to Charities and causality losses not covered by Insurance!


hmmm. I don't see deductions for dependents or EIC on there...seems ColGene wants to up the taxes on the poor, too!


No I would increase the deductions for exemptions and dependent children and keep the lower tax rates for the lower middle income (10% bracket). I would also increase the AMT amount and index it to cost of living. The ONLY people that would pay more taxes under my plan are the top 10%. Middle income would pay less and the poor would pay nothing.

What do you think's fair for the rich to pay, Col? 90%? 95%? How much should we punish them for providing JOBS that improve the lives of the poor?

Ah yes, the good American way of equality for all. Nothing like letting the poor live off the rest of us, nothing like lowering money from Middle-income who could pay what they pay just fine and best of all, make those who make more money because the rest of us are just too damn stupid to get passed poor or middle-income and we waste the very little we go on things the rich ones make. I'm glad you don't run at all for any political position. You would give the best incentive to all poor, above poor and illegals to just let the Gov't pay everything for them.

Reply By: Gideon MacLeish Posted: Friday, August 03, 2007
What do you think's fair for the rich to pay, Col? 90%? 95%? How much should we punish them for providing JOBS that improve the lives of the poor?


I have said many times I would return the rates on the top 10% that were in effect in 2000. That is NOTHING like 90%. I believe the top rate was 39% and THAT IS NOT TOO MUCH!!! I would have a $2 Million per person exemption from estate tax, deferral of the tax if family farms or business pass to the family. Then I would apply the rates that were in effect in 2000.

The Jobs that are being created are FOR THE POOR and with the wages that these jobs pay and the lack of benefits, anyone who gets these jobs will remain POOR!

Reply By: CharlesCS1 Posted: Friday, August 03, 2007
The ONLY people that would pay more taxes under my plan are the top 10%. Middle income would pay less and the poor would pay nothing.


Ah yes, the good American way of equality for all. Nothing like letting the poor live off the rest of us, nothing like lowering money from Middle-income who could pay what they pay just fine and best of all, make those who make more money because the rest of us are just too damn stupid to get passed poor or middle-income and we waste the very little we go on things the rich ones make. I'm glad you don't run at all for any political position. You would give the best incentive to all poor, above poor and illegals to just let the Gov't pay everything for them.


YES those poor mistreated RICH!!!!!

did you guys see what gene tried to do with one of my posts. that he misquoted

WWW Link

And yet this is still somehow Bush's fault.

More nonsense that you can't back up.  Once again you have to paint the gloom and doom picture that everyone is poor and they are just victims of evil rich people. 

Reply By: Adventure-Dude Posted: Friday, August 03, 2007
Department of Transportation Secretary Mary Peters said billions of dollars were available for road and bridge repairs.


WWW Link

“And yet this is still somehow Bush's fault.” YES the lack of leadership from Bush is his fault!


Bush wasted 1/2 Trillion so far in Iraq. By the time all the Bills are paid from Iraq the estimates is that we will have spent a TRILLION dollars. The estimate to repair not just bridges but Dams, Sewers/ water systems. Electric Grid is $1.7 TRILLION. As I said, the lack of leadership from Bush in just about everything is the issue. Energy, Infrastructure, Border security, Medicare, Social Security, Trade, the deficit, education, Health care, Katrina. Show us ONE of these issues Bush and his leadership has resolved or even begun to improve? HE HAS DONE NOTHING but give the wealthy and Big Oil tax cuts! When the democrats try to fix things like granting Farm Subsidies to people with annual incomes of up to $2.5 Million he threatens to VETO fixing that obvious mistake. When the Democrats try and cover 3.3 Million children with health care by increasing the tax on Tobacco Bush threatens to veto the bill. When the democrats want to grant our armed forces an additional ½ % pay increase Bush Threatens to VETO the bill.

The reason nothing is getting done in Congress is because Bush threatens to VETO everything and the GUTLESS GOP members in Congress refuse to override his veto. Hell Bush said he might VETO the bill Congress passed to strengthen ethics in Congress.

How do you sleep at night, Col? I can tell anyone without a criminal record how to make $30-40,000 a year very quickly if they just SHOW UP TO WORK everyday. The common denominator I have found among the chronically poor is a high absentee rate from work. They can't make money if they aren't there to do it, and they won't advance unless they bring value to their employer!

We have NO OBLIGATION to buy X-Boxes for the lazy!

WOW! When was your last psych evaluation Col?

From previous link:

"Engineers had decided to periodically inspect the steel superstructure beneath the Interstate 35W bridge and bolt on reinforcing plates where any flaws were found. But that work, which Pawlenty said fit in the state's budget, was postponed by resurfacing and repair work that was going on when the bridge buckled and fell."

Hmmm, I suppose you are going to tell me that it was Bush's decision to do the resurfacing and repair work instead of reinforcing the superstructure.

For being such an important bridge THESE engineers are the one's I look to blame. Bush's 'leadership' had nothing to do with their decision.

This bridge was deemed problematic back in 1990. I fail to see the connection with Bush here.