Broken Bridges, Lost Levees and a Brutal Culture of Neglect

posted by John Nichols on 08/02/2007 @ 2:20pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (127)

Subscribe Now

As rescue workers continued to pull bodies out of the stretch of the Mississippi River that runs beneath the collapsed I-35W bridge in Minneapolis Thursday, U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters released a $5 million grant to help with cleanup and recovery at the site of the disaster.

That will barely be enough to cover the expense of extracting the bodies of the drowned and dismembered commuters who were hurtled into the river when the interstate highway bridge they were traveling on buckled and then fell into the river. And it will not begin to pay for the rebuilding of a vital transportation link in one of America's most populous cities -- an initiative that will cost in the hundreds of millions.

To get the money that is needed to repair the damage, limits on federal aid for infrastructure will have to be lifted.

This will happen now not because the money is needed but because dozens of Minnesotans have been killed and injured.

If the federal limits were not applied with an eye toward denying needed infrastructure funding to states, if the federal government accepted its responsibility to maintain the bridges, roads, levees and sewers of the United States, the death and destruction that comes from neglect might well have been avoided.

The I-35W bridge had repeatedly been identified as suffering from "fatigue cracks." Inspectors had labeled it "structurally deficient."

Yet, as Minneapolis Star-Tribune columnist Nick Coleman noted on the morning after the collapse, "The death bridge was 'structurally deficient,' we now learn, and had a rating of just 50 percent, the threshold for replacement. But no one appears to have erred on the side of public safety. The errors were all the other way."

That's not a unique circumstance. That is the daily reality of America's rapidly aging and decaying infrastructure. Just a few weeks ago in New York City, an underground steam pipe exploded, killing one person and injuring dozens

Natural disasters do occur. Storms, heat, aging steel and concrete can all contribute to horrific turns of events like the Minneapolis bridge collapse, the pipe explosion in New York, or the nightmare that occurred in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina hitting the Gulf Coast.

But there is simply no question that the steady neglect of the crying need for repair and improvement of bridges, levees and other vital pieces of the nation's infrastructure, and the resolute stinginess of a federal government that is much better at finding money to repair the Middle East than the middle west, makes disasters more likely to occur and more extreme in their consequences.

Minnesota Senator Amy Klobucher is right when she says, "Bridges in America should not be falling down."

They will continue to fall, however, just as aging levies will continue to crumble, until the federal government gets serious about investing in the updating, improvement and replacement of decaying infrastructure. The point here is not to absolve state officials, who in Minnesota -- as in Louisiana two years ago -- could and should have done more. But an "interstate highway system" is, by its nature and by the intents of the founders of the American experiment and their wisest successors, a federal priority.

Major infrastructure challenges, such as maintaining bridges over our mightiest rivers and modernizing levies, ought never be the sole or even the major responsibility of cash-strapped state and local governments. That is a recipe for disaster -- deadly, injurious and damaging disaster of a sort that plays out not just in "headline" events like a bridge collapse but in hundreds of below-the-radar infrastructure failures each year.

The American Society of Civil Engineers argues that, "With each passing day, aging and overburdened infrastructure threatens the economy and quality of life in every state, city and town in the nation." Conditions have grown so bad that the ASCE estimates it would cost $1.6 trillion over a five-year period just to bring the nation's infrastructure up to "good" condition. "Establishing a long-term development and maintenance plan must become a national priority," says the group.

That $1.6 trillion figure sounds like a lot of money, unless it is compared with the anticipated cost of $1 trillion or more for completing George Bush's mission in Iraq.

Make no mistake, the money to renew our collapsing infrastructure can be found.

But it will not be spent appropriately until top officials in Washington, led by the president, recognize that maintaining the infrastructure of the United States is as important, and as worthy of investment, as fighting wars in places like Iraq.

There are many costs that come when our leaders divert $2 billion every ten days to occupy a distant land. The first of these is human. Wars cost lives in a war zone, but they also dry up the funding that could save lives on the home front. By drawing resources away from vital social and economic development projects at home -- and maintaining a safe and functional infrastructure is essential to progress on both fronts -- an obsessive focus on warmaking abroad leaves a trail of death, destruction and decay in the U.S.

Writing of federal "negligence" when it comes to infrastructure repair, the Star-Tribune's Coleman observed, "A trillion spent in Iraq, while schools crumble, there aren't enough cops on the street and bridges decay while our leaders cross their fingers and ignore the rising chances of disaster.

"And now, one has fallen, to our great sorrow, and people died losing a gamble they didn't even know they had taken. They believed someone was guarding the bridge.

"We need a new slogan and we needed it yesterday:

"No More Collapses."

Amen to that.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (127)

No More Collapses --on multiple levels.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 08/02/2007 @ 2:35pm
Here's the link to today's very interesting NY Times piece on our aging infrastructure:

NYT [nytimes.com]

Posted by b_kool_66 at 08/02/2007 @ 2:39pm
Okay, Mr Nichols....where will the 1.6 Trillion come from?

We've got a deficit to pay off, and not even "letting the Bush tax cuts lapse" will cover all of that.

Then you want universal health care...more alternative energy research...free daycare...free college (according to many articles by Ms vanden Heuvel)...and now 1.6 Trillion in infrastruture repairs.

Okay, great. How you going to pay for all that? "Tax the rich and the corporations?" Fine...they will, I'm sure, accept a massive hike in their taxes, and patriotically refuse to move their money into tax-free venues or move their corporate HQs to more friendly Caribbean or Arabic enclaves.

We can't have everything. Even under Hillary, "infrastructure" will get a piece of the action (like Hyman Roth dividing up his empire in "Godfather-II")...but not a trillion dollars.

Posted by Mask at 08/02/2007 @ 2:44pm
Dennis Kucinich is the only Presidential candidate I've heard who is willing to address the problem.

From the Issues pages on Kucinich's campaign website:

"I have a Jobs Plan that will put 2 million Americans back to work at a living wage in such enterprises as rebuilding schools, designing roads, refurbishing environmental projects, and manufacturing steel for water systems. The Kucinich jobs plan will also increase the quality of life in America, by making highways safer, water cleaner, and schools more conducive to learning."

Putting America Back to Work IN America

Something must be done, and at least Kucinich is willing to offer ideas. That's more than can be said for any of the others who are vying for the job.

Posted by scoff0165 at 08/02/2007 @ 2:48pm
Gee... what's going on over there??? Here in Europe, I really cannot remember any bridge collapsing during the last, hm... 20 years???

Posted by elziax at 08/02/2007 @ 2:52pm
Why don't we just sell all our roads and bridges to private companies, who with their motive for profit will spare no expense to maintain them. Who are not corrupt and don't pay government officials for sweet deals. Also, this allows republican politicians to cut taxes in every way, shape and form, so that they can get re-elected next cycle. Oh wait...we already do that. Nevermind.

Posted by BlueTexan at 08/02/2007 @ 2:54pm
No vision. This is the number 1 problem for America. Not terrorism. Not taxes. Not immigration.

Our leaders have no vision. All they focus on is next election cycle.

The interstates were built by a man with a vision. He'd cry right now seeing how his political decendants want to sell it off to the highest bidder.

Posted by BlueTexan at 08/02/2007 @ 2:56pm
Posted by SCOFF0165 08/02/2007 @ 2:48pm

I checked Dennis' site. Not the "jobs" thing...it's easy to make the promises. I looked at his take on TAXES (you know, paying for the promises).

ALL he asks is a return to the "Clinton-era levels", while keeping the tax cuts for those making $405,000 a year. ("for now" he adds, to keep his options open, of course)....and "cutting Star Wars".

Nowhere does Rep. Kucinich tell us how much this will garner for the budget, nor how much of his other promises it will pay for.

Posted by Mask at 08/02/2007 @ 3:00pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/02/2007 @ 2:59pm

Sure, as long as liberals are running the gov't. The healthcare plan should all workout.

What...you don't think we expect Repugs to get it right...do you? There track record of keeping the ship from sinking is pretty bad.

Posted by BlueTexan at 08/02/2007 @ 3:02pm
For a socialist, Nichols sure can capitalize on a tragedy.

Posted by FREIHEIT 08/02/2007 @ 2:59pm

I don't know what being a socialist has to do with it, but Bush is perhaps the master at capitalizing on tragedy...if not for 9/11 he'd still be ridiculed for his month-long brush-clearing vacations.

Posted by BlueTexan at 08/02/2007 @ 3:09pm
I've heard from other sources that at one point several years ago the bridge was judged in need of repair. AFTER that, inspections in 2005 & 2006 claimed nothing was wrong and on "minor" issues needed to be addressed. More Gov't inefficiency (and probably politics) resulting in the death of innocents.

On the flip side, I won lunch today betting with a friend on who would be the first guy to comment on this from The Nation AND his angle. I got both right. It was NICHOLS, and he blamed it on "The Culture" of something. He is so freaking predictable. Now, my friends' treating me to lunch is so much an example of "The Culture of Nichols" Ha!

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/02/2007 @ 3:17pm
and liberals want to give the US government - this same institution in charge of the safety of our bridges - control of all healthcare?

this is not true. and a cheap argument to boot. ask the gov't employees and the nation's old people, of which number I will soon count myself. how they like their gov't healthcare. the recipients of this gov't healthcare are still free to buy additional private health insurance, and many of them do.

Posted by johannesrolf at 08/02/2007 @ 3:32pm
where do we get the money for all the things we desperately need? bring back the top rate 90% tax bracket. we've done it before, we can do it again.

Posted by johannesrolf at 08/02/2007 @ 3:34pm
I am waiting for all the wannabe rich guys here to descend on me, right Frei and Chip and Maasch?

Posted by johannesrolf at 08/02/2007 @ 3:34pm
Govt employees do not a healthy country make!

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/02/2007 @ 3:37pm
Govt employees do not a healthy country make!

Posted by CHIP THORNTON 08/02/2007 @ 3:37pm | ignore this person

whaaat?

Posted by johannesrolf at 08/02/2007 @ 3:40pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/02/2007 @ 3:34pm

Could somebody not on his Ignore, ask Dr. Zachery Smith ....how much money that rakes in? Given his vast and indisputable knowledge of...well...just about everything, I'm sure he'll have an answer.

Posted by Mask at 08/02/2007 @ 3:44pm
To the people who blame the federal government for this, and who then link this failure to ridiculing proposed universal healthcare:

YOU ARE STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!

Republicans have been in control of the federal government and many state and local governments for years. Their mantra of 'no new taxes' has, as its result, what you see today: failing infrastructure and crumbling cities.

First you Republicans want to 'make government so small it can be drowned in a bathbtub' (or the Mississippi River) according to Grover Norquist, then, after crippling government, you say it can't do the job.

Are you really so dumb that you can't see that you have created a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Tax cuts for business and the wealthy, neglect of infrastructure, ridicule for 'tax and spend' Democrats (which, by the way, is HOW GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS WORKS - you take money in and then spend it!), blowing billions on illegal and useless wars - well, all of it has culminated in the disaster in Minneapolis.

The Republican governor Pawlenty has vetoed legislation to pay for road and bridge repairs for the last six years, and Ventura before him wasn't any better.

It says in the Constitution that government is empowered to collect taxes and spend money 'for the common good'. This is the common good.

I hope that all of you Republicans who have supported this shortsided, wasteful, criminal policy of crippling government over the past 25 years can live with yourselves now. And have fun holding your breath every time you drive over a bridge.

Posted by Muffinboy at 08/02/2007 @ 3:45pm
After the engineers report comes back from Minnesota I am sure the findings will point to Bush, his lying into war ,Kartrina, and world peace that he ruined...

Posted by john maasch at 08/02/2007 @ 3:49pm
And if ALGORE was the president that bridge(same as the one to 21st century?) would have been fixed, painted red and lasted another 100 years..

Posted by john maasch at 08/02/2007 @ 3:50pm
If we put the lack of the Federal funding aside, just for a moment, Minnesota politicians should be ashamed of themselves too. they can spend days and weeks at the time trying to make ways of paying for stadiums for failing sports teams in the Twin cites - at the same time the roads here in the Twin Cities are some of the worst in the States. I wish that politicians once for all start representing people and their real needs and not the hyped up short-term entertainment projects such as stadiums or wars (that's what it is these days on TV).

Posted by stric75 at 08/02/2007 @ 3:55pm
On the issue of collapses there really is only one resounding question that ought to be echoing like a demolition demonstration throughout the land:

How many collapses will it take to get the one collapse we are in desperate need of...........the collapse of the Dick Bush despots?

Only after they're ousted can we properly begin the long, arduous process of rebuilding our Constitutional government, and cleaning up the rot in DC that enabled these bozos to insinuate themselves like a snake into the White House.

Here's hoping we can break the spell and get the reformer we need --not another seller of unctuous ointments. I'm not putting any money on that bet.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 08/02/2007 @ 3:56pm
Wannabe rich guys, huh? Ha, thats a new one. Don't worry JR I won't dispute you on the non-virtues of Govt subsidizing: Done that enough I guess, (although I did respond to your comment from last night under Nichols "President Can't Ignore Impeachment" blog.) Your belief that certain issues are "rights" do not permit you to consider the economic and very non-progressive consequences of such govt intrusion, (or "help") into our lives. Keep eating that chocolate cake, you'll get sick soon enough!

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/02/2007 @ 3:57pm
JR, you were right, we all decended on you with intense vigor! TENNO HEIKA BANZAIIIII!!!

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/02/2007 @ 4:00pm
when middle class shnooks or lower middle class defend the privileges of the rich and super rich what would you call them?

Posted by johannesrolf at 08/02/2007 @ 4:01pm
To the people who blame the federal government for this, and who then link this failure to ridiculing proposed universal healthcare:

YOU ARE STUPID, STUPID, STUPID! ----Posted by MUFFINBOY 08/02/2007 @ 3:45pm

This guy is channelling characters from "Plan 9 From Outer Space"!...heheh

Eros: Stronger. You see!? You see!? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!

Jeff: That's all I'm taking from you! [leaps at Eros]

Posted by Mask at 08/02/2007 @ 4:02pm
"Johannesrolf, You are free to believe that bringing back the top rate 90% tax bracket would be good for America. I suspect the primary beneficiaries would be international corporate relocation companies."

it seems to have worked in the past. we did it during WW2, in the post war years, and again during the Korean war. I have no reports of rich people leaving en masse then.

you see, Frei there is one thing that separates me from you, and Chip, and well whoever. I do the research and I have the facts. try it.

Posted by johannesrolf at 08/02/2007 @ 4:12pm
MASK-Isn't Dr Zachary Smith...from Lost in Space??

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/02/2007 @ 4:12pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 08/02/2007 @ 3:57pm | ignore this person

I'm sorry I missed that, Chip.

Posted by johannesrolf at 08/02/2007 @ 4:14pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 08/02/2007 @ 4:12pm

Yes, and Professor Johannes Rolf is from "Lost In His Own Mind"!

"Warning! Warning, Will Robinson. Massive alien ego approaching!"

Posted by Mask at 08/02/2007 @ 4:20pm
Whatsa matter JR, you got something against the middle class? How very socialist of you. Although sometimes your arrogance makes me wonder if there's a "von" in your name somewhere. Frei & John and I, you know "people like us" are apparently very confortable where we are in life, monetarily and otherwise, enough so that we don't have to be jealous or resentful of those who make more than us. We don't have to make as much as a Bill Gates to understand the benefits such people bring to this country. Your comments concerning this seem to indicate that life should be a constant battle between those who have and those who have less. Small minded thinking.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/02/2007 @ 4:20pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 08/02/2007 @ 4:20pm | ignore this person

you're making this all up. I am not resentful of rich people, nor of the middle class.

rich people have been doing just fine. much better than the rest of us, with stagnant wages etc.

those who defend the privileges of the super rich are nothing but bootlicking lackeys.

Posted by johannesrolf at 08/02/2007 @ 4:27pm
Mask, how bout we get some of that 1.6 trillion from the grossly inflated "defense" budget?

You have no ideas or solutions. Only cynnicism.

Posted by badtimmay at 08/02/2007 @ 4:30pm
You just told me I was making all this up, yet after my logical, thorough, perceptive,eloquent and well disseminate rebuttal to your baseless comments, proceeded to say almost exactly the same thing again.??

Wait! Have you got Howard Dean on the other line? Thats it, isn't it?

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/02/2007 @ 4:33pm
my logical, thorough, perceptive,eloquent and well disseminate rebuttal

hahahahaha. in your dreams, pal, in your dreams.

Posted by johannesrolf at 08/02/2007 @ 4:34pm
Frei, I never wanted to be rich, have never made any effort to be rich. as you claimed my riches are of a different nature.

when the rich pay the same tax rate as the middle class, I consider this a privilege. you'll note I have never made a distinction between repub super rich and dem super rich. I think they should all pay more, since they get more.

Posted by johannesrolf at 08/02/2007 @ 4:37pm
What in the world are you talking about JR? Basic class envy?

Posted by FREIHEIT 08/02/2007 @ 4:34pm | ignore this person

I am perfectly clear what I am talking about. I want the top tax bracket to be 90%, like it was at other critical times in this country's history. it wasn't class envy then, and it isn't now.

Posted by johannesrolf at 08/02/2007 @ 4:40pm
When the critical time is past, would you revert the rate?

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/02/2007 @ 4:44pm
because the current structure punishes achievement.

whattacrock, the rich have been doing very very well. I'll take some of that punishment, gladly.

When the critical time is past, would you revert the rate?

Posted by CHIP THORNTON 08/02/2007 @ 4:44pm | ignore this person

that is indeed what happened then, and I agree with that.

Posted by johannesrolf at 08/02/2007 @ 4:47pm
Posted by BADTIMMAY 08/02/2007 @ 4:30pm

Fine, Timmah!!! (Big SP fan myself)....who besides Kucinich is going to be the first to call for massive defense cuts?

In other words, which Dem candidate is going to PLAY INTO THE HANDS of the Republican stereotype of liberals as "soft on defense" (which worked so well for decades) by calling for a large enough cut in defense to pay for all those programs AND reduce the deficit?

Not trimming the edges, or even a budget freeze, but the TENS of billions needed to pay for all the wonderful new stuff?

Especially, when they just NOW (in the last year) felt comfortable enough to say they were for "redeployment" (not full pull-out) in Iraq?

Oh, and you want an idea? A MODEST increase in infrastruture spending, maybe 10 billion over five years...certainly nothing like 1.6 Trillion dollars and no way to pay for it.

Posted by Mask at 08/02/2007 @ 4:48pm
NICHOLS: ...Major infrastructure challenges, such as maintaining bridges over our mightiest rivers and modernizing levies, ought never be the sole or even the major responsibility of cash-strapped state and local governments......The American Society of Civil Engineers argues that,.....

Anytime something UNHAPPY happens...the "look at the waste over there for xyz and not spent here" crowd pipe up in coke-addicted & perfect harmony!!!!

I think NICHOLS wants a Federal Department of Bridges funded by a FEE by every pigeon that roosts among the bridge superstructures!

On ASCE, I used to be a member! For as long as I can remember, from reading Civil Engineering magazines as a student to when I was last active as a practicing engineer, "Lack of spending" and pending "Disasters" have been regular parts of its discourse. Obviously, it has its own agenda coupled with public concerns.

Given the physical size of our country and the overall low density of people, all of the folks involved in major public civil infrastructures have done fantastically well! Shit happens and no rational person can expect the Feds to eliminate all risks!

Outside of New Orleans/Katrina, infrastructure failures kill less people in a year than one major plane crash! The Minn. bridge failure is a major tragedy for sure, but lets' have some broader perspective!

Posted by Happy at 08/02/2007 @ 4:50pm
the same people who say that if we tax the rich more, they would all leave the country, never get tired of telling us how wonderful america is. trust me, they won't leave.

Posted by johannesrolf at 08/02/2007 @ 4:51pm
JR, Ok

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/02/2007 @ 4:53pm
Posted by HAPPY 08/02/2007 @ 4:50pm | ignore this person

tell it to the victims and their families.

stopped crowing about the stock market, have you?

Posted by johannesrolf at 08/02/2007 @ 4:54pm
Frei & John and I, you know "people like us" are apparently very confortable where we are in life, monetarily and otherwise, enough so that we don't have to be jealous or resentful of those who make more than us.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON

Well, good for all of you. But what about all the people that are not benefiting from having jobs sent over seas (where the labor does not do it better, just cheaper)? And what about all that are suffering declining wages because the labor market is in surplus after all the off shoring and illegal labor? What about the assault on organized labor?

Class warfare? Yeah, it's being waged alright, by those on top. The working class is getting poorer and poorer; white collar jobs are being off shored. The country is becoming poorer as a result.

Posted by mtspence05 at 08/02/2007 @ 4:55pm
Frei & John and I, you know "people like us" are apparently very confortable where we are in life, monetarily and otherwise,

me too.

Posted by johannesrolf at 08/02/2007 @ 4:57pm
This Mask nutsack's cynicism just serves to make the myriad glaring problems pointed out by the Nation's articles even more frustrating. Every fucking time, Mask chimes in. Never says anything, just assumes everyone is just as big an asshole as her/him. There are competent people in this world, I've seen them. There are people who can make our government work. It is not impossible. There is hope. I don't need this shit. Smarter people than him/her are going to get off of their asses and fix things, it will happen, or we'll all die. I'm blocking her/him. If you're smart, you will do the same.

Posted by King Randy at 08/02/2007 @ 5:00pm
Randy, you are a prince, er, King. my sentiments exactly.

Posted by johannesrolf at 08/02/2007 @ 5:05pm
Posted by ZERO 08/02/2007 @ 5:01pm | ignore this person

good one, Zere

Posted by johannesrolf at 08/02/2007 @ 5:10pm
I am a proud Minnesotan. I also live five minutes from the bridge. We are all waiting and hoping that we do not know people who have been hurt. Our roads have always been well taken care of. In recent years the potholes have increased. It is clear that money is less for the physical structures. That aside, I can not tell you how amazing the sheriff, police, EMTs, firefighters, and medical staff are. The skill and capability that they have shown is incredible. They are understaffed and underfunded, yet they have been able to respond in the most incredible way. It is frustrating that our Governor has not made them a priority.

Posted by mkelly001 at 08/02/2007 @ 5:12pm
.....never get tired of telling us how wonderful america is. trust me, they won't leave.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/02/2007 @ 4:51pm

JR, I can't argue that most liberals will NOT trust you on this but I'll tell you (I think again) this:

America IS wonderful but the future you and your ilk paint, won't be nearly as wonderful and I may well end up doing what my wife and I have started to talk more and more about, retire OUTSIDE of the US! Sure, we'll visit the good old US often!

I suspect an awful lot of Boomers think along my line....some perhaps out of monetary necessity to retire to inexpensive foreign locales (if they are reasonably healthy). Some, like me, just to relive some wonderful foreign experiences on a full time, non-work basis.....besides, with the internet, I can still do US stock market (sorry to mention) IF it still have some hopes.

IF America becomes a high-tax, social welfare state, you will lose the (in country) diversity I provide .....:)

Posted by Happy at 08/02/2007 @ 5:52pm
It's a terrible shame that this bridge fell, but it's part of life...good and bad things happen to all of us. I wish it this writer had not politicized the issue. I expected it would be politicized, but it really shouldn't have been.

I been reading the news, and I don't remember anyone, Democrat or Republican, demanding more funding for bridges, highways and other types of infrastructure projects. Then this bridge collapses, and all of the sudden it's George Bush's fault again?! Please! Give me a break! It's as much Lord Voldemort's fault as it is President Bush's fault. Just knock it off and give the old liberal chorus line a rest!

By the way...would you liberals just lay off the President for another year plus? He'll be out of office then, see, and you can't blame all of your woes on him. (Perhaps you'll be bashing Mitt Romney at the point...let's hope :D )

Posted by DJ in AZ at 08/02/2007 @ 6:29pm
Ya see, some of us here dumb conservatives can sometimes recognize what is our priorities should oughter be.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/02/2007 @ 4:04pm

First should be the Anal Cranial Extraction.

Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/02/2007 @ 6:29pm
Posted by HAPPY 08/02/2007 @ 5:52pm | ignore this person

I seriously doubt that you would have been in the top tax bracket then, or now. in '45 the first million was taxed at a low bracket. after the first million the 90% bracket kicked in. that would be 11 million in today's dollars. I say let's be generous to our poor put upon super rich folks and make it after the first 20 million. so after the first 20 million, every million you make you get to keep $100,000. so the 200 million exec, gets to keep roughly 22 million after taxes. of course this is just income taxes. the rich and super rich have many sources of income, only some of which are classified for income tax.

it's no fun being very rich in a country where everyone else is poor. you can't flaunt it, your kids are kidnapped, gotta live behind walls, there is no Rodeo Drive or fifth avenue where you can shop unmolested. you get the picture.

Posted by johannesrolf at 08/02/2007 @ 7:24pm
IF America becomes a high-tax, social welfare state, you will lose the (in country) diversity I provide .....:)

Posted by HAPPY 08/02/2007 @ 5:52pm | ignore this person

in other words a win win situation. don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Posted by johannesrolf at 08/02/2007 @ 7:29pm
with a top tax rate of %35, our 200 million man, gets to keep roughly 130 million. so where does the extra money our country needs come from? why from you and me.

Posted by johannesrolf at 08/02/2007 @ 7:36pm
I definitely recall that at the least infrastructure was a part of Clinton's priority list in 1992. Copy and paste this url address to take a look. http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:8Xrz1Dhg_AsJ:www.ibiblio.org/nii/ec on-posit.html+Clinton+1992+campaign+infrastructure&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl =us At least a part of the business sector supports a renewed focus on infrastructure maintenance. Copy and paste the url address that follows to take a look. http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/7851829/c_9587103?f=home_todayinfinance

Posted by JCSKP at 08/02/2007 @ 7:51pm
You seem eager to blame Bush for everything.

Posted by Jesuslives at 08/02/2007 @ 8:10pm
As I have often said, we can't afford to fix the problems facing our nation, we have to spend our money killing people.

Posted by kcros at 08/02/2007 @ 8:24pm
Posted by JESUSLIVES 08/02/2007 @ 8:10pm

Mostly. The rest, I blame on jesus freaks.

Eric

Posted by Malcontent at 08/02/2007 @ 8:25pm
my arithmetic is faulty. in the first scenario, the 200 million man gets to keep $32 million after taxes. there that's better.

Posted by johannesrolf at 08/02/2007 @ 8:57pm
Posted by KING RANDY 08/02/2007 @ 5:00pm

Boy, you sure do know when you REALLY hit home against somebody, when they Ignore you and try to entice others to do the same.

Apologies, KING, for not being happy-happy "Won't things be wonderful when WE're in charge" Utopian...just not my style!

Posted by Mask at 08/02/2007 @ 9:19pm
JR, as usual, is full of crap.

If "the rich" smell a 90% bracket coming down the pipe from Hillary and the Democrats, they WILL put the money elsewhere (Caymans banks will do a booming business).

These people (less Paris Hilton) didn't get rich being stupid.

After all, Michael Moore invested in Halliburton!....heheh

Posted by Mask at 08/02/2007 @ 9:21pm
So,we need 1.6 trillion?OK,1st,reduce the staff of every government agency 25% across the board.I doubt the federal government would even notice.Over 70% of every federal dollar spent is eaten up by overhead long before it reaches the designate.

2nd,allow the states to determine education policy and gradually eliminate the U.S.Dept.of Education and its tens of thousands of employees.Someone show me what a staffer shining a seat with his ass in DC is doing to help education in Montana.

3rd,give ANWR back to Alaska and let Alaskans vote whether to drill or not.Untold billions of revenue for the state and in turn,the fed.

This will easily generate the 1.6 trillion number being tossed around,and there's not a single politician in DC with the stones to even talk about doing it.

Posted by OhioTrucker at 08/02/2007 @ 9:33pm
This will easily generate the 1.6 trillion number being tossed around,and there's not a single politician in DC with the stones to even talk about doing it.

Posted by OHIOTRUCKER 08/02/2007 @ 9:33pm

...or, maybe, stop the illegal wars?

Eric

Posted by Malcontent at 08/02/2007 @ 9:51pm
...or, maybe, stop the illegal wars?

Now that would be the illegal wars the Congress overwhelmingly voted for right?

Posted by OhioTrucker at 08/02/2007 @ 9:58pm
The Nation has to stop using every national tragedy or fluke to further a rhetorical vendetta against the war, as much as it needs to end. This is not journalism- its just foaming at the mouth. In doing so, they are no worse than conservatives who see every problem as the fault of "too much government, etc." There is a sensationalist and reactionary element to the Nation that is not found in other liberal periodicals, like the American Prospect. And I can think of better uses for 1.6 trillion than building bridges- national health insurance, for instance. We need to get priorities straight- people can carpool and put less stress on existing bridges before- we need national healthcare.

Posted by JM at 08/02/2007 @ 10:03pm
Posted by JM 08/02/2007 @ 10:03pm

Actualy, JM, it's more a mark of naive idealism.

As noted, you'll never see actual NUMBERS run (by folks like Mr Nichols) on how you PAY for $1.6 Tril in infrastructure, PLUS all the other "vital needs" and "crises" out there (even national health care)...AND dent a dangerous deficit.

The reason is simple (or simplistic), they IMAGINE that a massive tax hike can be implemented with no harm to the economy ...or that magically when we get out of Iraq we'll save more than the $10 billion a month we're spending (less than 10% Mr Nichols' 1.6 Trillion)...or that somebody will get elected who will GUT the defense budget in a manner that NO Democrat has ever done.

Skim "The Nation" for 2 months and take note of ALL the things that the writers say demands billions in spending....add them up, and then see if "just let the Bush tax cuts lapse" and "get out of Iraq tomorrow" covers it?

Posted by Mask at 08/02/2007 @ 10:32pm
Posted by OHIOTRUCKER 08/02/2007 @ 9:58pm

Yes, that would be the contemptable, either criminal or incompetent congress, that overwhelmingly voted to give the president to much leeway to invade a sovereign nation, that posed no threat to America, based on lies.

Eric

Posted by Malcontent at 08/02/2007 @ 11:13pm
whether the congress voted for the illegal war in Iraq is immaterial to its legality. it is an illegal war because it is a war of aggression against a country that was no threat to us.

Posted by johannesrolf at 08/03/2007 @ 08:40am
Not to quibble, but no more bodies have been "pulled from the water" in the last two days, and the reported number of missing is going down. This may matter to the families gathered at the water.

Posted by tonyzito at 08/03/2007 @ 08:56am
Not to quibble, but no more bodies have been "pulled from the water" in the last two days, and the reported number of missing is going down. This may matter to the families gathered at the water.

Posted by tonyzito at 08/03/2007 @ 08:56am
Everything will be privatized and instead of "git big gubbermint offa our backs", will be the pronmise of no more taxes. But, what will happen, like in Iraq, is the public will pay for the means, while the ends will be privatized. Already states are selling off infrastructure for short-term fixes, without acknowleging long-term disasters. With increasingly limited oversight or accountability, the looting for the bottomline is the pattern by hook or by crook. Bit by bit everything will be sold off from all arms of the government to local utilities- until we are the serfs charged a fee for trespassing on what used to be the commons.

Posted by Lil at 08/03/2007 @ 09:17am
C'mon JR, your 8:40 post is a value judgement. If initiation and prosecution of the war fits in with our legal system, then its "legal" like it or not. And there are many who would dispute the notion that they wern't a threat to us, although I'm not one: All thinking people at one time, before the duplicity started believed there were WMD's, the Clarks, the Clintons, the Gores,the UN, everyone, and Hussein, according to the publication "Defining WMD's" (GPO Occasional Paper '06) says that Hussein himself was doing everthing he could to convince everyone that he DID have them. For now, we know otherwise and I certainly don't expect to see the Elite Iraqi 1st Armoured coming up Pennsylvania Ave. However, as the old cliche goes, "at the time, it seemed the logical thing to do"

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/03/2007 @ 10:13am
Disintegrating Infrastructure

Conservative Ideology is the same as Mafia Ideology, it's all about corruption and death. Both are criminal enterprises that prey on people, and it's only the scope of the two enterprises that differ. The Mafia sells heroin and Conservatives sell endless war. War is where the BIG BUCKS are made. The Mafia sells euphoria, and Conservatives sell fear, both are destructive, but which is worse?

Collapsing bridges are the least of our Disintegrating Infrastructure, the collapsing standards of living for middleclass Americans is worse. Conservatives have been waging race and class wars for generations, with great success, and they have destroyed our national cohesion for profit and power. Our country and people are being cannibalized by vicious degenerates who greedily eat their own children. Something that even the Mafia doesn't do.

The next thing you hear might be Rush and O'Reilly blaming liberals for blowing up the Minnesota bridge. Don't laugh, they've said worse.

Murdoch is a fascist, his newspapers and networks are fascist, his "Anchors" are fascist, and it's all fascist all the time.

WTF!

Democratic Representative didn't notice when fascists started taking over the air waves, when "conservatives" packed the courts and every other agency of government with "good little Germans," and when the "Decider" urinated on the Constitution and balance of powers we once held dear?

Somebody better step up and tell America what's happening, because we've never been in deeper excrement. We've got people in power who are changing our form of government by Crime & Decree, and few of our "Representatives" seem to notice or care.

Americans are not cowards. We'll fight anybody, anytime for dissin' us, but someone has to tell us the truth so we know who or what to fight. Right now we have anarchy and paralysis, caused by a dictatorial president and no organized opposition from any of our Democratic "leaders."

Step up and tell America what's happening..

Posted by rabblerowzer at 08/03/2007 @ 10:16am
until we are the serfs charged a fee for trespassing on what used to be the commons. ----Posted by LIL 08/03/2007 @ 09:17am

You mean like...toll roads? Very popular in the liberal Northeast, I hear.

Posted by Mask at 08/03/2007 @ 10:20am
Posted by RABBLEROWZER 08/03/2007 @ 10:16am [en.wikipedia.org]

Posted by Mask at 08/03/2007 @ 10:21am
....don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/02/2007 @ 7:29pm

Sniffles....Hhehehe

Posted by Happy at 08/03/2007 @ 10:32am
Yeah, toll roads and bridges too. The tolls were supposed to stop once the road-bridge was paid for. Amazing how the Nation threads are a libertarian swamp of all things. Don't you boys have your own blogs to practice your religion? Problem with religious doctrine is there are no shades of grey--this good, this bad, regardless of the facts. Facts are that Bush and his religious crusade, converging with the ambitions of the elite corporate ruling class--which incidently include the Clintons, just so you don't assume this is some partisan Republican vs Democratic party faux partisan battle field, are a disaster. You blame the gubbermint--and maybe the welfare mother, while the forces that control the goverment rip us all off. It always amuses me that libertarians generally embrace the constitution as their own--or at least the second amendment, but they are generally nowhere to be found when it comes to things like the common good. Mind you, it didn't say what was best for the greedy individual that wanted the entire pie, but what was best for the common good. Dirty socialist scum, those framers--advocating for post offices and Franklin with his commie ideas about public libraries and public education and all.

And that crap about wmds was an obvious fabrication from the onset--anyone who bought that will believe anything gubbermint tells him.

Posted by Lil at 08/03/2007 @ 10:43am
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 08/03/2007 @ 10:13am | ignore this person

there is such a thing as international law. there is such a thing as a world court. Milosovich was tried there. I don't know what serbian law was but Slobbo was being tried under international law.

even if Saddam had had WMD, he had no means of delivery to this country and therefore was no threat to the US.

your post is as much a value judgement as mine.

Posted by johannesrolf at 08/03/2007 @ 10:54am
LIL, regarding your 10:43 post, is that what you want on here, a bunch of opinions that bear no resemblance to anyone but yours? I heard it stated once on NPR that one of the problems helping to create polarization between us is that people don't seek out information in the media anymore to learn: They seek out confirmation of what they already believe to be true, whether it is or not. Thats certainly no way to learn.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/03/2007 @ 11:01am
Yeah, toll roads and bridges too. The tolls were supposed to stop once the road-bridge was paid for. ----Posted by LIL 08/03/2007 @ 10:43am

After editing out that non-sequiter tirade on "Bush", "religion", and Benjamin Franklin....your first line AGREED with what I said.

Yes, the tolls WERE supposed to stop after the bridge was paid for, and not continued (and no, they didn't go to "maintenance", given the revenues taken in WELL exceeded that needed).

So your original complaint of "until we are the serfs charged a fee for trespassing on what used to be the commons."----Posted by LIL 08/03/2007 @ 09:17am....in fact DOES have a "libertarian" ring to it, because it in fact OPPOSES the ideas of toll roads, which are used as a revenue source (primarily in the Northeast, which is primarily a bastion of liberalism).

So...why are NE liberals treating their citizens like "serfs" being "charged for trespassing" on the "commons"? Other states/regions pay for the roads and maintenance out of taxes levied on driver and non-driver alike?

Posted by Mask at 08/03/2007 @ 11:05am
Don't mind a diversity of thought--provided that there is actually thought of some kind or critical thinking involved and not adherence to some doctrine devoid of any true relationship with events. That would amount to little more than spinning the wheels--like trying to interact with a reactionary chritian fundamentalist whose are eyes glazed over. This is really more along the lines of a progressive blog, and not to say that it should exclusively be so, but what is your purpose other than to disrupt and perhaps bully, shout down and spew poison in your disdain? I do find it somewhat odd that you have made it your home--or so it seems in the few times I stopped in.

Absolutely agreed with you, mask, and that is the point--your adherence to some notion of either\or--that confines all perspectives to their proper box. I don't think gubbermint is perfect--nor do I believe that there ever will be a perfect government, but the emphasis of late towards free market ideology with no restraint is actually detrimental to responsible government.

The irony is--shouldn't you rightly be embracing it--you know, with all your heart?

Posted by Lil at 08/03/2007 @ 11:30am
And why not my home? What better way to find different opinions, to try to expose people to others. Besides, most of the people on this blog are intelligent and thoughtful, even if we have some firefights sometimes. There are always two ways to look at things:. For Ex. your calling the main viewpoints expoused here "progressive" is itself open to debate. Some would refer to them as "regressive". Basically I don't spend my time on more conservative sites because I don't need confirmation for what I believe. I have a roughly ten point philosophy, I believe well thought out (although not written totally in stone,) that I follow and will come on here OR the nutcase sites (like Ann Coulter) to defend its premises. Most of what you see from me on here is derived from it.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/03/2007 @ 11:46am
"Okay, Mr Nichols....where will the 1.6 Trillion come from?"

Let's see. The United States' annual budget for defense and security is approximately $500 billion (although estimates range as high as $800 billion) which is equal to the combined defense expenditures of all other nations. And that figure excludes the ongoing wars in Afgahnistan and Iraq. If that defense budget were cut in half, it would free up at least $250 billion annually that could be used for other things, including infrastructure repairs and upgrades. Furthermore, investment in infrastructure would provide a significant and permanent boost to the economy that will result in increased tax revenues to the US Treasury, providing even more money for needed projects, including debt reduction. In contrast, defense spending is largely an economic drain, benefiting primarily defense contractors and their employees. Nothing but crumbs may fall to the rest of us.

Finding the money for infrastructure improvement is a no-brainer. Finding the political will to make it happen is much harder, given the fact that most US politicians are wedded to the military and military contractors.

Posted by robgo2 at 08/03/2007 @ 12:03pm
Posted by LIL 08/03/2007 @ 11:30am |

Not an absolute, LIL. Government has its role, but it drifts inexorably towards a stagnant and inefficient bureaucracy and the maintenance of the status quo and resistance to reform.

And that comes if the Hard Right or Hard Left are ruling it. Toll roads keep their toll collections long after the road or bridge has been paid for. We had a tax on telephones, just recently recinded...that was implemented to pay for the...Spanish-American War! We have a Rural Electrification Administration upto 1994....while, by the early 1970s, 95% of American farms were electrified. Took another 20 years to get rid of the REA.

And the dreams of the ideologues are hardly ever matched with the REALITY of....how to pay for it.

Whether the neo-cons, who told us that A. "the war in Iraq would cost NO more than $50 Billion"---Cheney or B. "the war will pay for itself in oil revenues"---Paul Wolfowitz.

Or the Left who tell us of cost-efficient, low tax "universal health care" where costs will NEVER spiral out of control and lead to rationing. (Or worse, price controls drive quality down).

or more often, "how to pay for it" is ignored...as Bush is doing with our massive deficit...

or Mr Nichols is doing with his "$1.6 trillion in infrastructure".

Posted by Mask at 08/03/2007 @ 12:08pm
the political will to make it happen is much harder, given the fact that most US politicians are wedded to the military and military contractors.

Posted by ROBGO2 08/03/2007 @ 12:03pm

Good numbers, but you DO point out the flaw. But it's not just being "wedded to the military contractors", ROB.

It's a political reality of public perception. The first Democrat who proposes a MASSIVE (and yes, 1/2 is massive, no matter how you slice it...heheh) cut in defense...will get CREAMED by the Republicans on the engrained stereotype of Democrats being "weak on defense".

It's like Social Security. A "third rail of politics" (for the Right) that nobody on the Left will touch, cuz it will kill them.

Posted by Mask at 08/03/2007 @ 12:12pm
benefiting primarily defense contractors and their employees. Nothing but crumbs may fall to the rest of us.---Posted by ROBGO2 08/03/2007 @ 12:03pm

Plus there's ANOTHER problem, ROB. "Jobs" is a key Democratic touchstone for success. So, say somebody proposes that $250B cut in defense....

and some smart Republicans go out and find out how many JOBS that will cost in the defense industry (Lockheed, GM, Colt, McDonnell Douglas Helicopter) and throws THAT into the Democrat's face?

Posted by Mask at 08/03/2007 @ 12:16pm
Here's some food for thought. Maybe we should let the repubs get what they want. Wipe out the government, make it to where businesses rule the land, and then, when wars and bridges need to be financed, guess who will be responsible for it 100%? That's right, those who rule the land. Isn't that part of the monarchy deal. You call all of the shots since it's your property, but the catch is that since it's your property, you and only you repair it and defend it. That means only the nobles should be the knights in shining army defending their great state, not the lower classes because we aren't worthy of such a deed.

Things have a way of coming full circle. Conservatives wish to elimate government, which in turn makes them the ruling class. Once they are the ruling class, it becomes their responsiblity of the welfare of their newly purchased country. A dictatorship is basically communism in a slightly different form. The dictator owns everything instead of the people, but if he wishes to keep being the dictator he had better not piss the masses off too much.

As we have already witnessed with the Iraq War and also with the impeachment proceedings, what the people of this country want doesn't mean crap. What matters is what the business lobby groups, wealthy people who don't want to pay for anything, and idiots pretending that they are wealthy want. Democracy in this land has long since fled elsewhere. We have a choice between bad and worse leading our country. Maybe a handful of senators and congressmen who really care about this country exist, the rest are on the take. At least if the repubs control it for good we won't have to listen to that phony religious crap and flag waving any more because they won't have to lie anymore. We'll get to see them for what they really are....power hungry, cut throats.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/03/2007 @ 1:10pm
At least I make efforts to get change accomplished.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/02/2007 @ 6:53pm

So is your head OUT of your ass then? Otherwise your comment is meaningless, as you are.

Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/03/2007 @ 1:11pm
Posted by WOLFGANG1 08/03/2007 @ 1:10pm

WOLF, wonder, do you think that if it's "fair" for you to say that "Republicans want to 'wipe out the Government'"...

that it's equally fair to say that Democrats want to "have the Government control everything"?

Posted by Mask at 08/03/2007 @ 1:22pm
Some jobs will indeed be lost if the military budget is cut, but new jobs will be found in the rebuilding of infrastructure. The same is true of any shift in the allocation of economic resources, e.g. switching from horse drawn carriages to automobiles. Such displacements are inevitable, but eventually people adjust to them.

Bringing about a shift in spending from defense to infrastructure will not be easy and will require the kind of political courage that is in desparately short supply. However, there are times when it is the responsibility of political leaders to lead, and this is one of those times. While fending off the attacks of militarists, they will have to educate the public to the fact that much defense spending is wasteful and adds nothing to national security. After the debacle in Iraq, people may be surprisingly receptive to this argument.

Posted by robgo2 at 08/03/2007 @ 1:33pm
WOLF, wonder, do you think that if it's "fair" for you to say that "Republicans want to 'wipe out the Government'"...

that it's equally fair to say that Democrats want to "have the Government control everything"?

Posted by MASK 08/03/2007 @ 1:22pm

No, it isn't fair. You won't find very many dems who wish for the government to control everything. But you will find a good many dems who are actually socialists meaning that they would rather see the government responsible for anything peoples' lives depend on such as health care, transit, infrastructure, law enforcement etc. We already are somewhat of a socialistic society already. But it's the republicans who wish to drown the government in a bath tub, not the dems. It's the repubs who wish to privatize everything, not the dems, and it's the repubs who wish to outsource all of the jobs to cheaper labor markets, not the dems. I'll take one thing back, the repubs wish to keep the military run by the government, that way they get more in return for their tax investment yielding the control of overseas markets through our military at tax payer expense. What a deal.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/03/2007 @ 1:46pm
Some jobs will indeed be lost if the military budget is cut, but new jobs will be found in the rebuilding of infrastructure. ----Posted by ROBGO2 08/03/2007 @ 1:33pm

Now wait a minute, ROB, these are people's livelihoods and LIVES you're talking about. You don't just say "Oh, they'll be okay".

First off, what guy who puts together electronic circuitry boards in an air-conditioned factory, for F-117 or B-2 stealth aircraft....is going to consider it "okay" that he NOW has to haul steel rods and pour concrete on the hot summer roadside working on "infrastructure"???

Posted by Mask at 08/03/2007 @ 3:06pm
Posted by WOLFGANG1 08/03/2007 @ 1:46pm

WOLF, you say "My generalities about THEM are true, but their generalties about MY SIDE are false". Other than your partisan opinion, you don't have much proof of that.

You can take "cut government spending" and turn it into "wipe out the government"....why can't somebody else take "we need national health care and mandatory CO2 emissions controls" and turn it into "We want the Government running everything from medicine to industry to what kind of car you drive"?

Posted by Mask at 08/03/2007 @ 3:08pm
If you ever bothered to read anything except far left propaganda, you might realize how inane and ignorant your statements are.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/03/2007 @ 1:56pm

LVLIBERTY1,You are the one needing to quit reading or should I say listening to right wing progaganda. My statements are pretty much on target, you just get pissed because you want to lie to yourself and pretend you are some kind of patriot, well you aren't. You are self serving and looking out for #1 and don't give a rip about the next guy. At least have the guts to admit it. That's what really pisses me off about you guys. You try to act like you have compassion for your fellow man, but you don't. You figure that people deserve exactly what they get and that is why they are in the circumstances they are in. Case in point, I've heard conservatives say that the people of New Orleans knew they lived in an area that could be hit by a hurricane, so they really don't deserve any help.

Well, in some cases you are correct where people put themsevles into bad positions but in a great many more cases you are wrong. Some people are born into bad sitautions and fight like crazy to get out from the time they are kids. Some people work their asses off, try as hard as they can, and still don't end up with shit. You may be one of the lucky ones to end up on your feet, but don't be thinking you are better than others because you happen to end up that way. We are all like butterflies in the wind. Things happen to us at random in many cases and folks like you believe that if things happened in a randomly good way that you were preordained to some type of greatness. I don't buy into that B.S.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/03/2007 @ 3:25pm
MASK, I'll restate my side. I don't think all conservatives want to wipe out the government, just the ones backing Bush and Cheney. I'll admit that they have lost some of their clout with quite a few repubs, but evidently not enough to stop them in their pursuit to bankrupt our country or they would not be in power any more. Isn't that what Bush has been trying to do? You can't back the SOB and then turn around and say that he's doing the government or the people of this country any favors. He's removing any regulations that keep big business in check, making it very difficult for citizens to sue big corporations for wrongdoing, making it easier for big business to declare themselves bankrupt while denying the same right to citizens. Look at what the Iraq war price tag is doing to the Average American, not the assholes on wallstreet!

I don't think the government is the answer to everything nor do I want to see this as a communist state. But, on the other side of things, I trust the government of the people a hell of a lot more than sharks in business suits trying to take everything they can get their greedy damn mits on. The only thing standing between them and me is the government and laws. There is no other recourse or defense for us small fry.

I just wish that conservatives posting here would consider that not everyone in the nation has a $300,000 house, $500,000 invested in the market, owns their own business and have multiple homes they can hang out in. The bulk of the nation is struggling like hell to make it.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/03/2007 @ 4:07pm
Posted by WOLFGANG1 08/03/2007 @ 4:07pm

I think that's a fair statement. The ideological divide comes down to those who trust the government and those who don't. And further, those who trust the government WHEN THEY RUN IT...and those who don't, regardless of who's running.

Bush and the neo-cons have proved spectacular failures. That does NOT mean that the OPPOSITE but equal side of the political spectrum can't do just as badly when they get their turn.

Posted by Mask at 08/03/2007 @ 4:12pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/03/2007 @ 4:16pm

Yeah, LL, I'm afraid that too is a fatal flaw of the "Level 1 progressives".

I noted on another thread that even Dennis Kucinich has figured that one out, as he "only" wants to lose the tax cuts for those OVER $405,000 a year....the obvious reason being that he knows that in the major cities (especially L.A.) that $405,000 a year is middle class.

Posted by Mask at 08/03/2007 @ 4:29pm
I just wish that conservatives posting here would consider that not everyone in the nation has a $300,000 house, $500,000 invested in the market, owns their own business and have multiple homes they can hang out in. The bulk of the nation is struggling like hell to make it.

Posted by WOLFGANG1 08/03/2007 @ 4:07pm | ignore this person

I'll let you in on a little secret Wolf, none of the right wing posters here have those things either. they are wannabes.

with the housing bubble bursting, that 300 000 dollar house will soon descend to a more earth bound price. you try to sell a house today.

Posted by johannesrolf at 08/03/2007 @ 4:33pm
I guess you haven't tried living in California where for most of the state, a $300,000 home is usually in a slum area.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/03/2007 @ 4:16pm

Wrong again my friend. I have lived in San Diego and Seattle. After living about 8 months in San Diego I realised that I was cut from the wrong cloth to afford to live there and I joined the Air Force to hopefully better my position in life (mistake, but it seemed like a good idea for getting an education and possibly seeing the world). I also lived in Seattle where the typical house is around $300,000. The time I lived there it was around $200k but it's gone up since then. I am also saying that the average person can't afford those houses.

The banks may finance some people to purchase those houses, but your average Joe can't really afford a house like that, not on 30 to 50k a year. I believe that is the subprime lending fiasco we've been hearing about lately.

Most of the people I know living in houses exceeding $300k make over $100k per year. By the way, those people aren't rich either. They lose of a job and some bad luck in they are screwed just like the rest of us making less. That's what I am getting all upset about. The people making 100k or 200k even really are not the problem. It's the people with millions worrying about paying any taxes that get me pissed off. They enjoy the lions share of the rewards of this country but don't wish to give anything back. The rest of us have to pay our taxes because if the IRS comes knocking on our doors, we don't have private attorneys and CPA's to cover our asses. We are talking about two completely separate classes here and I haven't even brought up the people making minimum wage. My guess is that you are closer to the 100k income than the multi-million dollar or more income group.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/03/2007 @ 4:54pm
We cannot afford to fix bridges, NYC steam pipes, or any other major infrastructures in this country. Our arrogant, corrupt, snide, little Napoleonic complex President has sent all of our money over to Iraq to rebuild theirs.

Posted by PatrickFaiola at 08/03/2007 @ 5:03pm
We cannot afford to fix bridges, NYC steam pipes, or any other major infrastructures in this country. Our arrogant, corrupt, snide, little Napoleonic complex President has sent all of our money over to Iraq to rebuild theirs.

Posted by PATRICKFAIOLA 08/03/2007 @ 5:03pm

PATRICKFAIOLA, haven't you been listening to the Level I Right Wing Idiots like antiliberty, HAPPY and the like? As long as we line the defense industry's pockets with blood money, everything is fine. No amount is too much because questioning the amount of money spent on war is unpatriotic. But, repairing something that citizens of this country actually use? Never!! The private market needs to solve that type of thing so somebody can profit from the disaster. The only time we should dole out government money is for wars and wars only. The American people are not deserving of their tax dollars, only corporate America is deserving of that cash flow. That's what makes this nation great by God.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/03/2007 @ 5:13pm
My theory has been that the Bush-Cheney, like the Reagan, administrations' desire was to destroy the economic power of the federal government so that it would no longer be any type of threat to the wealthy. case in point: one of the first things RR did was to fire the air traffic controllers when they went out on strike after years of negotiations with the G. That was the beginning of the end for what had until then been a sort of Keynesian consensus in this country about the natural strife between capitol and labor being moderated fairly by a government. Now, whoops, new sheriff in town! Bush-Cheney running up such astronomical deficits is just that type of tactic to put the federal government in such a position of poveerty and powerlessness for a decade or more. They pander to their social base and serve their business masters

Posted by The Goods at 08/03/2007 @ 5:16pm
Posted by THE GOODS 08/03/2007 @ 5:16pm | ignore this person

here's what happened: after WW2, with communism on the rise, the bosses hadda be nice to the workers, lest they cross over to the dark side. after the fall of communism all restraints were off, and it is now open season on the workers.

Posted by johannesrolf at 08/03/2007 @ 5:25pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/03/2007 @ 5:24pm

You'd better careful saying things like that. Your friends right of the divide may start to think "liberal" thoughts are entering into your mind.

So you say that the government should maintain infrastructure, but your party refuses to do so. So, how will this influence your vote?

The U.S. infrastructure is more important to me than some damn school house or bridge in Iraq. Not that I don't want the people of Iraq to have those things, but as an American, I think our government would do well to worry about it's own people first, not last, as I would hope that the Iraq government, or any government for that matter, would worry about it's people first.

If things are going great here and the country has the money to blow, then by all means help other countries out, but right now, our medical care system is in big trouble. Trama centers are on the brink of shutting down because uninsured patients over run them and can't pay the bills, but that is the only place these patients have to go. So, once again, here we are putting money into Iraq where we could be keeping these hospitals at least floating. At present they are sinking and if they close, things will get very ugly in some of the larger metropolitan areas I would think. This bridge thing will be small potatoes compared to that. When people start dying on the streets because there isn't any place to go for care, there will definitely be an outcry from the lower ranks in the economic structure.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/03/2007 @ 5:45pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/03/2007 @ 5:25pm

What Dr. Zachery Smith here seems to forget is...that even LIBERALS mark the downfall of the unions and workers' rights at atleast Reagan's PATCO strike break....

YEARS before the fall of the Berlin Wall or the collapse of the Soviet Union.

But, hey, as always, JR says it...that's the final word on "history".

Posted by Mask at 08/03/2007 @ 7:50pm
i suppose it doesn't really matter if America falls apart. The conservatives sold us out to the commies, are making the world safe for bin laden and all while getting to live out more day of their I can have it all and not pay for it fantasy.

It's really part of hamsterlands keep America safe plan. There's really no point in terror coming all the way over here to end our way of life. The terrorists can sit in the comfort of their caves in afghanistan and watch the republican party do it for them.

Posted by Will C. at 08/03/2007 @ 11:13pm
Interesting... and liberals want to give the US government - this same institution in charge of the safety of our bridges - control of all healthcare?

Posted by FREIHEIT 08/02/2007 @ 2:59pm

Ahh, that old right-wing shibboleth. Perhaps if you broadened your mind a bit and paid attention to someone other than Rush "Oxy" Limbaugh, you might figure out that universal health care works.

How do I know? Every civilized nation on this planet has some form of national health care. And you know what? They're all healthier than we are. The U.S. is the healthiest nation . . . in the Third World. In every category that matters, in fact, we are the best in the Third World.

Posted by M. Yass at 08/04/2007 @ 03:41am
"Gee... what's going on over there??? Here in Europe, I really cannot remember any bridge collapsing during the last, hm... 20 years???"

Hey Elizax, try a little research beforehand:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/1202214.stm

Posted by minutus at 08/04/2007 @ 12:22pm
Min, good point, I think. Portugal is of course one of Europe's poorest countries. That bridge was 116 years old. but here's the kicker:

The disaster has prompted accusations of government negligence, and the public works minister has already resigned.

the minister resigned. don't look for that happening here. In Japan, he likely would have iced himself in shame.

Posted by johannesrolf at 08/04/2007 @ 12:39pm
I agree with Nichols assesment of our infrastructure, but I think an article contrasting the administrations RESPONSE to the bridge collapse with the destruction caused by Katrina would be more appropriate. Anyone care to compare/contrast the two responses to these terrible tragedies?

Posted by stlouisdem at 08/04/2007 @ 4:24pm
The reason that our infrastructure is in such sorry shape now is because people have slowly been seduced into turning against their OWN TOOL for doing things TOGETHER that they could not do by themselves. It's called GOVERNMENT - of, by and FOR the people. We have been trying something else. How well has it been WORKING?

For crying out loud, folks, what on earth is any government supposed to exist FOR? Let's stop listening to all of the self-serving brainwashing about how wonderful it is to make selfish multinational corporations with NO national loyalties and already-rich people even more dominant while the rest of us literally drown.

The only reason we even HAVE an "infrastructure" is because real leaders like Franklin Roosevelt and that old pinko-commie, Dwight Eisenhower, understood who they worked for and DID THEIR JOBS.

YOUR government is only as good as YOU make it. It is only a REFLECTION of it's own people. Let's stop giving it over to a few selfish manipulators (Do they really FOOL anyone anymore?) who don't give a crap if everyone else croaks. If we don't all start taking responsibility and USE our government as it was intended, this is only a PRELUDE, as we watch the mighty American infrastructure, which the Republicans were against our collectively building in the first place, continues to crumble.

Posted by sketchartist at 08/04/2007 @ 5:09pm
...President has sent all of our money over to Iraq to rebuild theirs.

Posted by PATRICKFAIOLA 08/03/2007 @ 5:03pm

Who are you? A Drive-by-Idiot!

Don't you know most of the money goes to our world-class military industrial complex, our soldier's pay (which mostly comes back to the US) and their medical expenses? Go drink more Kool-Aid!

Posted by Happy at 08/04/2007 @ 7:00pm
It was authorized by the UN.

Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/04/2007 @ 6:47pm | ignore this person

it was not. show a resolution greenlighting the Iraq war.

Posted by johannesrolf at 08/04/2007 @ 8:09pm
In the article it says the federal government is "responsible for the roads" in this country. Last I checked, the state and local governments were in charge of maintaining the roads within their states and locales. The main purpose of the federal government, going back to the founding days, was to maintain a military to protect the states and to have a very limited role in Americans' lives. That of course has since been scrapped, but even today, the states have much more power than the federal government including the maintenance of their roads. Minnesota is running a $2.1 million SURPLUS. And they didn't fix their roads. But no, blame the federal government for something the STATE didn't do itself.

Posted by laduca74 at 08/04/2007 @ 10:28pm
...President has sent all of our money over to Iraq to rebuild theirs.

Posted by PATRICKFAIOLA 08/03/2007

You must be the one listener Air America has left.

Posted by OhioTrucker at 08/04/2007 @ 11:32pm
My God, Mr. Nichols, must you politicize everything?

Posted by antiPartisa at 08/05/2007 @ 12:01am
Rest assured -- the Wall Street Journal has the answer: just privatize all the major bridges in the country and the issue of unsafe bridges will vanish. The Magic of the Market will instantly render all bridges safe!

If you don't buy it, then consider voting for candidates who support a realistic level of domestic infrastructure investment.

Posted by Drgonzosb at 08/05/2007 @ 1:05pm
...the Wall Street Journal has the answer: just privatize all the major bridges in the country and the issue of unsafe bridges will vanish....

Posted by DRGONZOSB 08/05/2007 @ 1:05pm

The WSJ yesterday, indeed had a lengthy article on how several advanced countries are ahead of us on privatizing their infrastructures. WSJ predicted that this trend will pick up here! This tragic bridge collapse may well be a major catalyst!

While privatization is happening in many advanced countries, where it has been the most effective has been in China where Hong Kong investors are investing billions to pave roads into the interior where factories and labor are cheaper than along the now-booming coastal zones!

Posted by Happy at 08/05/2007 @ 6:29pm
whether the congress voted for the illegal war in Iraq is immaterial to its legality. it is an illegal war because it is a war of aggression against a country that was no threat to us.

Wrong-----If the President ask for it, and the Congress votes for it---and the Supreme Court does determine the action to be unconstitutional, then its legality is final. No international agreement or UN action is above our Constitution ---to make that so is to give up our sovereignty. If your arguement is that it is undeclared war, therefor illegal---wrong again----This country has entered into over 200 military conflicts without a declaration of war. You are entitled to disagree with our involvment in the war---you are entitled to your opinion ----however, the war is not illegal.

Posted by Len Mosse at 08/05/2007 @ 11:36pm
If the Supreme Court does not determine the action unconstitutional

Posted by Len Mosse at 08/05/2007 @ 11:37pm
I'll let you in on a little secret Wolf, none of the right wing posters here have those things either. they are wannabes.

I would love to see the poll on that JR---you might be very very wrong. Lots of places where you can't find a house for under $300,000-----I know that in my little community that the average house sells for over $300,000.

Posted by Len Mosse at 08/05/2007 @ 11:41pm
Mask -

You know what, you're right. We can't have everything. But we most certainly CAN have things that are much more important than saving face in a war we never should have started. Bringing our men and women home, accepting what can only be described as "defeat" and trying to be a better nation tomorrow than we were today are vital first steps.

We owe it to our fellow citizens. The government can manage to find money to pay for this ridiculous war, we can find the money to pay for infrastructure improvement.

Posted by nycawr at 08/06/2007 @ 12:59am
Interesting... and liberals want to give the US government - this same institution in charge of the safety of our bridges - control of all healthcare?

Posted by FREIHEIT 08/02/2007 @ 2:59pm

FREIHEIT's comment is the perfect exemplar of "conservative" governance and its advocacy.

1) Defund and neglect essential government services. In other words, stop governing.

2) When a failure occurs due to the neglect and underfunding, blame it on government and claim that this proves that the government can't do anything.

Airtight logic, that.

Everyone repeat after me the old Ronald Reagan mantra: "Government isn't the solution to our problem. Government is the problem!"

The Rethugs, and their Democratic enablers, have made that a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Posted by siegeljd at 08/06/2007 @ 02:03am
Okay, Mr Nichols....where will the 1.6 Trillion come from?

Posted by MASK 08/02/2007

Well, let's see, if we hadn't invaded Iraq on that little "cakewalk"...

We could hit Halliburton up for a little bit of it... oh right, they're in Dubai now.... no matter, I'm sure they'll be happy to get a cost plus contract for the repairs.

Posted by siegeljd at 08/06/2007 @ 02:06am
"Okay, great. How you going to pay for all that? "Tax the rich and the corporations?"

That would be a start. Another would be to start dismantling the American Empire that now stretches to over 700 military bases in 130 countries around the globe.

Guess that would be a double whammy on the rich and the corporations. Deconstructing the Empire that has helped make them fat and rich.

Or tap into some of the 11 TRILLION dollars the super rich have squirrled away in tax free offshore havens.

Tax capital gains not at 15%, but at the nominal tax rate of 25%. That's the same tax rate Joe Sixpack, who makes 8 bucks an hour at "Junk Mart" pays into the treasury.

These should do for starters.

Posted by Greg Bacon at 08/07/2007 @ 4:06pm