{OT:} 2009 Adminstration

#11

"EdV" <systmengr (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

On Jan 31, 10:45 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:
edspyhil... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in message

news:8573aff2-9823-4435-9adb-18e1591b01c8 (AT) c4g2000hsg (DOT) googlegroups.com...
On Jan 31, 9:33 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

edspyhil... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in message

news:f8bbd115-f5e9-4d28-a002-cb5c1c7035b7 (AT) c23g2000hsa (DOT) googlegroups.com...
On Jan 31, 7:04 am, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer... (AT) gmail (DOT) com
wrote:

edspyhil... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com, 1/30/2008,11:33:53 PM, wrote:
President - Barack Obama
VEEP - Chris Dodd
US Attorney General - John Edwards

Ed S.

Would these be your choices also?

My choice dropped out - John Edwards.

BTW, Huckabee says things I agree with. I wish he would loose the
evangelical bent. Evangelicals worry me because they want to meld
religion & government. His idea of adding 2 lanes to I-95 from Maine
to Florida to generate jobs makes much more sense than spending 150+
billion on a "Stimulous" package. I also liked what he had to say
last night.

Ed S.

=========================

I missed that highway idea. He really suggested the 2-lane thing?

What a stupid friggin' idea, but not surprising for a guy who, like
Bush,
probably doesn't read much.

His suggestion was to ADD 2 lanes to the existing lanes of I-95. Not
a bad idea. I think public works programs are the way to go instead
of giving everyone a feel-good check before the election.

Ed S.

====================

Just one problem: Widening highways often creates even more urban sprawl
than we already have. It's a trend some city planners would love to put a
stop to.

Widening highways, building bridges, tunnels would generate jobs, lets
hire more illegals to work on these projects.

And to speed up the projects, They should get the guys responsible for
the big dig in MA.

Such projects also generate an annuity for construction companies. Not only
do they get contracts to build highways, but in many places, they get
contracts to maintain them, pretty much forever.

#12

"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

Such projects also generate an annuity for construction companies. Not
only do they get contracts to build highways, but in many places, they get
contracts to maintain them, pretty much forever.
More multi-multi-multi lane highways is just what we DON'T need. It only

allows longer and longer commutes.
I used to think it was only Southern California that was so afflicted, but
it's now nation wide, in and near any and every
largish city. People want to live in a nice roomy affordable area, but work
"downtown" so they drive 50-60-70 and more miles each way to reach their
workplace. It wastes fuel, time and the energy of the workers beyond
reason to make these long drives each way, and soon the desirable home
people wanted now seems like an unfulfilled dream, since the workers are so
tired from their two or three hours' commute each day that they simply fall
into bed exhausted.
I think about all the millions of gasoline wasted daily in this endeavor,
the cars, old beyond their years because the owners are putting 2000 or 3000
miles a month on them, the total waste of time doing this, and making people
old before their time.
How about taking an example from Europe and Japan, and constructing modern
rail systems instead, if indeed we cannot do the social engineering
necessary to get these millions of workers closer to their occupations?
Our public transportation systems are in most cases are so out of date that
calling them merely "obsolete" doesn't half describe them.

#13

"mack" <mackerel (AT) dslextreme (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:zjmoj.3187$7d1.619 (AT) news01 (DOT) roc.ny...

Such projects also generate an annuity for construction companies. Not
only do they get contracts to build highways, but in many places, they
get contracts to maintain them, pretty much forever.

More multi-multi-multi lane highways is just what we DON'T need. It only
allows longer and longer commutes.
I used to think it was only Southern California that was so afflicted, but
it's now nation wide, in and near any and every
largish city. People want to live in a nice roomy affordable area, but
work "downtown" so they drive 50-60-70 and more miles each way to reach
their workplace. It wastes fuel, time and the energy of the workers
beyond reason to make these long drives each way, and soon the desirable
home people wanted now seems like an unfulfilled dream, since the workers
are so tired from their two or three hours' commute each day that they
simply fall into bed exhausted.
I think about all the millions of gasoline wasted daily in this endeavor,
the cars, old beyond their years because the owners are putting 2000 or
3000 miles a month on them, the total waste of time doing this, and making
people old before their time.
How about taking an example from Europe and Japan, and constructing modern
rail systems instead, if indeed we cannot do the social engineering
necessary to get these millions of workers closer to their occupations?
Our public transportation systems are in most cases are so out of date
that calling them merely "obsolete" doesn't half describe them.

Thousands of people commute via train between Manhattan and Westchester or
Connecticut, but that works because the rail lines were in place before
available land became occupied & scarce. The system works very nicely. To
create the same thing in some other cities would involve quite a contentious
process. I think it should go ahead anyway, but not many people agree.
You've probably seen all the negative remarks made about mass transportation
in this newsgroup.

#14

"mack" <mackerel (AT) dslextreme (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:zjmoj.3187$7d1.619 (AT) news01 (DOT) roc.ny...

Such projects also generate an annuity for construction companies. Not
only do they get contracts to build highways, but in many places, they
get contracts to maintain them, pretty much forever.
More multi-multi-multi lane highways is just what we DON'T need. It only
allows longer and longer commutes.
I used to think it was only Southern California that was so afflicted, but
it's now nation wide, in and near any and every
largish city. People want to live in a nice roomy affordable area, but
work "downtown" so they drive 50-60-70 and more miles each way to reach
their workplace. It wastes fuel, time and the energy of the workers
beyond reason to make these long drives each way, and soon the desirable
home people wanted now seems like an unfulfilled dream, since the workers
are so tired from their two or three hours' commute each day that they
simply fall into bed exhausted.
I think about all the millions of gasoline wasted daily in this endeavor,
the cars, old beyond their years because the owners are putting 2000 or
3000 miles a month on them, the total waste of time doing this, and making
people old before their time.
How about taking an example from Europe and Japan, and constructing modern
rail systems instead, if indeed we cannot do the social engineering
necessary to get these millions of workers closer to their occupations?
Our public transportation systems are in most cases are so out of date
that calling them merely "obsolete" doesn't half describe them.

Interesting links here:
http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/transportation/index.asp

#15

witfal wrote:

Quote:

On 2008-01-31 07:35:18 -0800, "edspyhill01 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com"
edspyhill01 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> said:

I think public works programs are the way to go instead of giving
everyone a feel-good check before the election.

How do you feel about unnecessary public works programs. I.e., bridges
and highways in areas very infrequent, if ever, travelled?

Robert Byrd is the champion of that kind of pork.

Not really, because without those projects, there wouldn't be much in
West Virginia.

#16

<beerspill (AT) whoever (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

witfal wrote:
On 2008-01-31 07:35:18 -0800, "edspyhill01 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com"
edspyhill01 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> said:

I think public works programs are the way to go instead of giving
everyone a feel-good check before the election.

How do you feel about unnecessary public works programs. I.e., bridges
and highways in areas very infrequent, if ever, travelled?

Robert Byrd is the champion of that kind of pork.

Not really, because without those projects, there wouldn't be much in
West Virginia.

They all do it. Some of them do stupider things than others. For instance,
Arlen Spector got lots of pork financing for a long list of organizations to
teach abstinence. Of course, research is revealing that teaching abstinence
doesn't work. While Virginia was cutting off public financing for abstinence
programs, Spector was seeking more funding for the same thing.

Have fun here. It's disgusting:
http://earmarkwatch.org/

#17

edspyhill01 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote:

Quote:

Have public hearings so we can know who is
spending money on bridges to nowhere and highways
to areas owned by same politicians.

Great idea, hiding the pork in plain sight where the public will
ignore it Pay me the bribe, I mean contribution, on your way out.

#18

witfal wrote:

Quote:

On 2008-01-31 13:20:01 -0800, beerspill (AT) whoever (DOT) com said:

On 2008-01-31 07:35:18 -0800, "edspyhill01 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com"
edspyhill01 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> said:

I think public works programs are the way to go instead of giving
everyone a feel-good check before the election.

How do you feel about unnecessary public works programs. I.e., bridges
and highways in areas very infrequent, if ever, travelled?

Robert Byrd is the champion of that kind of pork.

Not really, because without those projects, there wouldn't be much in
West Virginia.

Pork is pork, regardless of the justification.

But not all government spending is pork, not even Robert Byrd's.

#19

"dbu" <nospam (AT) nospam (DOT) moc> wrote

Quote:

In article <fnten1$27a$1 (AT) news (DOT) albasani.net>, witfal <nospam (AT) all4 (DOT) me
wrote:

On 2008-01-31 13:20:01 -0800, beerspill (AT) whoever (DOT) com said:

witfal wrote:
On 2008-01-31 07:35:18 -0800, "edspyhill01 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com"
edspyhill01 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> said:

I think public works programs are the way to go instead of giving
everyone a feel-good check before the election.

How do you feel about unnecessary public works programs. I.e.,
bridges
and highways in areas very infrequent, if ever, travelled?

Robert Byrd is the champion of that kind of pork.

Not really, because without those projects, there wouldn't be much in
West Virginia.

Pork is pork, regardless of the justification.

If McCain is president there will be an end to the pork and to
moveon.org and their ilk. Count on it, but keep your hat on it, (don't
tell the dims).

Why not tell the democrats? Are democrats the only legislators who play the
earmark game?

#20

"dbu" <nospam (AT) nospam (DOT) moc> wrote

Quote:

In article <mYroj.3212$7d1.1514 (AT) news01 (DOT) roc.ny>,
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

"dbu" <nospam (AT) nospam (DOT) moc> wrote in message
news:nospam-2AF4E2.16245631012008 (AT) comcast (DOT) dca.giganews.com...
In article <fnten1$27a$1 (AT) news (DOT) albasani.net>, witfal <nospam (AT) all4 (DOT) me
wrote:

On 2008-01-31 13:20:01 -0800, beerspill (AT) whoever (DOT) com said:

witfal wrote:
On 2008-01-31 07:35:18 -0800, "edspyhill01 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com"
edspyhill01 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> said:

I think public works programs are the way to go instead of giving
everyone a feel-good check before the election.

How do you feel about unnecessary public works programs. I.e.,
bridges
and highways in areas very infrequent, if ever, travelled?

Robert Byrd is the champion of that kind of pork.

Not really, because without those projects, there wouldn't be much
in
West Virginia.

Pork is pork, regardless of the justification.

If McCain is president there will be an end to the pork and to
moveon.org and their ilk. Count on it, but keep your hat on it, (don't
tell the dims).

Why not tell the democrats? Are democrats the only legislators who play
the
earmark game?

No, but dimmies count on earmarks to hold power. Republicans count on
earmarks to help people.

Can you provide examples of each category of earmark? Here's a web site that
will help make it easy:

www.earmarkwatch.org