Obama is lying again!

[Dr Adequate]

Yeah, you talk about "tragic consequences when our bridges crumble," and that's what most people think.

Well, let's look at that bridge, shall we:

In the years prior to the collapse, several reports cited problems with the bridge structure. In 1990, the federal government gave the I-35W bridge a rating of "structurally deficient," citing significant corrosion in its bearings ...

According to a 2001 study by the civil engineering department of the University of Minnesota, cracking had been previously discovered in the cross girders at the end of the approach spans. The main trusses connected to these cross girders and resistance to motion at the connection point bearings was leading to unanticipated out-of-plane distortion of the cross girders and subsequent stress cracking ...

In 2005, the bridge was again rated as "structurally deficient" and in possible need of replacement, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Bridge Inventory database. Problems were noted in two subsequent inspection reports. The inspection carried out June 15, 2006 found problems of cracking and fatigue ...

The I-35W bridge ranked near the bottom of federal inspection ratings nationwide. The scale used was a "sufficiency rating" which ranges from the highest score, 100, to the lowest score, zero. In 2005 the bridge was given a rating of 50, indicating that replacement may have been in order. Out of over 100,000 heavily used bridges, only about 4% scored below 50. On a separate measure, the I-35W bridge was rated "structurally deficient," but was deemed to have met "minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as it is."​

The fact that it had an underlying design flaw may have been the root cause of the problem. However, it was, in fact, "crumbling" as an effect of that cause. It wasn't some bizarre unpredictable Tacoma Narrows-type situation; it was falling apart and they knew it.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Like I said, if you can not back up your statements of why I am wrong other then saying, "oh look at it yourself" kind of statements, it is pointless to argue this with you. So I suggest we move on from this point between each other.

Let me spell it out for the hard of thinking.

You are wrong about the definition of a Ponzi scheme because your definition of a Ponzi scheme is completely different from any definition of a Ponzi scheme that you will find in any dictionary, such as, for example, the one that you yourself quoted.

If you really cannot understand that, then I do not see how I can make the point any clearer to you.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I've been hearing about our "crumbling insfrastructure" since I was a little kid - at least 50 years ago. If our infrastructure has been "crumbling" all that time, we should be a nation buried under collapsed bridges by now.

You're moving the goalposts. Neither Obama nor I have argued that the infrastructure has been crumbling for 50 years.

I've given you a credible assessment of the state of the infrastructure prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Do you disagree with their assessment?

Politicians love to talk about "crumbling infrastructure" (returns 131,000 google hits). They love to be there for the ribbon-cutting when a bridge opens because that's sexy.

Irrelevant. What politicians enjoy talking about or doing has no bearing on whether Obama's statement was accurate.

 

[Alt+F4]

And this should be considered as less credible than the pro-stimulus propaganda (and fear-mongering) put out by the administration why?

Between the time FDR took office and the year we entered WWII unemployment never dropped below 14%, and generally hovered around 20% (link). Oh, hail the New Deal, savior of us all!!!

I think everyone can agree that while The New Deal did assist many people in need, it did not cure The Great Depression, World War II did.

My point is that World War II was an even larger stimulus plan than either The New Deal or Obama's Plan. Can anyone dispute that it worked? I believe the unemployment rate in the U.S. dropped to around 5% by 1942.

Therefore what The Cato Institute is proposing (no stimulus since it didn't work during The Great Depression) is nothing but libertarian nonsense. History proves that a stimulus does works, but it has to be a tremendous stimulus with sacrifices on all sides, something I don't think the U.S. is (at this time) willing to do.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

What is wrong? Truth hurts? When you have a entity(whether individual or institution) taking one persons money and misusing it for someone else or themselves, that is a Ponzi scheme. And this is the biggest one yet and it is being used by OUR government.
And all you have to say is is that last sentence? What a joke.

"a swindle in which a quick return, made up of money from new investors, on an initial investment lures the victim into much bigger risks." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Ponzi scheme
Right from a online dictionary. Go have a look at one.

You might want to think this through carefully. A Ponzi Scheme has the following elements

1) Investors give money (Set A)
2) They get a return from Set B (new Investors)
3) They put more money in.

How does the stimulus plan have any of that? (It doesn't, even if you think it's going to be misused)

 

[joobz]

Politicians love to talk about "crumbling infrastructure" (returns 131,000 google hits). They love to be there for the ribbon-cutting when a bridge opens because that's sexy. The money to maintain that bridge should have been budgeted before the bridge was built - and very likely was.

Politicians also hate it when bridges collapse and fail.
Simultaneously, people in the area love have bridges repaired/maintained and hate it when they collapse.


It's crazy how what politicians love is the same thing that the people they represent love.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The money to maintain that bridge should have been budgeted before the bridge was built - and very likely was.

I'm not sure how likely that was.

If we talk about infrastructure in general, it certainly was not.

However, the recommendations of the ASCE agree with you on that point:

4. ADDRESS LIFE-CYCLE COSTS AND ONGOING MAINTENANCE

As infrastructure is built or rehabilitated, life-cycle cost analysis should be performed for all infrastructure systems to account for initial construction, operation, maintenance, environmental, safety and other costs reasonably anticipated during the life of the project, such as recovery after disruption from natural or manmade hazards. Additionally, owners of the infrastructure should be required to perform ongoing evaluations and maintenance to keep the system functioning at a safe and satisfactory level. Life-cycle cost analysis, ongoing maintenance, and planned renewal will result in more sustainable and resilient infrastructure systems and ensure they can meet the needs of future users.

 

[rwguinn]

I think everyone can agree that while The New Deal did assist many people in need, it did not cure The Great Depression, World War II did.

My point is that World War II was an even larger stimulus plan than either The New Deal or Obama's Plan. Can anyone dispute that it worked? I believe the unemployment rate in the U.S. dropped to around 5% by 1942.

Therefore what The Cato Institute is proposing (no stimulus since it didn't work during The Great Depression) is nothing but libertarian nonsense. History proves that a stimulus does works, but it has to be a tremendous stimulus with sacrifices on all sides, something I don't think the U.S. is (at this time) willing to do.

Because WWII actually stimulated production of something other than make-work jobs, maybe?
The fall-out from that effort: jet aircraft,radar, electronics, etc, kick-started the airline industry by shared technology, led to the space program, and a whole host of other stuff that kept us going until the next government interference with the economy in the early 70's.
I do agree with the lack of will to sacrifice, though. But that, IMO, has more to do with who's being asked to make sacrifices, rather than the types of sacrifice...

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

One piece of "infrastructure" that seems patently without need of upkeep is the brick wall of shifty logic put up by the conservatively bitter and against which several posters admirably and civilly continue to bash their heads.

I am enjoying the exposure of confirmation biases, though.

 

[BPSCG]

Well, let's look at that bridge, shall we:

In the years prior to the collapse, several reports cited problems with the bridge structure. In 1990, the federal government gave the I-35W bridge a rating of "structurally deficient,"

(...snip...)
​

The fact that it had an underlying design flaw may have been the root cause of the problem. However, it was, in fact, "crumbling" as an effect of that cause. It wasn't some bizarre unpredictable Tacoma Narrows-type situation; it was falling apart and they knew it.

So for eighteen years, they knew the bridge was structurally deficient and did nothing about it.

Seems to me making sure bridges don't fall down should be put near the top of a government's list of priorities, well ahead of sports venues and the like. If our infrastructure is crumbling - as it has since forever - then it's because politicians prefer to spend money on other things they believe are more important than bridges collapsing. Don't try to sell us a bill of goods that this "crumbling infrastructure" is a sudden emergency that just popped up last night and will kill us all if we don't throw a trillion dollars at it before next Friday.

 

[BPSCG]

Politicians also hate it when bridges collapse and fail.
Simultaneously, people in the area love have bridges repaired/maintained and hate it when they collapse.

Without googling, please name three significant bridge collapses in the last fifty years, not counting the Minneapolis one last year that everyone knows about.

Politicians say they hate it when bridges collapse. But if they really did, you wouldn't hear so much wailing about how all our bridges are ready to collapse, because they'd appropriate the money to keep them in good repair. If Joe and Jack both own 15-year-old cars, and Joe's looks like it just came off the showroom, while Jack's is being held together by nothing but rust, which guy do you believe when they both say they would hate to see their car break down?

 

[joobz]

Without googling, please name three significant bridge collapses in the last fifty years, not counting the Minneapolis one last year that everyone knows about.

Interesting requirement. What would my knowledge of bridges or transportation/city infrastructure impact this issue? I'm being serious now. Explain what would be different if I could or couldn't answer your question.

To be truthful, I can't give you 3 bridges but I can give you examples of municipal infrastructure failures in the past 10 years:
1.) Minnasota bridge collapse
2.) Pier in Philadelphia collapse
3.) Big dig tile drop
4.) Lexington city building tile collapse
5.) philadelphia bridge over I76 (along the schulkyl) crumbling onto the highway

Politicians say they hate it when bridges collapse. But if they really did, you wouldn't hear so much wailing about how all our bridges are ready to collapse, because they'd appropriate the money to keep them in good repair. If Joe and Jack both own 15-year-old cars, and Joe's looks like it just came off the showroom, while Jack's is being held together by nothing but rust, which guy do you believe when they both say they would hate to see their car break down?

But they are also guilty of demanding too high of taxes.. Funny that.

 

[Dr Adequate]

So for eighteen years, they knew the bridge was structurally deficient and did nothing about it.

If you're going to shift your ground that much, then perhaps the "Obama is lying" thread is no longer the right place for this discussion.

Seems to me making sure bridges don't fall down should be put near the top of a government's list of priorities, well ahead of sports venues and the like.

And once more you find yourself in agreement with Obama.

If our infrastructure is crumbling - as it has since forever - then it's because politicians prefer to spend money on other things they believe are more important than bridges collapsing.

I take it you're not talking about Obama, who was talking about the need for infrastructure investment all through his campaign, but to the best of my knowledge never mentioned anything about the need for more sports venues.

Don't try to sell us a bill of goods that this "crumbling infrastructure" is a sudden emergency that just popped up last night and will kill us all if we don't throw a trillion dollars at it before next Friday.

* drums head lightly on desk *

You still haven't got the hang of this whole "stimulus" concept, have you?

What is a "sudden emergency" is that the government should spend a lot of money on something. Given that, it is best if they spend it on something that actually needs doing.

I'm sure that I've explained this to you before, on another thread.

Last February, Obama was talking about an extra $60 billion on roads and bridges spread out over the next 10 years. But given the scope of the economic crisis, spending as much of that as is practical right now would seem like a good idea. If it's got to be done sooner or later, then doing it now stimulates a tottering economy. The fact that it also has beneficial effects in the long term doesn't stop it from being an economic stimulus.

This is what we call "joined -up thinking". I realize that it must come as a novelty to you after the last eight years. Don't be afraid.

 

[joobz]

One piece of "infrastructure" that seems patently without need of upkeep is the brick wall of shifty logic put up by the conservatively bitter and against which several posters admirably and civilly continue to bash their heads.

I am enjoying the exposure of confirmation biases, though.

I disagree with your blanket statement. While I do not agree with some of the things the conservative posters on this board say, I have learned from them. In fact, to blanketly insult them is to make yourself prone to the exact confirmation bias you accuse them of having.

 

[TriskettheKid]

Without googling, please name three significant bridge collapses in the last fifty years, not counting the Minneapolis one last year that everyone knows about.

Define "significant." Are we talking about amount of failure (partial vs. total or near total collapse), number of fatalities, number of injuries, etc?

The fact is that there have been quite a few failures over past decade, and many instances where a bridge SHOULD have been designed to withstand forces it did.

Off the top of my head, I can think of at least three collapses caused by barge collision with pylons, which is surprising, because you'd think a bridge would have been built with safety measures to account for a possibility like that.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

I disagree with your blanket statement. While I do not agree with some of the things the conservative posters on this board say, I have learned from them. In fact, to blanketly insult them is to make yourself prone to the exact confirmation bias you accuse them of having.

Thus my specification "conservatively bitter" (adverb + adjective with an implied noun-"posters") as opposed to "conservatives" (noun) or "conservative posters on this board" (noun phrase). I do guard against a potential bias against conservatives on my part, and I'm certain not always successfully. In this case, I believe you are off base.

I appreciate your vigilance nonetheless.

 

[joobz]

Thus my specification "conservatively bitter" (adverb + adjective with an implied noun-"posters") as opposed to "conservatives" (noun) or "conservative posters on this board" (noun phrase). I do guard against a potential bias against conservatives on my part, and I'm certain not always successfully. In this case, I believe you are off base.

I appreciate your vigilance nonetheless.

Fair enough. I apologize for missing your point.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

Happens...no worries.

 

[gdnp]

Because WWII actually stimulated production of something other than make-work jobs, maybe?
The fall-out from that effort: jet aircraft,radar, electronics, etc, kick-started the airline industry by shared technology, led to the space program, and a whole host of other stuff that kept us going until the next government interference with the economy in the early 70's.

The economic spinoffs you list from WWII had nothing to do with the initial stimulus to the economy: the economy was out of the depression long before the first civilian jet, much less rocket, was produced.

It seems to me that a war should be about the worst possible way to stimulate the economy. It gives people jobs, but the skills they learn don't necessarily translate well back into civilian life, and the items produced-- bombs, guns, tanks, etc--have no lasting value after the war is over. Spending is money down a rat hole. Spend money on a bridge and you can drive on it for 50 years. Spend money on an aircraft carrier and once the war is over you have a white elephant that at best can be recycled into something useful, like a bridge.

I do agree with the lack of will to sacrifice, though. But that, IMO, has more to do with who's being asked to make sacrifices, rather than the types of sacrifice...

I think it has more to do with the lack of a clear and present danger. It took the bombs on Pearl Harbor to bring the US into WWII. Even though the economists keep saying that the economy is bad and getting worse, unemployment hasn't reached the level that scares people enough into believing that this is a crisis.

Respected economists like Martin Wolff and Nouriel Roubini are now saying that nationalization of the banks is inevitable, and would best be done now, but that it will take a year before the economy has deteriorated far enough that people will accept it.

I do find it ironic that when Obama calls for sacrifice and volunteerism he is accused of creating a personality cult. Well, charismatic leaders are better at inspiring sacrifice than technocrats.

 

[PixyMisa]

It's interesting how a flat-out lie from W was a misunderstanding, and a disagreement with Obama says Obama isa flat-out-liar.

And vice-versa.

One might conclude that there was some spin.

One might.