Obama is lying again!

[BPSCG]

And perhaps an indirect reference to the collapse of the I35W Bridge in Minneapolis in August of 2007.

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

Except:

Investigators said Monday that the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis, which collapsed into the Mississippi River on Aug. 1, killing 13, came down because of a flaw in its design.

(...snip...)

The information released will be important to highway departments across the northern United States, which are now planning their warm-weather inspection and repair programs. Usually they inspect for corrosion and age-related cracking, but that was not the problem in the Minneapolis collapse, investigators now say.


“This is not a bridge-inspection thing,” said one investigator, “It’s calculating loads and looking at designs.” The investigator spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss the investigators’ findings before the announcement Tuesday.


Saying it was not clear whether other bridges might have the same flaw, the investigator said, “This could well be a one-off thing. But you don’t know that.”


The safety board may advise highway departments to re-analyze the design of bridges before carrying out major work on them. Previous practice has been to assume the design was sound, but to inspect for age-related deterioration.


Early in the investigation of the Minneapolis case, the safety board identified the plate, called a gusset plate, as a possible cause. The board will not reach a formal conclusion for some time.

The I-35W bridge was of a type called “fracture critical,” meaning that the failure of any major member would cause a collapse, because it had no redundancy. The design is lighter and less expensive to build, but has gradually fallen out of favor with highway departments.

So he didn't actually lie, because he didn't actually say the Minneapolis bridge. Can't let the facts interfere with the narrative.

 

[Meadmaker]

Maybe he isn't lying at all. Perhaps he just had bad intelligence from his economic team.

 

[fishbob]

Okay, this isn't quite a lie, but it's really close (speaking in Fort Meyers, Florida, today):

Anyone have any idea what crumbling bridge he's talking about?

These

We have a national bridge problem," said Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. He said 79,523 federally funded bridges are rated "functionally obsolete," meaning they need replacing.

Most of us know what you were fishing for. The question is why.

 

[gdnp]

I suppose there are dozens of ways to measure a recession: Length, depth, unemployment, misery index, stock market losses, fall in GDP, bankruptcies, business failures, etc. I was surprised to read that the longest recession since the great depression was 16 months. We are currently in month 14, and I don't hear anyone predicting recovery at least to the 4th quarter of this year, which would push this recession to 20 months or more. That would definitely be the longest recession since the great depression.

I do remember the S and L crisis, but these were mostly small banks: the cost to the federal government was 124.6 billion. That would be less than $300 billion in today's dollars, less than the first half of TARP.

So no, it may not have the lowest unemployment rate or the most bankruptcies, but we're by all accounts still on the way down.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So he didn't actually lie, because he didn't actually say the Minneapolis bridge. Can't let the facts interfere with the narrative.

What? He didn't mention a bridge collapsing, did he? He said "crumbling bridges".

The "narrative" is that our infrastructure is in horrible condition and in need of a large injection of capital to get it up to snuff. Is that a lie? Or is it "not quite a lie" (i.e. the truth)?

Did you even look at this?
http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2009/

I know bridges (mostly overpasses and underpasses) around here (St. Louis) are crumbling. . .literally.

 

[gdnp]

BAC's claim that this is not the worst financial crisis since the great depression seems to me like a person who has fallen out of plane from a mile up claiming that things aren't so bad when they are still 1000 feet above the ground. Everyone can see what is coming, and it won't be pretty.

One thing is for sure. When the economy does bottom out, BAC will claim
1) It's Clinton, Obama, and ACORN's fault
2) the bailout made it worse
3) Obama is stuck on stupid^tm4) Ron Brown and Vince Foster were assassinated by the Clintons.

 

[Dragon-Master]

You are a newbie if you're calling me a socialist.

World War II was the biggest stimulus package ever. Billions of government dollars poured in the economy and close to full employment. It seems destroying bridges can be as good for the economy as building new ones.

Newbie huh? Pfft.

And if you think WW2 was a stimulus package, you need to understnad what a stimulus package is before making statements like that. I do not think you understand that one is forced by governement when it THINKS it is nessarcy, the other one is forced by events in time like someone attacking or invading your soil. As far as the bridges thing, if they need to be repaired and is the government responsibility, they should be fixing it. What we do not need the governemnt doing is fixing private industries, is my point.

 

[Dr Adequate]

And to call this a stimulus bill is dishonest and a lie. Its is the largest Ponzi Scheme ever.....

If you wish to tell us that you know nothing about economics, you could just have said so straight out.

Don't worry, you can admit it and you'll still be allowed to vote --- though I would recommend that you don't.

 

[Dragon-Master]

If you wish to tell us that you know nothing about economics, you could just have said so straight out.

Don't worry, you can admit it and you'll still be allowed to vote --- though I would recommend that you don't.

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.

 

[Dr Adequate]

What is wrong? Truth hurts?

Does it? Now I find that truth doesn't hurt, but stupidity vexes; we are obviously two very different people.

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.

Curiously enough, despite actually quoting the definition of a Ponzi scheme, you still apparently don't know what one is.

 

[BPSCG]

What? He didn't mention a bridge collapsing, did he? He said "crumbling bridges".

Nice way to selectively quote. He said, ""tragic consequences when our bridges crumble..."

Tragic consequences means people died. People died, crumbling bridges. He doesn't have to say Minneapolis - people will get the connection.

The "narrative" is that our infrastructure is in horrible condition and in need of a large injection of capital to get it up to snuff. Is that a lie? Or is it "not quite a lie" (i.e. the truth)?

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.

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.

I know bridges (mostly overpasses and underpasses) around here (St. Louis) are crumbling. . .literally.

Then tell your city fathers to stop wasting money on crap like baseball and football stadiums for jillionaires to play in and spend it on fixing your damn bridges. Nobody ever died driving over a ballpark.

 

[ZirconBlue]

To say the worst since the Great Depression does not mean "as bad as the Great Depression."

This bears repeating.

 

[joobie]

Anyone have any idea what crumbling bridge he's talking about?

perhaps this one?

 

[gdnp]

.

Then tell your city fathers to stop wasting money on crap like baseball and football stadiums for jillionaires to play in and spend it on fixing your damn bridges. Nobody ever died driving over a ballpark.

Well, I do remember Yankee stadium being closed for a few days a few years back after a large chunk of cement fell off the upper deck.

Fortunately, the new stadium was built at team expense.

 

[Dragon-Master]

Does it? Now I find that truth doesn't hurt, but stupidity vexes; we are obviously two very different people.

I can agree we are two different people, that is for sure.

Curiously enough, despite actually quoting the definition of a Ponzi scheme, you still apparently don't know what one is.

Interestingly enough you say this, but do not support why you think this.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Interestingly enough you say this, but do not support why you think this.

If you genuinely cannot see for yourself the discrepancy between your definition of a Ponzi scheme and the one supplied by the dictionary, then I doubt that I can explain it to you.

And I do not, of course, need to explain it to anyone else.

 

[Dragon-Master]

If you genuinely cannot see for yourself the discrepancy between your definition of a Ponzi scheme and the one supplied by the dictionary, then I doubt that I can explain it to you.

And I do not, of course, need to explain it to anyone else.

Yes you do, if you are going to argue the point and make two sentence post. Otherwise why bring up the point?

 

[FlamingMoe]

Anti-stimulus propganda from the Cato Institute who yesterday ran full page ads against it the Wall Street Journal and New York Times.

http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf

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

They repeat the tired line that The New Deal did not pull the United States out of The Great Depression. Then what did? (trick question)

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!!!

 

[Dr Adequate]

Yes you do ...

No. I'm fairly sure that no-one else reading this thread is suffering from your particular difficulties.

Otherwise why bring up the point?

I hoped I might induce you to read the definition that you had quoted and see how radically it differed from the one that you supplied. It seems that I overestimated you, an error that I am unlikely to repeat.

 

[Dragon-Master]

No. I'm fairly sure that no-one else reading this thread is suffering from your particular difficulties.

I hoped I might induce you to read the definition that you had quoted and see how radically it differed from the one that you supplied. It seems that I overestimated you, an error that I am unlikely to repeat.

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.