I could tell a 1st hand story of my experience with something and then contend that it should be policy. In fact, I think many people do. But that's not how any of us would want things decided.
There's no harm in wanting facts about things that are measurable.
What, you don't believe anecdotes of the older generation? For shame!!
I responded to your general recollections which were ok when you wrote them with my general recollections which are now under scrutiny even though islander generally found it to be true regarding my thought that most (not all) of our 'amazing infrastructure' was built by the boomer generation in the 70's and 80's. Eh ? Then I make an observation that based on my experiences, The lesson learned by me at least, is that newer is not always better ... and it always costs more when the .gov is involved. That is targeted, too. Its a personal observation, not a fact nor offered as a fact. Prove me wrong on that. Take it apart. Don't simply dismiss it.
that was being nice, now I'll go kurtster just so no one is disappointed ...
I can say that I was born in yada, and lived (so far) under US pres's from Truman to Obama and made the list from memory. But with the way y'all are working it, unless I showed my birth certificate and a linked list of all the POTUS's from the National Archives, it would only be anecdotal, and therefore meaningless in our little Ivy League debating society we have here, right ? This is where I say Fy'all , and the horses you rode in on.
How do I know that islander saw a whale on one of his cruises through the sound unless he shows me a certified picture of the whale and a picture of him taking his whale picture.
Meanwhile through this all, no one has bothered to comment on my documented fact that the first section of high speed choo choo train in California costs $100 million per mile to build. That cost bothers no one ? That is my example of .gov gone bananas. Do I need to find a peer reviewed article to say that is just plain nuts to make it a valid conclusion ? If y'all don't have a problem with fucking train tracks costing a fucking $100 million per mile, than there is no point in talking to any of yous. Y'all are fucking nuts too.
and to islander, let's go back to ignoring each other and save your fucking pixie dust stash for yourself. I tried being nice and civil with you and as usual, it gets me nowhere. You just play your silly little games, just like Richard does. Fuck you and goodnight. edit: yeah so what. The US population in 1970 was 203 million in 1990 it was 248 million. That's a growth of 25% in 20 years. Infrastructure is more than roads and bridges. In those years most of the nuclear power plants were built. The suburbs were built to accommodate the population growth and urban flight. That's new cities, roads, bridges, power grid and utility expansion and housing, lot's of new tract homes, millions upon millions of them. Now here is a little fact that most all of yous don't know. When Obama says you didn't build that, the government did ... bullshit. You know who pays for all the roads in the new housing tracts ? The developer. They must pay for and build the roads to city code and then turn them over (read give at no charge) to the cities upon completion. The cities don't pay for the roads, or the sewer and water gas and electric installation, the developer and utilities do. The cities get to maintain the roads once they take possession of them. But they are spared the primary expense of building them. The only thing I had to look up was the populations I cited. The rest I knew from being there and being the child of an architect / developer. Its true. Go ahead and look it up. This only reinforces my position that the boomer generation built most of our present infrastructure in the 70's and 80's.
Its lots more than freeways and whatnot. Maybe most of the major dams were built by the 60's, but now the greenies want to tear them down and destroy that infrastructure so the rivers can run wild again, depriving millions of drinking water and power, not to mention the devastation caused by seasonal flooding. Until 1970, most people lived in large urban areas with ancient, antiquated and compacted infrastructure. Yes we had a massive infrastructure expansion in the 70's and 80's. Little more since on the scale of those decades. Now its just trying to keep it working, and that effort has been failing miserably.
I could tell a 1st hand story of my experience with something and then contend that it should be policy. In fact, I think many people do. But that's not how any of us would want things decided.
There's no harm in wanting facts about things that are measurable.
I responded to your general recollections which were ok when you wrote them with my general recollections which are now under scrutiny even though islander generally found it to be true regarding my thought that most (not all) of our 'amazing infrastructure' was built by the boomer generation in the 70's and 80's. Eh ? Then I make an observation that based on my experiences, The lesson learned by me at least, is that newer is not always better ... and it always costs more when the .gov is involved. That is targeted, too. Its a personal observation, not a fact nor offered as a fact. Prove me wrong on that. Take it apart. Don't simply dismiss it.
that was being nice, now I'll go kurtster just so no one is disappointed ...
I can say that I was born in yada, and lived (so far) under US pres's from Truman to Obama and made the list from memory. But with the way y'all are working it, unless I showed my birth certificate and a linked list of all the POTUS's from the National Archives, it would only be anecdotal, and therefore meaningless in our little Ivy League debating society we have here, right ? This is where I say Fy'all , and the horses you rode in on.
How do I know that islander saw a whale on one of his cruises through the sound unless he shows me a certified picture of the whale and a picture of him taking his whale picture.
Meanwhile through this all, no one has bothered to comment on my documented fact that the first section of high speed choo choo train in California costs $100 million per mile to build. That cost bothers no one ? That is my example of .gov gone bananas. Do I need to find a peer reviewed article to say that is just plain nuts to make it a valid conclusion ? If y'all don't have a problem with fucking train tracks costing a fucking $100 million per mile, than there is no point in talking to any of yous. Y'all are fucking nuts too.
and to islander, let's go back to ignoring each other and save your fucking pixie dust stash for yourself. I tried being nice and civil with you and as usual, it gets me nowhere. You just play your silly little games, just like Richard does. Fuck you and goodnight. edit: yeah so what. The US population in 1970 was 203 million in 1990 it was 248 million. That's a growth of 25% in 20 years. Infrastructure is more than roads and bridges. In those years most of the nuclear power plants were built. The suburbs were built to accommodate the population growth and urban flight. That's new cities, roads, bridges, power grid and utility expansion and housing, lot's of new tract homes, millions upon millions of them. Now here is a little fact that most all of yous don't know. When Obama says you didn't build that, the government did ... bullshit. You know who pays for all the roads in the new housing tracts ? The developer. They must pay for and build the roads to city code and then turn them over (read give at no charge) to the cities upon completion. The cities don't pay for the roads, or the sewer and water gas and electric installation, the developer and utilities do. The cities get to maintain the roads once they take possession of them. But they are spared the primary expense of building them. The only thing I had to look up was the populations I cited. The rest I knew from being there and being the child of an architect / developer. Its true. Go ahead and look it up. This only reinforces my position that the boomer generation built most of our present infrastructure in the 70's and 80's.
Its lots more than freeways and whatnot. Maybe most of the major dams were built by the 60's, but now the greenies want to tear them down and destroy that infrastructure so the rivers can run wild again, depriving millions of drinking water and power, not to mention the devastation caused by seasonal flooding. Until 1970, most people lived in large urban areas with ancient, antiquated and compacted infrastructure. Yes we had a massive infrastructure expansion in the 70's and 80's. Little more since on the scale of those decades. Now its just trying to keep it working, and that effort has been failing miserably.
No on the bolded. I can say that on my 21st Bday I bought a brand new 1973 VW Bus for $3700 right off the car carrier at the dealer. 18 months later, it had 58,000 miles on it, having traveled from coast to coast to coast to the Canadian border in it. I once figured that by my mid 30's I had driven a million miles. So I got to witness the growth of the Interstate system by driving it. By the end of the 70's most of the two digit highways were done. In the 80's most of the 3 digit highways (the connectors and beltways) were done.
I can tell you about the SF bay area in the 50's and 60's and remember the San Rafael Bay bridge being completed sometime in the early 60's and riding the ferries before that all around the bay area. There were only 3 bridges until then ( the Oakland / SF, the GG and the San Mateo and no tunnels like BART's under the bay. Down south around LA, there were a few freeways, but I - 5 was still on the drawing board. There was a pontoon bridge we had to cross from Long Beach proper to get to the Navy Yard there. It was an adventure to cross during low tide ... LA still had street cars on rails. Funny how they ripped them all out and 50 years later, they're putting them back. But that is what government does, declares something obsolete, destroys it, replaces it and later comes up with a new idea to put street cars back in place, at a cost magnitudes greater than if they had just maintained and improved on the existing stuff. But there is more money to be spread around destroying and building and destroying and repeating the cycle endlessly. Kinda like what is happening to our health care system.
The lesson learned by me at least, is that newer is not always better ... and it always costs more when the .gov is involved.
Oh and speaking of trains ... the cost of the SF to LA high speed rail line is $100 million dollars per mile. That is a real deal, right ? And I can back up that number if pressed. I did post a reference to that several years ago ...
see here ... the distance between Merced to Fresno is 60 miles, you do the math ...
But the report also reveals that significant obstacles remain before the agency can complete its $6 billion "initial construction segment" from Merced to north of Bakersfield using a mix of federal stimulus and transportation funds and state bond money;
I don't see privatisation as a solution to the cost - especially since government will always be involved in one way or another. We have a curious system of 'public-private partnerships' here. Say the government wants to build a tunnel under most of Melbourne. They throw in a bunch of money and get a big company or consortium to raise the rest of the capital and then build and run the system as a toll way. This is supposed to use the efficiency of the private sector but in actuality it incentivises corruption on a huge scale and is in actuality just a really bad form of deficit spending.
The only potential for competition efficiency is in the original bid process. See above on incentivising corruption. But there are so many assumptions and contingencies necessary on infrastructure projects that no company could afford to take on all the risk and they a) inflate the risk so their profits go up and b) make the government cover as many problems as possible. So that means that cost over-runs that have to be covered at least in part by the government are the norm. When the project is complete the government is stuck with some ongoing costs like police enforcement of tolls. Rather than paying off bonds (eventually) the taxpayers who use the road have to pay tolls in perpetuity. The government can say they have a balance budget and only low debt but that's only because they have sold the mortgage house to someone else and we are all left renting with wealth accumulating in the hands of the big banks, etc.
I was going to call bunk on this, but after a bit of googling it's a lot less clear. I can't find much on construction of miles by year or decade. It started in 1956 and took 35 years (although still being extended), so 70's and 80's would cover more than half - so I guess it depends on how you define "most".
I am more curious now though, got any good reference beyond wiki and the very vague federal FAQs I found?
Most usually means more than half.
No on the bolded. I can say that on my 21st Bday I bought a brand new 1973 VW Bus for $3700 right off the car carrier at the dealer. 18 months later, it had 58,000 miles on it, having traveled from coast to coast to coast to the Canadian border in it. I once figured that by my mid 30's I had driven a million miles. So I got to witness the growth of the Interstate system by driving it. By the end of the 70's most of the two digit highways were done. In the 80's most of the 3 digit highways (the connectors and beltways) were done.
I can tell you about the SF bay area in the 50's and 60's and remember the San Rafael Bay bridge being completed sometime in the early 60's and riding the ferries before that all around the bay area. There were only 3 bridges until then ( the Oakland / SF, the GG and the San Mateo and no tunnels like BART's under the bay. Down south around LA, there were a few freeways, but I - 5 was still on the drawing board. There was a pontoon bridge we had to cross from Long Beach proper to get to the Navy Yard there. It was an adventure to cross during low tide ... LA still had street cars on rails. Funny how they ripped them all out and 50 years later, they're putting them back. But that is what government does, declares something obsolete, destroys it, replaces it and later comes up with a new idea to put street cars back in place, at a cost magnitudes greater than if they had just maintained and improved on the existing stuff. But there is more money to be spread around destroying and building and destroying and repeating the cycle endlessly. Kinda like what is happening to our health care system.
The lesson learned by me at least, is that newer is not always better ... and it always costs more when the .gov is involved.
Oh and speaking of slush funds trains ... the cost of the SF to LA high speed rail line is $100 million dollars per mile. That is a real deal, right ? And I can back up that number if pressed. I did post a reference to that several years ago ...
see here ... the distance between Merced to Fresno is 60 miles, you do the math ...
But the report also reveals that significant obstacles remain before the agency can complete its $6 billion "initial construction segment" from Merced to north of Bakersfield using a mix of federal stimulus and transportation funds and state bond money;
I'm not sure that infrastructure shouldn't be maintained by a government to ensure the safety and well-being of its populace. I certainly have no interest in driving the Costco Turnpike and getting home to Electricity by Target. Maybe you wouldn't call that cronyism - maybe it's just capitalism - but I don't see a difference in the end result.
Infrastructure is exactly the kind of grand scale public good projects the government is good at. Sure there is a bit of waste and occasional corruption, but not a lot more (maybe not even any more) than there is in private projects - you just never here about those because private shareholder don't get news coverage. Support of the public commons is what government does well, and is where it should focus.
Or expecting to be CEO's coming straight out of college with useless degrees in the humanities. I'm not knocking the humanities, just saying that they don't lead to jobs that are going to make one wealthy, let alone independent. The sense of entitlement leads to these unreal expectations. They want to be paid for just showing up.
I basically agree with your generational explanation. I would only disagree with your thoughts as to when this 'amazing infrastructure' was built. It was built mostly in the 70's and 80's by the boomer generation. I remember my first trip to school in Florida in the fall of 1970 driving down from Philly to Melbourne, Fla and there was only 10 miles of I - 95 built in the state of Georgia at the time. When we left California in Nov of 68 to move to Philly, there were no Interstates, we took US 66 all the way to OK City and kept going on other US federal highways. But this is a very small point. This amazing infrastructure is in shambles for a myriad of reasons. This infrastructure built only 30 years ago is rotting and near worthless. We had a stimulus that was supposed to pay for its rebuilding. 6 years later, there's no improvement to speak of.
Oh and what did Josh Ernest say today in response to being asked about what was behind the single largest drop of the DOW in history ? He said we need to spend invest in more infrastructure in order to make things better as his answer. Infrastructure is liberal speak for a slush fund for cronyism ...
I was going to call bunk on this, but after a bit of googling it's a lot less clear. I can't find much on construction of miles by year or decade. It started in 1956 and took 35 years (although still being extended), so 70's and 80's would cover more than half - so I guess it depends on how you define "most".
I am more curious now though, got any good reference beyond wiki and the very vague federal FAQs I found?
I worry that, since we need legit infrastructure improvement (water, power, highway, information) that having it tagged with a political "side" will prevent it from happening. To me, it's a neutral non-partisan thing.
Should we entrust the functionality of our nation to the government (insert usual "they're incompetent" rant) and if not, then it's gotta be private and likely for-profit. Who pays for those services? Typically the people that use the service, frequently as they use the service.
So the country roads that we use every once in a while will never be profitable, and will be abandoned or poorly maintained by people who don't have the machinery to do repairs and maintenance. Folks who don't have a significant income won't get power lines, since they can't pay for them.
I'm not sure that infrastructure shouldn't be maintained by a government to ensure the safety and well-being of its populace. I certainly have no interest in driving the Costco Turnpike and getting home to Electricity by Target. Maybe you wouldn't call that cronyism - maybe it's just capitalism - but I don't see a difference in the end result.
Roads are an excellent example of how things don't work. The gas taxes are diverted to pay for other things that fewer people use that cannot support themselves, like buses and bicycle paths, while the roads crumble and bridges collapse and people die as a direct result. What goes into the pot for one promised purpose does not come out for that promised purpose. Now if it did, I would have a different view, but it doesn't and that is why I feel the way I do about it.
He's been pretty obvious about that, talking about how 'Merica isn't winning at things anymore. That, I don't disagree with. I see our culture in segments: my grandparents/parents made it through the Depression and WW2 and built great things; their children inherited a nation that boasted amazing infrastructure and NASA; their children lived large on the opulence provided by their forebears; their children lack initiative and vision, but are demanding and critical.
I know that you can find quotes from Socrates where he says the same - but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Who's willing to work hard, get smart, and rebuild the country? (Hint - they're not citizens. The citizens are chanting "Merica!," refusing education in favor of "beliefs" and are on cruise control watching TV and wishing they were rappers/princesses.)
Or expecting to be CEO's coming straight out of college with useless degrees in the humanities. I'm not knocking the humanities, just saying that they don't lead to jobs that are going to make one wealthy, let alone independent. The sense of entitlement leads to these unreal expectations. They want to be paid for just showing up.
I basically agree with your generational explanation. I would only disagree with your thoughts as to when this 'amazing infrastructure' was built. It was built mostly in the 70's and 80's by the boomer generation. I remember my first trip to school in Florida in the fall of 1970 driving down from Philly to Melbourne, Fla and there was only 10 miles of I - 95 built in the state of Georgia at the time. When we left California in Nov of 68 to move to Philly, there were no Interstates, we took US 66 all the way to OK City and kept going on other US federal highways. But this is a very small point. This amazing infrastructure is in shambles for a myriad of reasons. This infrastructure built only 30 years ago is rotting and near worthless. We had a stimulus that was supposed to pay for its rebuilding. 6 years later, there's no improvement to speak of.
Oh and what did Josh Ernest say today in response to being asked about what was behind the single largest drop of the DOW in history ? He said we need to spend invest in more infrastructure in order to make things better as his answer. Infrastructure is liberal speak for a slush fund for cronyism ...
Is Trump's slogan really "Make America Great Again"? Because that translates to "America Sucks Right Now" and that's hard to argue with since that America made people like him skrillionaires but maybe not what he meant to say.
Is Trump's slogan really "Make America Great Again"? Because that translates to "America Sucks Right Now" and that's hard to argue with since that America made people like him skrillionaires but maybe not what he meant to say.
You're assuming that the people listening to him actually think about what he says.
