I spotted this one via the Skyscraperpage forum at http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=184765
The History Channel has a whole series about this. It's on Sunday nights. This guy goes around a city in each episode and points out how shitty the bridges and tunnels and pipes and dams and stuff are.
I saw ones for the Twin Cities and Seattle, but only caught part of the Los Angeles episode.
The Economist also had an excellent article:
Life in the slow lane
Americans are gloomy about their economy's ability to produce. Are they right to be? We look at two areas of concern, transport infrastructure and innovation
http://www.economist.com/node/18620944
The main problem is a lot of infrastructure is built before the 1980's and is now nearing or exceeding its lifespan, while at the same time significant investment is needed to keep up with population growth. The United States has one of the highest population growth among the industrialized nations. Some metro areas are growing by 100,000 people per year, you can't serve that with a little maintenance here and there.
It doesn't help that a lot of our infrastructure was designed before women entered the workforce and effectively doubled the number of cars on the road.
Women started entering the workplace en-masse after WWII; well before anyone thought there would be 300 million people in the US. Plus they also drove to school, stores, church, family/friends, etc.
If you want to think of it in terms of stereotyped gender roles, it would actually be the women causing the traffic jams. The men would drive to work in the morning from their house in the suburbs to the skyscraper in the CBD. At the end of the day they would do the same in reverse so it is similar to the spokes on a bike wheel. Women on the other hand would drive to school in this suburb, shop at the store in that suburb, attend a child's birthday party in another suburb, etc. So the woman's traffic patterns would be more dispersed and unorganized.
In Traffic: Why we Drive the way we do, the author uses both for his argument. Either way, we went from one car per family to many cars per family.
Quote from: deanej on May 05, 2011, 05:55:16 PM
It doesn't help that a lot of our infrastructure was designed before women entered the workforce and effectively doubled the number of cars on the road.
No one under the age of 21 should be allowed to drive a car.
Quote from: Adam Smith on May 05, 2011, 10:08:22 PM
No one under the age of 21 should be allowed to drive a car.
Why?
And how are they supposed to get around? And, don't tell me public transit as that doesn't server the 75-100 million people in rural America.
So, in your proposal, if you're 18, you can vote and join the army and are legally an adult but can't drive?
A lot of our infrastructure was designed before blacks had equal rights, too. But the real problem is, it was designed when our population was a whole hell of a lot less than it is today. And the other problem is, it was designed exactly 1.3 structural lifespans ago.
Quote from: Adam Smith on May 05, 2011, 10:08:22 PM
Quote from: deanej on May 05, 2011, 05:55:16 PM
It doesn't help that a lot of our infrastructure was designed before women entered the workforce and effectively doubled the number of cars on the road.
No one under the age of 21 should be allowed to drive a car.
Why? Are you an ageist?
The idea of raising the driving age is ludicrous. Only in a large city are young people going to be able to move around if you do. But, I guess college, summer jobs, internships, etc. are all nothing people need. Better to wait until you're 21 and then spend the rest of your life flipping burgers I guess.
QuoteAnd how are they supposed to get around?
By bike...that's how I got around growing up.
Quote from: froggie on May 06, 2011, 07:56:59 AM
QuoteAnd how are they supposed to get around?
By bike...that's how I got around growing up.
Only gets you so far. Bicycle is not viable for longer distances, like say, from one's home to a college (430 miles in my case).
Quote from: Brandon on May 06, 2011, 09:24:49 AM
Quote from: froggie on May 06, 2011, 07:56:59 AM
QuoteAnd how are they supposed to get around?
By bike...that's how I got around growing up.
Only gets you so far. Bicycle is not viable for longer distances, like say, from one's home to a college (430 miles in my case).
You don't need no fancy book larnin'!
@triplemultiplex: I want to see that, but I don't get History at my apartment. :(
Quote from: Michael on May 06, 2011, 11:04:51 AM
@triplemultiplex: I want to see that, but I don't get History at my apartment. :(
Most recent one:
http://www.history.com/shows/inspector-america/videos/playlists/full-episodes#inspector-america-shaky-foundations (http://www.history.com/shows/inspector-america/videos/playlists/full-episodes#inspector-america-shaky-foundations)
It's the 20-teens. You don't need cable to watch cable.
The infrastructure in this country is crumbling because it's been driven into our brains in recent decades that this is just "spending" when in fact, it is investment. A dollar invested in infrastructure gets back like a buck fifty in economic growth or something like that. And hey, you also gotta hire people to build that stuff and I'm pretty sure there's a lot of people available right now.
Quote from: deanej on May 06, 2011, 07:15:05 AM
Quote from: Adam Smith on May 05, 2011, 10:08:22 PM
Quote from: deanej on May 05, 2011, 05:55:16 PM
It doesn't help that a lot of our infrastructure was designed before women entered the workforce and effectively doubled the number of cars on the road.
No one under the age of 21 should be allowed to drive a car.
Why? Are you an ageist?
The idea of raising the driving age is ludicrous. Only in a large city are young people going to be able to move around if you do. But, I guess college, summer jobs, internships, etc. are all nothing people need. Better to wait until you're 21 and then spend the rest of your life flipping burgers I guess.
You don't like women driving, I don't like ignorant kids driving.
Get a bike, walk, or ask mommy or daddy.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 06, 2011, 12:06:45 PM
The infrastructure in this country is crumbling because it's been driven into our brains in recent decades that this is just "spending" when in fact, it is investment. A dollar invested in infrastructure gets back like a buck fifty in economic growth or something like that. And hey, you also gotta hire people to build that stuff and I'm pretty sure there's a lot of people available right now.
And that's the sad part. :thumbdown:
The problem is that we are too stingy to spend money to repair our roads. Instead, we all are worried that we are overspending on things that aren't needed (such as getting our roads in a better state of repair) and how we are borrowing money from China and all that other (expletive) about the fact that this spending is ruining the country. Yet the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis back in 2007 should have served as a wake-up call that we need to get our infrastructure in order. Apparently, the politicians are so damn worried about not spending money and not raising taxes that we are neglecting the fact that this is not only a serious economic issue, but IMHO a national security issue. And that is where this stingy attitude about our tax money
needs to stop. IF WE don't putting our infrastructure in order now and making this a top priority, this could have catastrophic consequences down the line. It is NOT going to kill us or ruin the country to do some major repairs to our roads, our electric grid, and the like.
We are crumbling due to a misallocation of resources by our bankrupt political class. Take a look at Seattle for example. Billions were thrown at a politically routed lightrail line that few people use. Those billions should have been used to fix aging infrastructure or for a more logically routed lightrail line that would actually be used.
Quote from: Adam Smith on May 06, 2011, 03:30:34 PM
You don't like women driving, I don't like ignorant kids driving.
Get a bike, walk, or ask mommy or daddy.
Who said I don't like women driving? Does one need to ignore the fact that American driving habits (particular associated with the liberation of women) have changed over the past 60 years in order to not be a bigot? Last time I checked, acknowledging that conditions were different in the past did not make one a bigot.
I'm trying to imagine my parents making the four hour drive to
the middle of nowhere Potsdam just so I can go to Walmart (incedentially, even a bike would have been impractical for a trip to Walmart a couple years ago; prior to the construction of the Potsdam Walmart a couple years ago the nearest store of any significance was in Massena).
Lets face it, not all areas are conductive to not having a car. Already the US government has said that I need a passport if I want to get printer ink without ordering online (or buy the bundle with photo paper that I never use) (the nearest Staples is in Cornwall, ON; the next nearest in in Watertown); ah, the wonders of being in the north country.
QuoteApparently, the politicians are so damn worried about not spending money and not raising taxes that we are neglecting the fact that this is not only a serious economic issue, but IMHO a national security issue.
Not gonna happen. Politicians won't do anything about something until it's their problem, and the most experience politicians have with roads is the limo ride from the airport to their home or office.
I hope it doesn't become a national security issue. I don't want to have to go through a body scanner just to drive. :sombrero:
Quote from: Landshark on May 06, 2011, 05:57:54 PM
We are crumbling due to a misallocation of resources by our bankrupt political class. Take a look at Seattle for example. Billions were thrown at a politically routed lightrail line that few people use. Those billions should have been used to fix aging infrastructure or for a more logically routed lightrail line that would actually be used.
Same thing in CT w/ a 700+ million dollar bus-way project that's 9 miles long in greater Hartford. 700 million dollars can fix a lot of bridges, complete some of our incomplete highways.... tell me again why a 9 mile strip of pavement, 1 lane each direction, and a few BASIC (i.e. no facilities) terminals should cost SEVEN..... HUNDRED ...... MILLLION..... DOLLARS.
I call bullsh!t. I have no faith in government whatsoever.. it's all politics and pocket lining no matter which party you follow.
If there wasn't so much politically driven money thrown around (easy to spend when it's not yours) at dead end projects... this country could have LOWER taxes, HIGHER revenues, and PLENTY OF MONEY TO FIX INFRASTRUCTURE, BUILD NEW INFRASTRUCTURE, KEEP OUR COUNTRY SECURE AND EVEN RUN THE NECESSARY (notice i said NECESSARY) SOCIAL PROGRAMS THAT ARE OUR MORAL DUTY.
Politics will bankrupt the country and the crumbling infrastructure will be the stake through the heart that finishes us off.
We don't need to raise taxes to fund the repair of our country, we need to cut out the pure bullsh!t. The federal government spends far more on any undertaking than a private citizen would to do the same project... somewhere in all the layers of bureaucracy piles of money vanish into thin air. If the country was a business, we'd have lean procedures and need get the most out of every dollar. The fat would be trimmed believe me. Instead we have politicians running rampant throwing money all over the place for god knows what the f*ck, and nothing to show for it. And you know what...i know we are an important international player... but enough IS enough...lets start worrying about HOME for a change. There's nothing wrong with helping other nations in their times of need, but seriously, we can't keep bearing the brunt of all this aid to others.
ok... rambling... yes i guess I am a bit conservative, yet I do believe in the PROPER spending of money on worthy things, but not the way money gets spent, borrowed, created and LOST out of thin air like it's no big f*cking deal.
This all goes for the state too... no big secret what kind of mess this state is in... and we have our new governor Karl Marx whose counterintuitive, ultra progressive policies will finish this state off for sure. Our taxes are going through the roof here with the new state budget, soon-to-be highest effective gas taxes in the country, and our transportation fund is F*CKING BROKE because they keep raping it to fund the state pension fund, with roads CRUMBLING, and no funds to fund 1/3 of the planned projects for this year and next year.... but we're building a 9 mile 700 million dollar busway that NO ONE WILL USE! yippee yay, f*cking hooray.
Quote from: deanej on May 06, 2011, 08:13:22 PM
I hope it doesn't become a national security issue.
The purpose of the Interstate Highway System is that in the event of a disaster or war, our armed forces can travel to one area to another as quickly and efficient as possible. So yes, it is a national security issue. :nod:
And no, you don't need to go through a body scan to drive. :colorful:
Quote from: wytout on May 06, 2011, 09:20:56 PM
If there wasn't so much politically driven money thrown around (easy to spend when it's not yours) at dead end projects... this country could have LOWER taxes, HIGHER revenues, and PLENTY OF MONEY TO FIX INFRASTRUCTURE, BUILD NEW INFRASTRUCTURE, KEEP OUR COUNTRY SECURE AND EVEN RUN THE NECESSARY (notice i said NECESSARY) SOCIAL PROGRAMS THAT ARE OUR MORAL DUTY.
We don't need to raise taxes to fund the repair of our country, we need to cut out the pure bullshit. The federal government spends far more on any undertaking than a private citizen would to do the same project... somewhere in all the layers of bureaucracy piles of money vanish into thin air. If the country was a business, we'd have lean procedures and need get the most out of every dollar. The fat would be trimmed believe me. Instead we have politicians running rampant throwing money all over the place for god knows what the fuck, and nothing to show for it. And you know what...i know we are an important international player... but enough IS enough...lets start worrying about HOME for a change. There's nothing wrong with helping other nations in their times of need, but seriously, we can't keep bearing the brunt of all this aid to others.
The sad part of all of this is that we are blowing money for the developing nations so that they can get their (expletive) together. Why can't we drift some of that money in this direction? :hmmm: That's the unfortunante problem outright. Now I know everyone is bitching about the fact that we don't need to raise taxes. Yet again, that is what will have to be done. I doesn't have to be too much, but it should go towards our infrastructure.
And another thing that we need to do is put the emphasis on transportation on the state level rather than the federal level. If someone wants to by a car, than they need to know that you need to pay extra for it, such as high vehicle registration fees and taxes. That way, all the taxes will go straight to mantaining, if not building new transportation infrastructure without the BS red tape.
I agree w/ your state level comment. I'll gladly pay more fees or whatever if those fees directly fund transportation initiatives in my states, but as is the current problem... how do you keep the state general assembly's collective hand out of the cookie jar? They literally steal every dollar for the special transportation fund as it comes in, launder it through the general fund, and then out to pet initiatives.
I'm fine with infrastucture taxing/fund raising through fees and tolls... pay to play is fine with me, as long as every dollar i spend there, goes to exactly that, infrastructure, and nothing else. But it's never the case.
Quote from: The Premier on May 06, 2011, 09:54:58 PM
The purpose of the Interstate Highway System is that in the event of a disaster or war, our armed forces can travel to one area to another as quickly and efficient as possible. So yes, it is a national security issue.
It was a tongue in cheek comment. In reality I hope it does become a national security issue... then maybe we can put some of the current fear-mongering to good use!
Quote from: The Premier on May 06, 2011, 09:54:58 PM
Quote from: deanej on May 06, 2011, 08:13:22 PM
I hope it doesn't become a national security issue.
The purpose of the Interstate Highway System is that in the event of a disaster or war, our armed forces can travel to one area to another as quickly and efficient as possible. So yes, it is a national security issue. :nod:
And no, you don't need to go through a body scan to drive. :colorful:
Quote from: wytout on May 06, 2011, 09:20:56 PM
If there wasn't so much politically driven money thrown around (easy to spend when it's not yours) at dead end projects... this country could have LOWER taxes, HIGHER revenues, and PLENTY OF MONEY TO FIX INFRASTRUCTURE, BUILD NEW INFRASTRUCTURE, KEEP OUR COUNTRY SECURE AND EVEN RUN THE NECESSARY (notice i said NECESSARY) SOCIAL PROGRAMS THAT ARE OUR MORAL DUTY.
We don't need to raise taxes to fund the repair of our country, we need to cut out the pure bullshit. The federal government spends far more on any undertaking than a private citizen would to do the same project... somewhere in all the layers of bureaucracy piles of money vanish into thin air. If the country was a business, we'd have lean procedures and need get the most out of every dollar. The fat would be trimmed believe me. Instead we have politicians running rampant throwing money all over the place for god knows what the fuck, and nothing to show for it. And you know what...i know we are an important international player... but enough IS enough...lets start worrying about HOME for a change. There's nothing wrong with helping other nations in their times of need, but seriously, we can't keep bearing the brunt of all this aid to others.
The sad part of all of this is that we are blowing money for the developing nations so that they can get their (expletive) together. Why can't we drift some of that money in this direction? :hmmm: That's the unfortunante problem outright. Now I know everyone is bitching about the fact that we don't need to raise taxes. Yet again, that is what will have to be done. I doesn't have to be too much, but it should go towards our infrastructure.
And another thing that we need to do is put the emphasis on transportation on the state level rather than the federal level. If someone wants to by a car, than they need to know that you need to pay extra for it, such as high vehicle registration fees and taxes. That way, all the taxes will go straight to mantaining, if not building new transportation infrastructure without the BS red tape.
Instead of "nation-building" overseas and basically just throwing money into contractors and the military industrial complex and instead of letting giant corporations buy and bribe the law into their hands and exploiting every loophole to avoid taxes, we should fix the infrastructure of this country and benefit the lower/middle class for once. But anything proposed that would actually benefit the lower/middle class gets called "SOCIALISM" and gets altered to the point where it becomes another way for the elite to consolidate their wealth. Not only that, they convinced a large part of the population to vote against their own interests and elect schmucks like Scott Walker into office. Privatization won't work - it's just another funnel into their pockets. With the elite focusing on short term gain, they'll cannibalize themselves when they're the only game in town and there's no infrastructure remaining for them.
A bleak future awaits us.
Quote from: wytout on May 06, 2011, 09:57:56 PM
I agree w/ your state level comment. I'll gladly pay more fees or whatever if those fees directly fund transportation initiatives in my states, but as is the current problem... how do you keep the state general assembly's collective hand out of the cookie jar? They literally steal every dollar for the special transportation fund as it comes in, launder it through the general fund, and then out to pet initiatives.
And that's the frustrating part, how to keep the legislature's hand out of the cookie jar. :banghead:
This is an ethical problem that needs to be addressed.
Quote from: Landshark on May 06, 2011, 05:57:54 PM
We are crumbling due to a misallocation of resources by our bankrupt political class. Take a look at Seattle for example. Billions were thrown at a politically routed lightrail line that few people use. Those billions should have been used to fix aging infrastructure or for a more logically routed lightrail line that would actually be used.
In the Netherlands, € 5 billion is annually spent on public transport. € 3 billion is spent on the highway system. It's shocking if you consider the public transport accounts for only 14% compared to 86% car. The amount spent per passenger mile is 10 times higher for public transport than the highway system.
Believe me, the U.S. should absolutely not head into this direction, especially if you don´t want to raise the gas tax to $ 6 per gallon (you've read that right!). In the Netherlands we've spent € 7 billion on a high-speed railway 20,000 people use daily, plus € 150 million per year in operational losses covered by tax money. And then some rail advocates considered a € 4.5 billion upgrade to a highway network 500,000 people use on a daily base excessive...
The more politicians / policymakers want people to use public transport, the more bizarre the investment per passenger mile gets. In my example, the amount of tax money spent on that high-speed rail, per traveler is € 350,000 and the amount of tax money spent on the highway upgrade per traveler is € 9,000. This means almost 40 times more tax money is spent per traveler for the high-speed rail project. How can anyone justify such an investment?
I've read some articles from American editors about how the U.S. should invest more in infrastructure the way Europe does. But you should only do that if you're willing to pay for that (thus, $ 9 gas).
The crumbling infastructure along with the near capacity of certain expressway segments is the exact reason why i was against going into Iraq. Not that I support in any way regimes that murder and abuse their own people but the money we use in the 2 wars could have been spent in better ways such as education and infastructure. Rebuild our country first before "trying" to build another. I shall now step off my political soapbox. :)
One the easiest to do would be to lift the prohibition against tolling current Interstates I'd glady pay a toll if could count on roads beign smooth. Also with cars being much better on fuel, but still weighing 2500+ lbs gas taxes alone simply won't be enough to repair roads.
Quote from: Chris on May 08, 2011, 12:19:30 PM
In the Netherlands, € 5 billion is annually spent on public transport. € 3 billion is spent on the highway system. It's shocking if you consider the public transport accounts for only 14% compared to 86% car. The amount spent per passenger mile is 10 times higher for public transport than the highway system.
Believe me, the U.S. should absolutely not head into this direction, especially if you don´t want to raise the gas tax to $ 6 per gallon (you've read that right!). In the Netherlands we've spent € 7 billion on a high-speed railway 20,000 people use daily, plus € 150 million per year in operational losses covered by tax money. And then some rail advocates considered a € 4.5 billion upgrade to a highway network 500,000 people use on a daily base excessive...
The more politicians / policymakers want people to use public transport, the more bizarre the investment per passenger mile gets. In my example, the amount of tax money spent on that high-speed rail, per traveler is € 350,000 and the amount of tax money spent on the highway upgrade per traveler is € 9,000. This means almost 40 times more tax money is spent per traveler for the high-speed rail project. How can anyone justify such an investment?
I've read some articles from American editors about how the U.S. should invest more in infrastructure the way Europe does. But you should only do that if you're willing to pay for that (thus, $ 9 gas).
Thanks for mentionning that Chris, looks like the TGV despite its promise and some exceptions, it's more a big white elephant then we taught. I spotted this video from the folks of the webzine Reason magazine.
And on a off-topic note, I think the folks of the satiric magazine The Onion is right on the target for high-speed bus ;)
Quote from: nyratk1 on May 07, 2011, 10:49:58 AM
Instead of "nation-building" overseas and basically just throwing money into contractors and the military industrial complex and instead of letting giant corporations buy and bribe the law into their hands and exploiting every loophole to avoid taxes, we should fix the infrastructure of this country and benefit the lower/middle class for once. But anything proposed that would actually benefit the lower/middle class gets called "SOCIALISM" and gets altered to the point where it becomes another way for the elite to consolidate their wealth.
Could you please provide some examples here?
Quote from: nyratk1 on May 07, 2011, 10:49:58 AM
Not only that, they convinced a large part of the population to vote against their own interests and elect schmucks like Scott Walker into office.
So, you're convinced that no one would vote for Scott Walker of their own free will?
Personally, I would have voted for him. He killed the high speed rail boondoggle in the state of Wisconsin and is trying to get rid on the unions of state employee bloating state government. I say bloating because it is near impossible to fire a union bureaucrat.
i.e. He's trying to make sure tax money is well spent and keep taxes down letting me keep more of my money (assuming I was a WI resident). How is that against my interests?
Or, is it simply that you think anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot or has been brainwashed?
Quote from: mightyace on May 11, 2011, 04:40:45 PM
So, you're convinced that no one would vote for Scott Walker of their own free will?
Personally, I would have voted for him. He killed the high speed rail boondoggle in the state of Wisconsin and is trying to get rid on the unions of state employee bloating state government. I say bloating because it is near impossible to fire a union bureaucrat.
i.e. He's trying to make sure tax money is well spent and keep taxes down letting me keep more of my money (assuming I was a WI resident). How is that against my interests?
Or, is it simply that you think anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot or has been brainwashed?
:-D Nice work being done there, a lot more gutsy than old Danny Boy here in CT. Danny Boy is trying to soak up all that highspeed rail funding from states that were smart enough to say no thanks. When he gets it.... our roads will finish crumbling and the projects for rails no one will ride will cost the state and federal governments billions in cost overruns and subsidies marching into perpetuity, only adding to the nations problems and not fixing a damn one of them. And here in CT those overruns will burden an already broke state, there won't be any money at all to fix the disintegrating bridges and roadways, let alone finding intelligent ways to expand our capacity for automobile travel. I'm all for paying reasonable taxes when the money is well spent. High speed rail is just not part of the great America, it will never ever catch on to the point of being a real success. I could live in downtown Hartford, CT... but you know what, I'm an American, and I'll take my car wherever I want to go on my own schedule. Not he Magic train, or magic bus's schedule. Like it or not it's true.
And you know what, deep down that's how most people in this country feel. It's a very different mindset here than in the countries of say, Europe. We cite Europe a lot. Well taxes are very high throughout European countries, and if the services work for them, and people like the services and don't mind the higher taxes for them... fine. That's great. But I think the USA was founded by people who thought a little differently than the European establishment of those times...and I'd prefer to keep it that way even today.
I think another big difference between us and Europe is that it was only 2 generations ago that most of Europe was rubble and needed plans to get themselves put back together.
Last time there that widespread destruction here in the states would have been 150 years ago. Even longer since we've had a legit invasion against us.
Quote from: Adam Smith on May 12, 2011, 01:21:40 AMEven longer since we've had a legit invasion against us.
except if you talk to people living next to the border fence, who are convinced that the invasion is happening all the time.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 12, 2011, 01:23:28 AM
Quote from: Adam Smith on May 12, 2011, 01:21:40 AMEven longer since we've had a legit invasion against us.
except if you talk to people living next to the border fence, who are convinced that the invasion is happening all the time.
They've been saying the same thing, just the people change, since the Spanish was claiming ownership of the land out there.
the Spanish probably have a significantly more legitimate complaint since they actually lost sovereignty over the territory.
Quote from: wytout on May 06, 2011, 09:57:56 PM
I agree w/ your state level comment. I'll gladly pay more fees or whatever if those fees directly fund transportation initiatives in my states, but as is the current problem... how do you keep the state general assembly's collective hand out of the cookie jar? They literally steal every dollar for the special transportation fund as it comes in, launder it through the general fund, and then out to pet initiatives.
If the state doesn't pass a law that specifically states that the money raised for highways and bridges go toward that, the money will be robbed for other purposes.
Quote from: brownpelican on May 12, 2011, 01:56:09 AM
Quote from: wytout on May 06, 2011, 09:57:56 PM
I agree w/ your state level comment. I'll gladly pay more fees or whatever if those fees directly fund transportation initiatives in my states, but as is the current problem... how do you keep the state general assembly's collective hand out of the cookie jar? They literally steal every dollar for the special transportation fund as it comes in, launder it through the general fund, and then out to pet initiatives.
If the state doesn't pass a law that specifically states that the money raised for highways and bridges go toward that, the money will be robbed for other purposes.
Laws mean nothing here if they are inconvenient to the incumbent party. Why just last week, our Governor violated the CT state consitution by signing a budget for FY 2012/2013 that was passed by the state legislature and delivered on his desk. It is a budget with a 2 billion dollar hole in it. He put his signature on it, yet the state consitution simply says that any budget must have expenses and revenues be equal. Budget deficits are illegal. It didn't keep him from penning his signature on it tho.
Apparently quoting means nothing, too
Quote from: Adam Smith on May 12, 2011, 01:21:40 AM
I think another big difference between us and Europe is that it was only 2 generations ago that most of Europe was rubble and needed plans to get themselves put back together.
Last time there that widespread destruction here in the states would have been 150 years ago. Even longer since we've had a legit invasion against us.
And even then, it was only a few states that had widespread destruction (like Georgia). Most of the industrial areas never saw the war but from a newspaper.