Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-09-2013, 04:23 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,268,822 times
Reputation: 7990

Advertisements

If research is 'moderately underfunded,' where are they getting the money for stuff like this?

Feds Will Spend $400,000 to Study Drinking and Sex Habits of Homosexuals in Argentina | CNS News

And if infrastructure is underfunded what about this?
//www.city-data.com/forum/polit...on-square.html

Actually I think the main problem with infrastucture is not funding but cost due to bureaucratic bloat & waste. Here in Washington State we are in the process of replacing a major bridge. The old bridge was built for $34 million (inflation adjusted = $245 million) in 1963. The new bridge is projected to cost $4.6 billion. They spent $380 million for planning and studies alone. The cost should have gone down, not up, what with modern engineering, computers, cad-cam, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-09-2013, 05:13 PM
 
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,865 posts, read 10,400,492 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
If research is 'moderately underfunded,' where are they getting the money for stuff like this?

Feds Will Spend $400,000 to Study Drinking and Sex Habits of Homosexuals in Argentina | CNS News

And if infrastructure is underfunded what about this?
//www.city-data.com/forum/polit...on-square.html

Actually I think the main problem with infrastucture is not funding but cost due to bureaucratic bloat & waste. Here in Washington State we are in the process of replacing a major bridge. The old bridge was built for $34 million (inflation adjusted = $245 million) in 1963. The new bridge is projected to cost $4.6 billion. They spent $380 million for planning and studies alone. The cost should have gone down, not up, what with modern engineering, computers, cad-cam, etc.
You're probably right about the increased costs of bureaucracy, though in fairness there are other associated costs that didn't exist before or have gone up tremendously, like the environmental impacts, and the cost of all the adjoining real estate, which has since been developed and has skyrocketed way beyond inflation. Heck, isn't Bill Gates hi-tech waterfront mansion just a few hundred feet away from that bridge?!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2013, 05:53 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,268,822 times
Reputation: 7990
I don't know exactly how many feet away Bill Gates is, but yeah he is close. But I'm sure there were people there when the old bridge was built. I can see how some costs would have gone up, primarily environmental-related. I'm sure there was far less concern about that in 1963. But mostly the costs should have gone down. As it happens my dad was a bridge design engineer and I remember going to his office as a kid in the early 1960's. They were still using slide rules to do calculations.

But the new bridge will cost about 18 times what the old bridge cost, after inflation, and it will provide very little addtional capacity. IIRC I think it is supposed to have a slightly longer lifespan than the old bridge, maybe 75 years instead of 50.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2013, 06:16 PM
 
5,764 posts, read 11,591,134 times
Reputation: 3864
Quote:
3) Peace through willingness to fight: In international relations, somebody needs to be the bad cop. This is not a political winner after the last two wars, but it's an important plank of the Republican Party.
You'll have to define what that means in real terms. Because if it means more Iraq wars (perhaps in Syria or Iran), that's a gigantic loser of a position.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2013, 06:18 AM
 
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,865 posts, read 10,400,492 times
Reputation: 6670
^ ^ Good point, and that seems to be the problem with a lot of the GOP platform these days, is that with the exception of social conservative "hot button" issues like gay marriage and abortion, the rest (including the OP's suggestions) are mostly just vague ''feel good'' positions, either designed for the ''base'' or they can mean almost anything you want (or maybe that's the whole idea)!

So even if folks don't agree with 'em, or think they're not being done, the meaning is still pretty clear in the Dems platform, for stuff like ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Wall Street reform, and Lobbying Campaign Finance Reform, etc..... instead of things like the GOP platform's vague ''reform the tax code'' (to suit who?), or propaganda-speak like ''Restructure the twentieth century entitlement state'' (which really is only clear if you're already a GOP ''true believer''). And which BTW, was also a lot of the same criticism against Romney... be clear about you stand for!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2013, 02:58 PM
 
15,360 posts, read 12,544,787 times
Reputation: 7565
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
I dont think the GOP needs any suggestions from diehard liberals on how they should be.
..and this is why the GOP fails. Libs learned a lot from the GOP in regards to a solid message, solid platform and sticking with talking points that will win votes. Not sure why you wouldn't want a suggestions from a die hard anything if it's a good idea.

Not a die hard lib but I think the GOP should do the exact opposite of what is in quotations. The other thing the GOP needs to do is LISTEN to suggestions and actually implement them instead of head nodding and then running the same plays 4 years from now expecting a different outcome.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2013, 02:44 PM
 
15,360 posts, read 12,544,787 times
Reputation: 7565
Just heard Paul Ryan say he has "decided NOT to decide" if he is running for President... I know it's early but this double speak needs to stop. Why is it so hard for this guy to give a simple answer?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2013, 03:01 PM
 
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,865 posts, read 10,400,492 times
Reputation: 6670
He's likely playing Palin's old game of ''will she or won't she'', just to keep money rolling into his PAC. And agreed, he's just about as annoying as she is too.

Paul Ryan: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Representative 2012 | OpenSecrets
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2013, 07:29 PM
 
Location: Where they serve real ale.
7,242 posts, read 7,871,944 times
Reputation: 3497
Really their only hope is to ditch the regressive social war nonsense which defines them as a party and truly become a libertarian party of small government. The problem is their money comes almost exclusively by selling government favors or access to the highest bidder which means they really can't become a real small government party without bankrupting themselves so it won't happen.

That means they're just going to continue their death spiral selling everything not nailed down to moneyed special interests then trying to sucker the dullards into voting for them with social war wedge issues which don't attract the majority of the voters. That means they're going to have to continue their anti-Democracy moves of trying to suppress voter turn out and tricking stupid people ("low information voters" if you prefer) with lies about fake "news stories" like Obama is a secret Muslim, health insurance companies have secret death panels, the government is going to outlaw guns, Obama uses tax money to fund abortions, Jeep is moving to China, etc...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2013, 07:52 PM
 
Location: M I N N E S O T A
14,848 posts, read 21,376,619 times
Reputation: 9263
Keeping religion out of politics would be an amazing start.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top