U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Thanksgiving Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 04-23-2011, 08:59 AM
 
2,087 posts, read 2,345,137 times
Reputation: 1264

Advertisements

Republicans will only support federal government spending if it is for the military (seeing as the Constitution does explicitly give the federal government the job of national defense).

I have a solution for this problem. Democrats should stop calling infrastructure spending "investment" (which has become a politically controversial term thanks to Republicans) and start calling it defense spending.

We only need to look at our highway system as an example. It is officially called the "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways."

Democrats need to start adding the word defense to any proposal to build a new road, bridge, rail, or any other infrastructure project.

If President Obama wants to build a transcontinental HSR network, he should call it the National Defense High Speed Rail Network.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-23-2011, 09:06 AM
 
35,245 posts, read 19,038,587 times
Reputation: 16553
There is enough double speak and misrepresentation from the federal government already, no need to advocate for more.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2011, 09:14 AM
 
Location: Virginia Beach
515 posts, read 316,241 times
Reputation: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonian123 View Post
Republicans will only support federal government spending if it is for the military (seeing as the Constitution does explicitly give the federal government the job of national defense).

I have a solution for this problem. Democrats should stop calling infrastructure spending "investment" (which has become a politically controversial term thanks to Republicans) and start calling it defense spending.

We only need to look at our highway system as an example. It is officially called the "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways."

Democrats need to start adding the word defense to any proposal to build a new road, bridge, rail, or any other infrastructure project.

If President Obama wants to build a transcontinental HSR network, he should call it the National Defense High Speed Rail Network.
You must understand Republicans, many are elected mainly by suburbs, and HSR is only for cities, it's a pro-cities tool, and they want to use money from suburban taxpayers to pay it, it's not possible.If you look at empty high speed trains in China you see the problem.
If Democrats want to invest in infrastructure they must stop to do that only for their constituency...They must focus on light trains linking cities to suburbs, it's the best thing to do.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2011, 09:14 AM
 
56,230 posts, read 30,114,414 times
Reputation: 18341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
There is enough double speak and misrepresentation from the federal government already, no need to advocate for more.
I guess i'll take your non-denial of the OP's accusations as an admission that you guys are defense spending crazy....and that infrastructure spending isn't all that important in comparison.

Got'cha!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2011, 09:16 AM
 
35,245 posts, read 19,038,587 times
Reputation: 16553
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
I guess i'll take your non-denial of the OP's accusations as an admission that you guys are defense spending crazy....and that infrastructure spending isn't all that important in comparison.

Got'cha!
A quick check of my posting history would prove you wrong.
Enjoy your misconception

And similarly, since you don't denounce the tactict of the of the federal government lying to achieve a goal forwarded by the o.p., we can assume you endorse such tactics.
What agency do you work for?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2011, 09:17 AM
 
9,734 posts, read 8,604,750 times
Reputation: 6366
Obama was already given $800 billion for "infrastructure projects". Those were the "shovel ready" jobs he LIED ABOUT. Instead the money went to his union buddies.

The only thing the infrastructure got was some stupid Obama stickers that had to be placed on every road project as propaganda eventhough Barry had nothing to do with it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2011, 09:19 AM
 
56,230 posts, read 30,114,414 times
Reputation: 18341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
A quick check of my posting history would prove you wrong.
Enjoy your misconception
I'll do that check...thank you very much.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2011, 09:53 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,068 posts, read 76,326,317 times
Reputation: 27642
We've had a Dem President and Dem Congress for 2 years..Repubs just took over the House.

Yet..we have 3, yes 3 wars going.
And it's the Repubs that are for war and military spending ?
Someone hasn't read their current events since 2008 it seems.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2011, 10:08 AM
 
12,785 posts, read 16,351,573 times
Reputation: 8792
I have always said that the only way we would get High Speed Rail is if it were a defense project. The Department of Defense would of course have the power to commandeer it for troop movements. Veterans would be able to ride at reduced fares and those retired from the military could ride for free. There is precedent: Eisenhower sold the Interstate Highway system as a link in our national defense.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2011, 10:11 AM
Status: " 01/20/2021 The end of an error!" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
63,407 posts, read 45,092,975 times
Reputation: 34057
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
We've had a Dem President and Dem Congress for 2 years..Repubs just took over the House.

Yet..we have 3, yes 3 wars going.
And it's the Repubs that are for war and military spending ?
Someone hasn't read their current events since 2008 it seems.
So if we look back more than 2 years we'll find many examples of Republicans opposing increases in defense spending and fighting to stay out of wars?
Rate this post positively 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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:55 PM.

© 2005-2020, 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