there is NO money to fix the bridges, dams, roads, levees, etc.

there is no money

the neo cons have sucked it all up

there is no money to fix anything

and taxing moneyless americans some more won't work

there is no money to fix anything

Why can't we bomb less and build more?

This should really be the RNC motto. Shoe fits . . . and all . . .

:sarcasm:

:nuke:

keep us safe from them thar terrorists fellers in Iraq.

Haliburton is all about screwing the military, not civilians. Why do you hate America?


( :sarcasm: , in case anyone was wondering.)

of money. when we are destitute the neo cons will go on to the next country on their list to suck dry of money.

.... 4 grand a minute. I know it's up to 12 billion a month.

There's 60 * 24 = 1440 minutes in a day.
So there's 30 * 1440 = 43200 minutes in a (30-day) month.
So, 43,200*4,000=172,800,000 dollars a month - you're way off.
Back to the drawing board - the most recently reported amount is 12 billion a month, sooooo:

12,000,000,000/43200 = 27,777.77777777777 dollars a minute.
We'll be kind and round that down to 27,000 a minute.

Hey, I'm a math teacher and I'm nitpicking - but as not to lose the forest for the trees, I completely agree with your point.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html

You'll be surprised.

in the name of privatization. The government cannot fix, repair, and replace as the costs are "too overwhelming".

Soon Walmart will be collecting your tolls at the Sam Walton Bridge over the East River.

nt

rebuild the bridge.

Minn. probably is tearing out their hair, trying to come up with money to pay for rescue and cleanup.

Their best way to generate the money is to float a Municipal bond issue if their present highway budget does not cover it.

of real estate in our locality, making some projects unfeasible from the git go.

And the way politicians from both parties have rigged the system, the only projects allowed out of the environmental impact report process are "Big Pipe" heavily engineered projects that are grossly expensive. With current infrastructure cost Operations&Maintenance monies being raided due to neocon policies that don't allow for tax increases or that demand that those O&M fees be channelled into general fund expenses just to make ends meet, you have a recipe for disaster. Ergo the bridge collapse in MN.

What's next, you may logically ask ? Yes, indeed, WHAT'S NEXT to fail.

and their debt is rated at least AA, it would seem your contention that any such issuance in your locality makes "some projects unfeasible from the git go" completely irrelevant in the case of the State of Minnesota.

So I did a little checking and while they are close to their limit, i would submit they will be quite able to float another GO bond or even a special purpose bond for the building of a main and major downtown artery.

The following links are from the State's website. I'll let you decide if they can't afford to issue another bond or not;


http://www.finance.state.mn.us/bonds/index.html

http://www.finance.state.mn.us/bonds/bonds_auth_unissued.html



http://www.finance.state.mn.us/bonds/debtcap/070228_forecast.pdf

http://www.finance.state.mn.us/bonds/gob/index.html#current




This kind of thing is to be expected;
Yes. Quite. Statements like the above are prevalent on this message board. They sound good, look good and make for great thread chatter. You are sure to get heads (or typing fingers) nodding in agreement whenever the canard is raised of the certainty that the system is rigged in favor of Wall Street (I'm surprised you didn't throw in "Fat Cats" for good measure) and against the common man. Your statement is not only misleading and inaccurate it shows perhaps a lack of understanding of the depth and breadth of funding available to a state, county or city.

While absolutely tragic and horrific, this bridge collapse will not mean the financial ruin of the State of Minnesota nor will it place an massive financial hardship on its citizens.

as this Congressional Research Service report shows, localities 100% responsible for payment means only a BOND, like a mortgage is feasible,

"How localities pay for construction costs. Local governments have primary responsibility for wastewater treatment; they own and operate 16,000 treatment plants nationwide. Construction of these facilities has historically been financed with revenues from federal grants, state grants to supplement federal aid, and broad-based local taxes (property tax, retail sales tax, or in some cases, local income tax). More recently, cities and counties have turned to fees or charges levied on users of public services to cover all or a portion of local capital costs.

Shifting the Clean Water Act aid program from categorical grants to the SRF loan program has had the practical effect of making localities ultimately responsible for 100% of project costs, rather than less than 50% of costs."

http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/water/h2o-29.cfm

In regard to transportation projects, this too appears to be the case since the (Jane) Garvey Bonds for transit projects -- as with Boston's "Big Dig"-- make these big pipe projects possible in the first place,

"The State puts a cap on transportation bonds. Currently there is a $1.2 billion per year budget for capital projects, half of that ($600M) can be spent on transportation projects."

http://www.car-free.com/meetings/movemass/movemass0401.shtml

Perhaps your chastising me regarding 'affordablity' was premature. Some of these projects are pork. The 'Big Dig' and the 'Bridge to Nowhere'. Let's view this as simply a growth problem. Most developers are on to their next project which requires extended sewer water and transit lines before the older infrastructure has been upgraded or maintained.

Democrats should see this problem in light of the Big Picture. If you look at costofwar.com you'll see that most of this local money could be coming directly from what is spent on the Iraq occupation, but that's another story with the same beneficiaries, Wall Street and the big corporations. Bond attorneys get 1% fees on these projects, so the bigger the project the bigger the payoff. Bill Clinton is rumored to have wanted to work at Bear Stearns after his presidency, but thank God he's not.

I agree completely that there is abuse at the taxpayers expense. As far as the Big Dig project is concerned, it seems to me it attempts to solve a problem that has plagued downtown Boston for decades - horrific traffic. Boston needed this. That there are cost overruns and mismanagement is something which, while angering, should not have come as a surprise.

The "Bridge to Nowhere" is a subject i completely agree as well. Pork, through and through. The money earmarked was enough (if i remember what i read about this over a year ago) to buy every single man, woman and child on that island their own boat and cover the operating expenses of them for quite some time.

Your point about municipal wastewater treatment is one i also agree with. Many small towns do not have the tax base to support bond issues of the magnitude often necessary and they are forced to approach either their county or sue the state for relief. There is a case in California (Los Osos, if i remember right) that was sued by the state and/or county because their system was substandard. They were forced into a corner because they didn't have the tax base to issue a new bond they could afford.

But this conversation is about a major American city with excellent credit that is not overextended. As it turns out, Minneapolis will more than likely get federal dollars for this and it was also talked about today of the Governor raising the gasoline tax. A new bond most likely won't be needed.

As far as this is concerned; I think if we had not entered into Iraq, you would see a completely different economy right now. It isn't that the money being spent on war could be spent on bridges, it is the fact that the Treasury has had to go on an auction binge to try and keep the coffers full enough for numbnuts and his idiotic escapades.

If we had not invaded Iraq and if Bush had not made the massive tax cuts, not only would we be more than likely still at a surplus, the Treasury would be in the enviable position of being able to call in bonds (pay them off early). I trust you are aware that the Clinton administration did away with 30 year Treasury bonds. He did so because spending was under control and the Treasury didn't need to issue them. Numbnuts started them up again.

Regarding the 1% fees you mention, keep in mind that firms like the much maligned Bear Sterns and those like them are the ones that actually give the money to the municipality in a bond issuance. They then have to go and sell them on the market. The firm who actually markets the bond is determined as a result of a competitive bidding process that takes place and the winner of the bid is often by just a few basis points or hundredths of a percentage point. The alternative for a city is to go without whatever it is they need to build until it can save enough money to begin a project. The 1% does not just go to attorneys. It covers most of the costs involved in providing the funding and is justifiable, considering the risk, in my opinion.

way back in 2000, which is one of the reasons he should have won IMHO. That water under the bridge, the growth we have now requires that additions to the older infrastructures, growing out the boundaries and extending the sewer, electric, water, roadway lines adds to the problems the older cities have.

"Sprawl" was the keyword back then,

Solving Sprawl: The Sierra Club Rates the States
1999 Sierra Club Sprawl Report
http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/report99/

and the bonds that make most of this possible are marketed to that top one and a half percent of taxpayers who make up Bush's base.

My 'way out' of this are things like composting toilets and city center 'infill' growth, co-housing (like Cobb Hill VT's with Phoenix Composting toilets and solar electric etc) and even major buildings with composting toilets (Univ of BC in Vancouver Canada's C K Choi Asian Studies building for example). Anti-sprawl living in other words.

There most certainly is money!

The rich have it!

You know who the rich are -- they are the cronies that got the Tax Cut from George Bush and his companions in corruption in the Congress!

If the Democrats in Congress don't want to (or can't) impeach Bush, could they at least raise taxes on the rich??

for public works. the rich will not be taxed.

We refuse to spend it on bridges, dams, roads,levees, etc.

We choose to waste it instead.

We refuse the appropirately tax the wealthy, the top few percentage points of the population that own the vast majority of this country's wealth.

We instead choose to borrow money from them, and our global competitors, to waste it instead.

1967 Silver Bridge (over the Ohio) 46 souls lost.

San Diego Super Computer Center at UCSD is cutting staff, not getting funding to pursue anything new and barely to sustain ongoing work.

I suspect this is being repeated at every university in the country.

for "perpetual wars" in Iraq et elsewhere...and successive, deficit-runup tax cuts for the wealthy: US Treasury drain ala Grover Norquist. ("Policy" of tax cuts during "war"time never before done, not only in US history, but in history, period!)

The Rovian "reality creating" of Chaos and disorder:
1) In context of defunding of government spending programs (including, e.g., recent closure of seven FDA labs, laying ground for future "chaos events"): "argument" and "opportunity" for privatization of displaced gov't operations.
2) In the context of infrastructure degradation: fear and inefficiency.
3) In context of social upheaval thru deliberate non-responsiveness of government (e.g. *-FEMA): fodder for "religious/charity" organizations, recruits for "volunteer" military, potential for eliminating labor laws (e.g. 1931 Davis-Bacon Act) and/or declaring martial law.

Done by creatures who stole the power they now abuse.
Stolen Presidencies (here and Mexico), Stolen Congress seats, stolen "justice" (incl politicized DoJ), stolen treasury, stolen votes, stolen "policy" (vote-flipped states ballot initiatives?), illegal wars/crimes against humanity.

Schwartzenegger just a parallel extension of *Co in 7th-largest world economy: neophyte "politician" undermined -- in first week of office -- Lt Gov Bustamante attempt by California to recover $9Billion stolen via Lay et al (via defective, game-able deregulation system setup by repub-gov Wilson, pre-Gray Davis). Internet news had reported his connection with Ken Lay from FBI-recovered 5/17/2001 Enron-email between Lay and Schw* (derelict MSM ignored). Palast prediction comes true: "Hasta la Vista to $9B" if Schw* (s)elected. California had to eventually borrow $11B against its $91B General Fund-->cuts in social services programs. Police and fire scramble for funds; focus on revenue-generating arrests, like DUI (% of fines goes directly to locale). The "fraud governor" then had SoS Kevin Shelly replaced to reinstitute certification of Diebold electronic-vote-fraud machines. New SoS Debra Bowen now tries to preserve Democracy in California.

Re-open 9/11 investigation and Pre-War Intelligence...at proper time.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/08/09/bridges/index.html

<<<< August 9, 2005 | A mess of thorny devil's club and salmonberries, along with an old chicken coop, surrounds the 40-year-old cabin where Mike Sallee grew up and still lives part time on southeast Alaska's Gravina Island. Sallee's cabin is the very definition of remote. Deer routinely visit his front porch, and black bears and wolves live in the woods out back. The 20-mile-long island, home to fewer than 50 people, has no stores, no restaurants and no paved roads. An airport on the island hosts fewer than 10 commercial flights a day.

"I can take off from the homestead and walk the beach for several miles before I get to any other habitation," says Sallee, a fisherman who also operates a small lumber mill. "There's two main mountain ranges on the island and a big valley of forest and muskeg."

Yet due to funds in a new transportation bill, which President Bush is scheduled to sign Wednesday, Sallee and his neighbors may soon receive a bridge nearly as long as the Golden Gate Bridge and 80 feet taller than the Brooklyn Bridge. With a $223 million check from the federal government, the bridge will connect Gravina to the bustling Alaskan metropolis of Ketchikan, pop. 8,000. >>>

so we don't have to spend it here.

nt

IOW, borrowed or not, SOMEBODY is benefitting.

Better it should be the deserving, including our infra-structure,.

a rotting, decrepit infrastructure has been the problem for a long time now ... nationwide. That's a fact. It is a problem across the board and it is reaching critical stages.

States have less funding now, as well. Even the burden for upkeep is reverting right down to local levels as money from those at that level is sucked out in various ways.

Some people think that their may be a push towards more privatization, (as with the prison system) and they are probably correct. However, who, in what is now gradually becoming a third-world, banana-style Republic, can afford to pay for the services company's come in to provide, via taxation or otherwise?

So, we have a rather "convenient" problem here when public monies are being squandered, pillaged, and diverted towards aggression and control.

Reminds me of the WPA. There are solutions to the infrastructure problem, but not the kind that strapped Americans will enjoy being compelled to participate in when the time comes. Ah, put public service sounds nice, don't it?

:scared:

The State of Minnesota is responsible for that bridge! They have a 2 billion dollar budget surplus, and an entirely new bridge would have cost 120 million.

From the right wing MPR,
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/11/28/budget/



They are building a billion dollar "choo choo" train and a new f'ing ballpark and they still wanted a tax increase. People and business are fleeing that state in droves. (yes I'm one of them!)

Even though we don't know what those programs are.