Jan 31--House bill reverses progress for bike/ped

[xcrdr]

I guess it's better to bail out a bunch of rich *beep* than keep a bunch of bike dorks safe. Pleaase don't respond to my mini-rant. I'm not smart enough to argue.

One could argue that not arguing is actually quite smart.

I almost got away with it, if it weren't for that dastardly Di_bear!

[utabintarbo]

I guess it's better to bail out a bunch of rich *beep* than keep a bunch of bike dorks safe. Pleaase don't respond to my mini-rant. I'm not smart enough to argue.

Since we agree that you are "not smart enough to argue", we have nothing to argue about.

[Di_bear]

I guess it's better to bail out a bunch of rich *beep* than keep a bunch of bike dorks safe. Pleaase don't respond to my mini-rant. I'm not smart enough to argue.

One could argue that not arguing is actually quite smart.

I almost got away with it, if it weren't for that dastardly Di_bear!

He he he he he he he!

[bikerstuddeluxe]

I risk being branded a heretic here, but why is it the job of the federal government to fund such projects? Especially a government that is already in dire economic straits.

In that vein of thought Bob, why should the government be funding roads?

The federal government should not. That's why we have states.

Let's remember at this time that roads and other public infrastructure for cars and other motorized transportation are heavily subsidized. Tax revenues from gas taxes and other sources do not come close to fully funding public truck/automobile infrastructure let alone the environmental and safety consequences thereof. Let's see some baggers come forward and volunteer to pay their full share here to be consistent. It's high time for it in consideration of a "government that is already in dire economic straits".

America's Autos On Welfare in 2010: A Summary of Subsidies
http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/articles/subsidies.pdf

[utabintarbo]

I risk being branded a heretic here, but why is it the job of the federal government to fund such projects? Especially a government that is already in dire economic straits.

In that vein of thought Bob, why should the government be funding roads?

The federal government should not. That's why we have states.

Let's remember at this time that roads and other public infrastructure for cars and other motorized transportation are heavily subsidized. Tax revenues from gas taxes and other sources do not come close to fully funding public truck/automobile infrastructure let alone the environmental and safety consequences thereof. Let's see some baggers come forward and volunteer to pay their full share here to be consistent. It's high time for it in consideration of a "government that is already in dire economic straits".

America's Autos On Welfare in 2010: A Summary of Subsidies
http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/articles/subsidies.pdf

Hmmmm...

Define "baggers" and "full share" in this context. Be sure to show your work.

Another heretical view: Instead of the government always trying to siphon additional revenues from those who make the money, why don't they just keep spending within their means? This would relieve them of the overhead of "dire economic straits", no?

[Critter7r]

I risk being branded a heretic here, but why is it the job of the federal government to fund such projects? Especially a government that is already in dire economic straits.

In that vein of thought Bob, why should the government be funding roads?

interstate commerce?

The gov't is funding their friends' endevors when they should be concerned with the well-being of the public as a whole. (i.e. many of those in gov't don't really care about what they don't care about). A position in gov't should be about being able to see when something is or isn't good for the general population whether or not you agree with it, use it or have a stake in it.

[utabintarbo]

I risk being branded a heretic here, but why is it the job of the federal government to fund such projects? Especially a government that is already in dire economic straits.

In that vein of thought Bob, why should the government be funding roads?

interstate commerce?

The Federal government has the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Regulation != promotion.

The gov't is funding their friends' endevors when they should be concerned with the well-being of the public as a whole. (i.e. many of those in gov't don't really care about what they don't care about). A position in gov't should be about being able to see when something is or isn't good for the general population whether or not you agree with it, use it or have a stake in it.

That was the original intent of the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution, as a differentiation from promoting one's specific welfare.