TheJiggler Posted July 23, 2008 Posted July 23, 2008 Funny. I bet if they just put that toll on now, there would be no need for a new bridge in the first place. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 23, 2008 Author Posted July 23, 2008 so pay taxes dumbcunt  I do, fuckwad. and they should cover things, at a minimum, like, um, infrastructure. that should be obvious even to a shit like you. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 23, 2008 Author Posted July 23, 2008 Funny. I bet if they just put that toll on now, there would be no need for a new bridge in the first place. Â then they could make one line for bikes only. Â Quote
Hugh Conway Posted July 23, 2008 Posted July 23, 2008 I do, fuckwad. and they should cover things, at a minimum, like, um, infrastructure. that should be obvious even to a shit like you. Â I want, I want, I want Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 23, 2008 Author Posted July 23, 2008 I do, fuckwad. and they should cover things, at a minimum, like, um, infrastructure. that should be obvious even to a shit like you.  I want, I want, I want  I want ROI for my taxes? fuck yeah! Quote
mattp Posted July 23, 2008 Posted July 23, 2008 KK, I'm relying on my memory of old posts of yours but don't you hate "big government," rail about excessive taxation, and complain that government regulation is by definition wasteful or worse? I"m assuming you agree that we need a new floating bridge. Are you saying you want the State to build one that is either a zillion lanes wide or, if not, will not solve current transportation problems let alone future ones? Wouldn't THAT be government waste at its worst? Do you think we should borrow the money for it rather than pay as we go? The imposition of tolls is proposed not only to help pay for it but also to reduce usage - especially in peak traffic hours. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 23, 2008 Author Posted July 23, 2008 KK, I'm relying on my memory of old posts of yours but don't you hate "big government," rail about excessive taxation, and complain that government regulation is by definition wasteful or worse?  we are already taxed. if we need a new bridge, fund it with existing resources/taxes. that's a first priority, not the other shit our money is squandered on  where the fuck is our ROI on all those transportation initiatives, anyways? no accountability.  Quote
Hugh Conway Posted July 23, 2008 Posted July 23, 2008 observe the typical puget sound resident, root cause of cascade incompetence Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 23, 2008 Author Posted July 23, 2008 Â when ARE you moving to Europe, anyways? You've only been "threatening" for 4+ years. Â Quote
Hugh Conway Posted July 23, 2008 Posted July 23, 2008 i get a bonus for sticking around work for the next 6 months. not yet. Quote
builder206 Posted July 23, 2008 Posted July 23, 2008 I"m assuming you agree that we need a new floating bridge. Â No, no! A tunnel! We need a tunnel under the lake. The technology is available NOW. Quote
mattp Posted July 23, 2008 Posted July 23, 2008 KK, I've actually worked for the government and I'm sure I experienced government waste as acutely as most anybody but your constant railings that "all they have to do is cut the fat and they could lower my taxes" is nutty. Especially when you support and have all along supported the biggest expense of all in the national budget: Iraq.  In the case of washington, next year's budge is estimated at 29 billion, http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget08/highlights/assets/pdf/highlights.pdf  The new bridge is estimated to cost 1.7 to 3.1 billion, and I'm guessing you won't opt for the 4-lane bridge as a replacement. http://www.seattlechannel.org/issues/sr520.asp So do you think Washington state can afford to spend that much of the annual budget on one five mile stretch of road without borrowing somewhere or imposing tolls? Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 23, 2008 Author Posted July 23, 2008 KK, I've actually worked for the government and I'm sure I experienced government waste as acutely as most anybody but your constant railings that "all they have to do is cut the fat and they could lower my taxes" is nutty. Especially when you support and have all along supported the biggest expense of all in the national budget: Iraq. IN the case of washington, next year's budge is estimated at 29 billion, http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget08/highlights/assets/pdf/highlights.pdf The new bridge is estimated to cost 1.7 to 3.1 billion, and I'm guessing you won't opt for the 4-lane bridge as a replacement. http://www.seattlechannel.org/issues/sr520.asp So do you think Washington state can afford to spend that much of the annual budget on one five mile stretch of road without borrowing somewhere or imposing tolls?  again putting words in my mouth and trying to state my positions.  you are about as lame as Kevbone today.  Quote
mattp Posted July 23, 2008 Posted July 23, 2008 Feel free to answer my question, and clarify what your actual position may be while you are at it. To rail on "big government" without being able to look at and address real numbers is, as you say, lame. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 23, 2008 Author Posted July 23, 2008 I"m assuming you agree that we need a new floating bridge. Â No, no! A tunnel! We need a tunnel under the lake. The technology is available NOW. Â no, first we need a study. well, raise taxes first - for the tunnel, and pay for the study. then squander the money raised on anything but their intended purpose. then cancel the tunnel project. Â fuck yeah! Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 23, 2008 Author Posted July 23, 2008 Feel free to answer my question, and clarify what your actual position may be while you are at it. To rail on "big government" without being able to look at and address real numbers is, as you say, lame. Â big government? Â listen, I believe in a limited government, as I've stated before, and certainly one role of said government - however big or small - is to BUILD AND MAINTAIN THE FUCKING INFRASTRUCTURE. our taxes should cover that first and foremost. Quote
sobo Posted July 23, 2008 Posted July 23, 2008 I"m assuming you agree that we need a new floating bridge. Â No, no! A tunnel! We need a tunnel under the lake. The technology is available NOW. More like: available for the past 15 years, give or take Quote
mattp Posted July 23, 2008 Posted July 23, 2008 OK then, what about the budget? What about the bridge? Should this limited government of yours spend that much money on a very small bit of roadway and encourage it to be overused and thus causing traffic jams and extra pollution before the paint is even dry? Quote
billcoe Posted July 23, 2008 Posted July 23, 2008 It's like what the Monkey said when he peed into the cash register dude. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â "This is going to run into money." Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 23, 2008 Author Posted July 23, 2008 Should this limited government of yours spend that much money on a very small bit of roadway and encourage it to be overused and thus causing traffic jams and extra pollution before the paint is even dry? Â The population grew, and the roads could no longer support the capacity needed. Yes, government should fund it OUT OF EXISTING TAXES. More people = more revenue - what the fuck are they spending tax dollars on? Â And as for "encouraging" - it's not government's job to tell people how to live, it's the people's job to tell the government how to work for THEM, the PEOPLE. You know, government OF the people BY the people and most importantly FOR the people. Quote
Fairweather Posted July 23, 2008 Posted July 23, 2008 I AM curious why this (picture below) cost <$1Bn, but a floating bridge across still water is going to cost 3 times more. WTF? As for tolls; what's good for Tacoma/Gig Harbor is good enough for Seattlites. Pony up. Better yet, don't take any state money and cover it all with tolls--yes, including the bike lanes. Tacoma Narrows just went up to 4 bucks. Â Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 23, 2008 Author Posted July 23, 2008 As for tolls; what's good for Tacoma/Gig Harbor is good enough for Seattlites. Pony up. Better yet, don't take any state money and cover it all with tolls  fuck that.  at this rate a new Boston Tea Party is long overdue Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.