Jump to content

Nickel and Dime to Death


KaskadskyjKozak

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :noway:

 

you are about as lame as Kevbone today.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I"m assuming you agree that we need a new floating bridge.

 

No, no! A tunnel! We need a tunnel under the lake. The technology is available NOW.

 

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.

 

fuck yeah!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

big government?

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

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?

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

designviz2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...