English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2007/08/minnesota_and_the_politics_of.cfm

That state has more money like any state in the U.S

2007-08-04 16:32:46 · 13 answers · asked by Jeremy P 2 in Politics & Government Politics

13 answers

Kind of silly really.

Of course the money wasted on the Bush/Reagan Savings and Loan debacle, which is an on-going expense, would have replaced every bridge in the U.S. had it been available for that.

Blame a foolish tradition of neglected maintenance which has been popular since the middle 80's as a way to save money, and of course kill people eventually.

2007-08-04 16:38:21 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 3 4

this is a concept, why do no longer we blame the city of Minneapolis for spending the tax funds which could be dispensed to infrastructure on bolstering the pensions of city workers? In each and every significant city in this united states of america, the union workers that "paintings" for the cities have the main costly earnings applications attainable. There are assured will advance, reward etc that each and every physique come from our tax funds. rather of paving roads, repairing potholes, structures, and so on. the politicians feather their very own nests and could supply a flying fig appropriate to the destiny. top occasion is New Orleans. whilst the hurricanes hit - it became thoroughly obvious that the federal government hadn't finished squat approximately levees in years yet you will properly make specific the moron who replaced into working FEMA on the time did no longer make below six figures.

2016-10-14 00:20:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Blame needs to go to their governor, mayor and elected officials, as should New Orleans. Problem with some states, they think the government should be there to wipe their butt when they have a movement. This state had plenty of money, they just chose to build a stadium , instead of doing the repairs on bridge like some of the money was suppose to be far, so much for their value of human life. I heard, but do not know for sure, but I heard they had 13 billion dollars.
After all, the photo in the paper for politicians building something new is more important to them, than a can of paint or repairing something. Difference in Minnesota is, the people did not know that bridge was fixing to fall at that very time. In New Orleans they had plenty of time through news and weather reports to leave in plenty of time, yet they stand there in knee deep water, seeing it is still rising, waiting for the federal government to come get them. Where was their governor and mayor. . The rest of the Gulf Coast took care of themselves, knew better than to wait.

2007-08-04 17:18:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

I heard Jack Cafferty from CNN blaming Bush.
Here in CT the state looks after the bridges. Our Governor made a point of providing more money for it a couple of months ago.
Minnesota is a very liberal state, but the natural reaction is to blame Bush, just like they did in Louisiana. Another scew up lib state. And New Orleans went and re elected that screw up of a mayor.

2007-08-04 16:59:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

The truth here is that this disaster happened during Bush's administration watch, just as the 9/11 attack did.

If the current administration is being blamed for that, for whatever reason, I believe they should show as many examples as they can get of similar bridge-collapsing disasters during other administrations, especially democrat ones, to demonstrate via examples that something like this can happen to anyone, regardless of how incompetent a current administration is regarded by many people.

But if this is a one-of-a-kind event that has never happened before in the history of the US, it is practically impossible not to wonder why it circumstantially occurred precisely under this administration, which has been the target of so many criticisms, even by the very people involved in it.

2007-08-04 16:51:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 4

where was bush blamed in that article?

he was mentioned once and not in the context of blaming him for the bridge collapse

2007-08-04 16:38:19 · answer #6 · answered by Nick F 6 · 3 1

Of course the Libs will blame Bush. We know it's Walter Mondale's fault. I think the Humphrey's were in on it to

2007-08-04 16:50:37 · answer #7 · answered by 1st Buzie 6 · 2 4

Sure - didn't you know, bush help procure the materials, hire the contractors, oversaw the construction, scheduled the periodic maintenance table. ALL WHEN HE WAS 10 YEARS OLD.

Just like New Orleans and katrina- forget the state has been run by Dem-wits for the last century.

2007-08-04 16:39:17 · answer #8 · answered by Libsuc 3 · 6 6

Where's Al Franken, I mean this is his state, he's running for Senate there next year for crying out loud why hasn't he been more publicly outraged by this....

2007-08-04 16:58:25 · answer #9 · answered by Greg 7 · 0 3

I'm waiting for some dork to say 'look how quickly he came to the white people' (majority in MN). He didn't go to the black people in N.O. that fast! Not true of course, but somebody will think it.

2007-08-04 16:40:36 · answer #10 · answered by Flatpaw 7 · 3 3

fedest.com, questions and answers