Boy did you just step in it. We wouldn't be hearing ANYTHING from Hillary on infrastructure? That's funny, because she co-authored a bill for this very thing back in 2006. It pays to do your homework before making assumptions doesn't it? Still laughing?
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=252364&&
Senators Voinovich, Carper and Clinton Introduce Infrastructure Improvement Bill
Bill to Create National Commission on Infrastructure
Washington, DC — Today, U.S. Senators George V. Voinovich (OH), Thomas Carper (DE) and Hillary R. Clinton (NY) introduced the National Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2006, legislation created to address the deteriorating conditions of our nation’s roads, bridges, drinking water systems, dams and other public works. If enacted, the bill will establish a National Commission on Infrastructure of the United States. The commission will be charged with aiding in the nation’s economic growth and ensuring the ability of the nation’s infrastructure to meet current and future demands.
2007-08-08 08:52:46
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Now is it the Dems or the GOP that is notorious for spending? Taxing and spending on government programs, such as for roads, bridges, schools, ports, other infrastructure,
have been criticized for the past 20+ years by conservativess and Republicans. If they weren't always trying to cut the budget cut lower taxes cut the budget cut the budget, and if Americans realized that things like wars and bridges do cost money, maybe they wouldn't fight so hard to vote in the (R)'s with the big axe for everything that could help us here in the US Territory. I'm against nonsense spending too, so don't jump to conclusions. Like, why pay a psychiatrist to determine whether John Cooey (The rapist and murderer of Jessica Lunsford) is mentally ill?
2007-08-08 16:42:16
·
answer #2
·
answered by topink 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Nothing new... But what a great way to raise taxes!!!What she forgets is all the government waste and money proposed to fix these bridges etc.. are squandered on "pet" projects...
Highlights of the 2006 edition of the Minnesota Piglet Book include:ï The state bailout of the Minneapolis Teacher’s Retirement Fund, which puts state taxpayers on the hook for $972 million in unfunded liabilities;ï A new $776 million Twins Stadium to be paid for with a Hennepin County sales tax increase (approved by state legislators with no voter referendum) ï $97.5 million for the Northstar Commuter Rail line;ï $34 million in subsidies to ethanol producers that have seen a 300 percent increase in profits in the last year;ï $30 million for bear exhibits at the Minnesota and Como Zoos;ï $12 million to renovate the Shubert Theater in downtown Minneapolis;ï $1 million for a replica Vikings ship in Moorhead;ï $500,000 for a skating rink in Roseville;ï $310,000 for a Shakespeare festival in Winona; andï $129,000 for state art grants for North Dakota museums and theaters
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:3fMX62MHhJsJ:www.taxpayersleague.org/pdf/2006PigletBook.pdf+Minnesota+spending+transportation+infrastructure+2006&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
2007-08-08 15:48:45
·
answer #3
·
answered by bereal1 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
That's because the collapse brought the topic to our attention. This could have been a problem before, but didn't have enough attention to get the candidates to notice. It's like saying that if 9/11 hadn't happened, we wouldn't hear anything about terrorism. But no one is blaming anyone for talking about that.
Do you scrutinize Bush for using terrorism as a campaign topic post 9/11? Do you scrutinize people who said terrorism was "a glaring problem that Clinton ignored"?
2007-08-08 15:45:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by Take it from Toby 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Action = Reaction.
She's f@#cking right, Vinnie.
What was Guiliani's reaction to 9/11. Better police,fireman communication with the mayor's office and what about the 9/11 commission itself?
So it took 9/11 to get a reaction from the President of the US and the Mayor of NYC, uh?
2007-08-08 15:51:19
·
answer #5
·
answered by Global warming ain't cool 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I conur--had the bridge not collapsed she probably wouldn't be saying things like this.
However...she is correct. Failures in the infrastructure such as collapsing bridges or burst dams/levees *will* cost billions to clean up, money that could be better spend elsewhere, including improving that very infrastructure.
2007-08-08 15:45:25
·
answer #6
·
answered by Mathsorcerer 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Are you making a point here? I'm missing it. Do you think we should take the Minnesota bridge collapse as a wake up call to our failing infrastructure, or just ignore it as a freak occurance, won't happen again?
2007-08-08 15:45:53
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
Uh, so we shouldn't be concerned that 12.5 % of the Nation's bridges are "structurally defficient"?
Please keep in mind, our National Security depends upon a functioning infrastructure.
Further, do you even realize why the Interstate system, as offered by Eisenhower, is a Federal issue and how it relates to National Security?
2007-08-08 15:45:24
·
answer #8
·
answered by outcrop 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
if the minnesota bridge had not collapsed, you wouldn't be hearing ANYTHING from ANYONE. kind of like if katrina had never happened, there would have been no outrage over the levy systems. it's a matter of perspective, and tragedies put things into view for a lot of people.
2007-08-08 15:43:34
·
answer #9
·
answered by vegas 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
Let me guess before I go to the link.
She's Blaming Bush, right?
2 minutes later....
Well, she didn't SAY Bush, but we know what libs think after a catastrophie....
Jeez... The Jr. Senator from NY may want to look at the streets and bridges of NYC first.
Has she said or done anything about it prior to this collapse?
Of course not.... Just another photo op for her.
2007-08-08 15:43:29
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋