Why is President Bush threatening to veto the transportation bill just because the Democrats put extra money to repair and replace bridges that have been rated “structurally deficient”?
We are spending $2 billion a week in Iraq and he can spend a few extra billion to keep our bridges safe? How many more bridges have to fall into rivers?
2007-09-10 14:32:06 · 20 answers · asked by arvis3 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Did you know that Minnesota had a budget surplus? And the bridge still collapsed. Don't fall for liberals tax bilking. Learn your topic, or you will be taken to the cleaners the rest of your life.
2007-09-10 14:37:14 · answer #1 · answered by macaroni 4 · 5⤊ 2⤋
In fact the Federal Government gives nearly 65 billion dollars to the states for the repair and upkeep of the highway system. The States also raise taxes for repair and upkeep. Now the individual States decide where to spend the money. If you are speaking about that bridge in Minn. it was inspected by the Federal hyway Dept and pronounced marginal. The Feds notified the State Government. Which is what the Feds are suppose to do. (and this was done before Bush was in office) Its up to the State Governments to decide when they are going to either repair or replace the bridge not Bush.
2007-09-10 14:42:34 · answer #2 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How much is wasted in earmarks in this bill? Have you bothered to check this out? Do you realize that the states are responsible for using the federal money given to them for interstate repairs? Do a little checking before you start repeating things from moveon.org
2007-09-10 15:36:38 · answer #3 · answered by madd texan 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The infrastructure in this country has been going downhill for years, this didn't just happen overnight. Didn't you notice?
The destruction of the rail system, aging road systems and the deteriorating bridge conditions.
How do you think the "surplus" of the nineties came about?
2007-09-10 14:54:20 · answer #4 · answered by Edward F 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Did you care about the bridges before the one in Minneapolis collapsed? I thought not! Dems want to all of the sudden give a crap about bridges in this country, just to take money away from the war. Just like Katrina. I knew as a kid that the levies in N.O. were crap. I am 36 years old now. No one gave a crap until Katrina came along and some people died. Now all of the sudden we are fighting a war overseas and the Dems want to spend, spend, spend on anything but the war. btw....the war that most of them voted for.
2007-09-10 14:44:32 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I forgot it's Bush's fault he doesn't whip his Engineering degree and inspect every bridge personally or Micro manage ALL 50 STATE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS TO THE PENNY to ensure the funds given are used properly,
2007-09-10 14:41:49 · answer #6 · answered by dez604 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Because he knows that only liberals and minorities drive across these bridges and he wants them all dead.
He did such a good job when he created and directed Katrina towards New Orleans that he just figured to keep his roll going.
You really need to get out more and stop reading Move-on.com talking points and the rest of the left wing dribble.
2007-09-10 14:40:08 · answer #7 · answered by rikv77 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
All of the bridges I know of are a state or town issue. If you go putting the federal government in the mix, that's just one more level of corruption. States and towns need more maintnance and inspections. If they can't afford to keep them up, then close them.
2007-09-10 14:44:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
And I quess you think the office of the President is responsible for bridges?
2007-09-10 14:40:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
What else is in that bill that shouldn't be. Like pet projectrs that have nothing to do with transportation.
2007-09-10 15:02:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋