Biggest Cheeleader has laid down the Pom Poms.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Moses

Bizarre.

State highway maintenance is State highway maintenance. Why infer default to local control?

Have the states surrendered tax collection to the locals? Fish and Game? Park Services? State environmental laws? Why would they do so with roads? It is not the logical progression if the Feds surrender highway control to the states.

Exactly. It's amazing how quickly a reactionary can get all flustered over the loss of a Federal security blanket, and make all kinds of wild inferences about the chaotic results.

Originally Posted by stevepaa

Well, how about the interstates.


Not a bizarre inference at all. Look at this comment from someone outside of Denver complaining about the need to rasise money to pay for Denver's highways.

"When did Colorado become a socialist-welfare republic? Denver is grossly overstepping its bounds taxing the rest of the state for their wants and desires.
Welfare as a valid career choice, sanctuary for illegal aliens who kill the police and flee back to Mexico, feeling sorry for the drug and/or alcohol addicted street people.
It is high time for personal responsibility to be reinstated in American society. I am beginning to not care if welfare recipients or panhandlers eat, have a place to sleep, have decent clothing, or health care.
When a working man is taxed into poverty to support all the amenities for those unwilling to work, it's time to vote the tax-and-spend secular-progressives out of office. Better yet,run them out of the State of Colorado altogether."

We get the same mentality here in Washington. Any state with a big urban population center is faced with this attitude from more rural residents. In our case, it appears as though rural tax dollars must be supporting Seattle infrastructure. "Just look at it all; look at the millions spent on Seattle projects... what about us?" is how the complaining goes.

The simple fact of the matter is that it is actually Seattle tax dollars building those rural roads and bridges. Our rural counties are not self-supporting in that regard. I suspect the same is true in Colorado. There is a huge disparity in tax revenue between downtown business real estate and rural farm real estate.

That's why roads must remain at a state level. Dukes of Hazard notwithstanding, no one wants to drive on poorly maintained dirt roads once they leave the big city. That would, however, be the inevitable result of funding roads even at the county level, much less more locally than that.

[stevepaa]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Exactly. It's amazing how quickly a reactionary can get all flustered over the loss of a Federal security blanket, and make all kinds of wild inferences about the chaotic results.

That's why roads must remain at a state level. Dukes of Hazard notwithstanding, no one wants to drive on poorly maintained dirt roads once they leave the big city. That would, however, be the inevitable result of funding roads even at the county level, much less more locally than that.

um, so you get to be a reactionary and make wild inferences?

Your response tells me why interstates need to remain at Federal level. What am I missing?

[Jim Sims]

"Leave the roads to the states and save literally billions in wasted bureaucracy every year."

Many of the geographically larger, less populated western states (Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico, North Dakota, etc.) would have never built their portions of the Interstate system without Federal dollars. They don't have the local tax base to raise the needed funds. In crossing these states traffic would then be limited to what the narrow roads, substandard bridges and steep grades could handle. Plus you would have to slow down going through every little city and town.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by stevepaa

um, so you get to be a reactionary and make wild inferences?

You sound surprised; remember where you are...

Originally Posted by Jim Sims

Many of the geographically larger, less populated western states (Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico, North Dakota, etc.) would have never built their portions of the Interstate system without Federal dollars. They don't have the local tax base to raise the needed funds. In crossing these states traffic would then be limited to what the narrow roads, substandard bridges and steep grades could handle. Plus you would have to slow down going through every little city and town.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[frogger]

What was this thread about?

[stevepaa]

Bush mangling the economy for future generations??

[Jeff Higgins]

You guys are way too easily distracted. One of the only endearing qualities of the liberal mind.

[stevepaa]

you should see me juggle ten things at once at work

[Jim Sims]

"Originally Posted by Jim Sims
Many of the geographically larger, less populated western states (Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico, North Dakota, etc.) would have never built their portions of the Interstate system without Federal dollars. They don't have the local tax base to raise the needed funds. In crossing these states traffic would then be limited to what the narrow roads, substandard bridges and steep grades could handle. Plus you would have to slow down going through every little city and town."

"You say that like it's a bad thing."

I don't think you have any idea how valuable the transcontinental Interstate System is to the nation's commerce and freedom of movement of society. In case you don't understand the concept, for it to be transcontinental (ie for one to travel from Chicago to Washington State for example) it has to pass through the less populated western states like Montana or Wyoming.

Going into the Jefferson River in the winter to avoid a head on with a semi is a bad thing. This is on the old US highway between Three Forks and Butte, Montana; the road was too narrow and an overhanging cliff above the road wasn't cut back far enough for the trucks to stay in their lane. Interstate 90 bypassed these hazards.

[frogger]

Jeff must be against interstate commerce, and, since the interstate system was also for national defense, he must not care about that either. Sounds like a closet lib to me.

[Dixie]

The reason nobody noteworthy makes remarks like this is because they are asinine. We've had this discussion before, and I am still waiting for you to outline where those cuts can be made.

Right off the top of my head...1) End ear-marking. Just do it. If it’s worth funding, it’s worth standing on it’s merits. 2) Can the entire TSA. Just have legislation specifying what security carriers need to have. Then let companies hire/contract it out themselves. 3) End farm subsidies. Why do we need them? Over the last 5 years, the USA imported more food than we exported. Does DelMonte really need Subsidies? 4) Eliminate the Federal Dept. of Ed. Heck, virtually everyone, in every State, wants good education. What value do the Fed’s add? More administrators sucking off funds.

[Jim Sims]

800 billion dollars down the Iraqi and Afghanistan rat holes!

At todays prices that would have paid for the installation of 10 Quadrillion BTUs (2.7 x 10 to 12th KWh) of photovoltaics. That's more than all the installed nuclear electric power in the country or it would displace 1/3 of our oil consumption, or 1/2 of either our natural gas or coal consumption. Instead we have nothing but debt and broken bodies to show for our funds. It is what we deserve, given who we elected.