Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Ha. It's "Sunny" but whatev:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhD-xfwvGao

Thank you on both counts.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Hard to explain just how obnoxious you sound when you get like this.

It's Adder. You can't get mad at this.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

So it isn't happening then.



What makes you think that state/local Rs are any more willing to spend money?



Here's the problem: state and local governments do not have the same access to funds as the feds.



You have no idea how transportation funding works in this country, do you?

Also, just sort of a macro issue for you. State and local governments will invest in their own infrastructure where Dems are in control. (They don't really need you for that). They will not where the Rs are in control. Without federal involvement, how is that going to create any jobs in red states?

[Insert facepalm pic.]

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Hard to explain just how obnoxious you sound when you get like this.

Oh well. He pontificates and then says something so profoundly out of touch with how the world works that I don't know what you want me to do.

Like, here's three hundred words about how all you idiots are painting the fence wrong and in conclusion you'll never get it done unless you tear down the fence first.

How about just putting the profoundly wrong thing up front so we can all stop reading?

If we're going to get an infrastructure package that means anything, it's going to need federal money. "Work state/local" is profoundly unrealistic.

Clearly, I need a thesaurus to find some substitutes for "profoundly."

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Hard to explain just how obnoxious you sound when you get like this.

Let it go.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Ha. It's "Sunny" but whatev:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhD-xfwvGao

There a robot called Pandora that we could use to pick songs and replace you. Once RT is back pretty sure she'll pull the trigger. But thanks for playin!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

[Insert facepalm pic.]

:

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Oh well. He pontificates and then says something so profoundly out of touch with how the world works that I don't know what you want me to do.

Like, here's three hundred words about how all you idiots are painting the fence wrong and in conclusion you'll never get it done unless you tear down the fence first.

How about just putting the profoundly wrong thing up front so we can all stop reading?

If we're going to get an infrastructure package that means anything, it's going to need federal money. "Work state/local" is profoundly unrealistic.

Clearly, I need a thesaurus to find some substitutes for "profoundly."

It's not out of touch at all, you little twit.

I think the disconnect here is you might be talking apples and I'm talking oranges in re project size.

I also think anything that doesn't adhere to your understanding of how things work is immediately incorrect.

Here's a thought: What is the difference between doing 1000 midsized infrastructure projects, and doing 10 or so monster sized ones? Still gets the same job done, doesn't it?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It's not out of touch at all, you little twit.

I think the disconnect here is you might be talking apples and I'm talking oranges in re project size.

I also think anything that doesn't adhere to your understanding of how things work is immediately incorrect.

Here's a thought: What is the difference between doing 1000 midsized infrastructure projects, and doing 10 or so monster sized ones? Still gets the same job done, doesn't it?

Sebastian edited this post to delete his reference to Adder as a "little boy." But kept in the part where he called him a "little twit." This is a game of great subtlety we are playing here on this chatting board for lawyers.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Sebastian edited this post to delete his reference to Adder as a "little boy." But kept in the part where he called him a "little twit." This is a game of great subtlety we are playing here on this chatting board for lawyers.

Let's go retro? Radar from MASH, the series.

With more subtlety, fuck him. Look. A kid with his head up is arse is fine. Some of us stay there into middle age. But in a moment in the economy, in the world, where so many people are so full of shit, to listen to a person state on one hand his liberal bona fides (his politics are freshman year, from a reeeeallly bad hall), and on the other hand tout an Edward Jones advisor's conservative view of How The Economy Works? I'm compelled to dance with that?

The world needs conventional thinkers in liberal clothing right now like it needs drug resistant airborne HIV.

It's impossible to finally and fully refute Adder, because it'd take more bandwidth and time than we have, and you really can't properly light such person on fire except in person (when you'd feel reluctant to do so out of decency).

He's wrong. Wrong as diet vodka, The Black Eyed Peas, and Richard Spencer's girlfriend. With the intellectual underpinnings of your Econ 101 Professor, and the instincts of realtor with a Barron's subscription.

But fuck all that... A simple calculation ends all controversy: Would you prefer, in a foxhole, Donald Trump, or Adder?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If Republicans have a principled objection to government spending on infrastructure, finding a way to make it more efficient doesn't really change anything. I brought up infrastructure because you said Democrats don't have any ideas. They do. Spending government money on things that create long-term value, like infrastructure and education. There you go. If your response to that is, Fuck the Rs, well OK then.

Infrastructure would have been my no. 1 priority if I was elected. It's a no brainer on so many levels. And it's something we desperately need. Aside from the safety concerns (e.g. dams, levees, etc), we are falling woefully behind the rest of the world in modern infrastructure (e.g. Airports).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If Republicans have a principled objection to government spending on infrastructure, finding a way to make it more efficient doesn't really change anything. I brought up infrastructure because you said Democrats don't have any ideas. They do. Spending government money on things that create long-term value, like infrastructure and education. There you go. If your response to that is, Fuck the Rs, well OK then.

How about we do it in a way where we minimize govt outlays, maximize value, avoid tax increases, and put money lying around in regional and community banks to good use, while paying solid union wages? It can and has been done.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

How about we do it in a way where we minimize govt outlays, maximize value, avoid tax increases, and put money lying around in regional and community banks to good use, while paying solid union wages? It can and has been done.

Sure, spend money without increasing taxes, which means you're going to increase the deficit. I'd favor it, but you should realize what you're doing.

I don't think there is much money "lying around in regional and community banks" unless you're interested in reducing capital requirements, something that was just a bit problematic last time around. Good community banks are struggling to maintain or add capital because lending is at capacity, so lending criteria has been tightening.

Nice to see you advocating for union wages; the big trend among Republicans is to push privatization and try to move public sector spending to non-union employers.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

How about we do it in a way where we minimize govt outlays, maximize value, avoid tax increases, and put money lying around in regional and community banks to good use, while paying solid union wages? It can and has been done.

Look, you said that Democrats didn't have any ideas about how to create jobs. So I said, how about infrastructure. I am all for spending that money in an efficient way that means that more of it goes to the people actually pouring concrete. I glad that you agree that the Democrats have a plan that would create jobs and accomplish something good for the people and can be done in an efficient way, and that the Republicans are blocking it. Usually you like to suggest that while the Republicans are useless, Democrats are too, so this is something by way of personal growth for you.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

There a robot called Pandora that we could use to pick songs and replace you. Once RT is back pretty sure she'll pull the trigger. But thanks for playin!

Says the guy who listens to the same four Jawbreaker albums over and over and over. The Daily Dose is Jimmy McGriff from the Electric Funk album. "Miss Poopie," which coincidentally is my new nickname for Hank:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA8j86QMXh8