Over at Crosscut, correspondent Austin Jenkins says what pudge has been saying around here for some time:
Democrats in Olympia aren't taking serious, life-saving safety improvements on Highway 2 seriously because local Republicans won't vote for tax increases.
That doesn't seem very nice.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 13, 2008 06:20 PM | Email ThisIf your kids had to drive that road you wouldn't be so flip about it, Witz.
Posted by: zip on March 13, 2008 06:45 PMSo it's not lack of awareness, or insensitivity. I'm all for improving the US2 corridor. What's missing is the political will on both sides of the aisle to fix this problem.
How can we make it happen??
But it does seem altogether typical.
Unk.... people are DYING on that road. Are you leftists so scummy that you will continue to allow blood to be spilled no matter WHAT the area representatives vote?
I may have mentioned this in the past, but to the democrats, what's a little blood spilled in the name of political power?
At the national level, their treasonous leadership selling out our troops in the name of power... blood doesn't stop them there, does it? So why would blood.... that continues to spill on a road that the leftists infesting Oly could largely fix with the stroke of a pen... stand in there way here?
Posted by: hinton on March 13, 2008 11:56 PMWhen you couple that with a measure to add more full buses disguised as empty seats, you have a non-starter.
For years now, I have been an advocate for $4 and $5 /gallon gas. Except, my idea was that most of that would be for better roads. Well, that never happened.
Posted by: swatter on March 14, 2008 07:05 AMPeople have died by the tens of thousands in Iraq because George Bush made a personal decision to cause it to happen. Not because they misjudged required passing distance or safe driving speed, but because we dropped bombs on them and fired weapons at them. Now an awful lot of people want it to stop and your scumbag party is blocking those efforts at every turn.
So don't tell me how people are dying on US 2 because of Democrats. You have no idea what you are talking about. You're just another loud mouth shill chanting the right wing mantra of "all Dem's are evil, all Rep's are good."
You and your party are the one committing treason.
Like Hinton, you just don't know what you are talking about. Are you saying the floating bridge and the viaduct don't need to be replaced?!? Really? Are you really saying that?
And when is the last time you've ridden a bus? Ever?
But yet, 85 percent of my Social Security benefit is TAXED. That is right I am taxed on taxes I have already paid. Thanks BJ Clinton and your fellow travelers.
And for the 18 years I worked at Boeing's Plant 2 I rode the bus. I even rode the bus (sometimes) to/from the airport when I traveled for Boeing. Unkl Witz, I wonder if you have any idea how pleasant it is to change buses at 1st & Pike?
Let face it, Democrats would PREFER to put people in harms way rather than give up a tax increase.
And what do you think of Obama's pastor?
Posted by: Robert Wheeldon on March 14, 2008 08:08 AM
Bzzzzt...Wrong!
Senator Mary Margaret Haugen, Democrat and Senate Transportation Committee Chair, managed to get:
1) 13 Million for a Train Station in Stanwood, even though Amtrak has stated they won't be stopping there.
2) 95 million for improvements to Hwy 532, the highway that leads to her home on Camano Island, even though there's no real congestion, and no traffic fatalities.
Hwy 2 gets 14 million for a one mile passing lane in an area that has NO congestion and hasn't had any fatalities, a few miles of rumble strips between Sultan and Gold Bar even though most of the fatalities are east of Gold Bar, and a few more State Troopers patrolling. That was an improvement over the original plan which was just the Rumble Strips.
So you tell me, when the Democratic Chair of the Transportation Committee gets over $100,000,000 for Hwy that doesn't have any issues, and Hwy 2 which is in a Republican district gets a pittance even though almost 50 people have died there in the last decade, what would you call it?
When you hear people like Haugen tell you that "there's just not enough money because they keep voting against new taxes", it's doublespeak for "there's not enough money left after my pet projects are taken care of, so go fuck yourself".
p.s. that strawman Bush argument you threw out there? Sad, just sad.
Posted by: RobNix on March 14, 2008 08:14 AMSorry to learn of your meager financial circumstances. We've been quite fortunate in being able to indulge our children's athletic endeavors. But it is a relief to hear that you've managed to get yours' through college and successfully "flee Seattle." Like Rush always says: "anyone can make it in this country if they are willing to work hard."
I can't quite follow your comment on Social Security Benefits being taxed, but I think the argument is that SS is income and therefore taxable. It is not the same as your traditional IRA or 401K that are deducted from your salary before taxes are determined. We can discuss it more if you like, but it strikes me as off-topic here.
Congrats for your good sense to ride the bus, especially to the airport. I have to agree that the bus stop at 1st and Pike can get a little gamey at certain times of the day. My personal fave is 3rd and Pike, fewer tourists, more transients, and some robust interpersonal conflicts. I am curious though what combination of home and destinations would cause you to have to change buses at 1st and Pike?
I'm afraid I don't know anything about Obama's pastor. Does he change buses at 1st and Pike as well?
People will be injured and killed on that road, and your people could have stopped or at least dramatically reduced that. That's spilled blood that the democrats in THIS state are responsible for, Unk... and yet you don't whip out any of your moveon.org bullshit for THAT, do you?
This goes to the heart of the matter: democrats would and have sold out our troops in a second for purely partisan reasons, just like you people sold out the commuters of HWY 2 for purely partisan reasons... reasons for death, injury and blood that YOU seem quite proud of.
Starting to get a little concerned that the polls on Iraq are turning around? Starting to get a little worried that people are beginning to see thru the leftist bullshit?
Your concern for the troops and the people of Iraq is heartwarming. You complete and utter disregard for the bi-partisan injury and death you clowns are responsible for on HWY 2?
Not so much, hypocrite.
Posted by: Hinton on March 14, 2008 09:54 AMYour little outburst does nothing to solve the problem.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on March 14, 2008 10:12 AMAs for the floater, I can't figure out why it needs complete replacement. Everyone seems to say it does, but if so, why are they still using it? Same goes for viaduct.
I challenge you to think. Just because politicians and WDOT employees say it is so- it isn't. The best and brightest don't get elected and the best and brightest don't work for WDOT.
Posted by: swatter on March 14, 2008 10:47 AMIf you don't like who you got vote for the other guy. If enough people feel the same way you get a new guy who will solve the problem.
I hear and fully agree on what you are saying. You are happy to sit on your hands regarding the 520 bridge and the Alaskan Way viaduct and do nothing. Now why would you object if the Dem's do the same thing on US 2??
Yes? No? Maybe??
Maybe we should just let it fall since that's the only wan anything is going to be done about it. This is how the game is played:
Problem: Bridge sucks, too expensive to fix or replace without Federal help.
Solution: Ask for Federal help
Problem: Fed's say you need a plan first
Solution: Make a few plans let the voters decide.
Problem: Too many chefs got involved, the vote is meaningless, you get no Consensus/Plan of Action. Fed's still won't help cause you don't have a plan.
Solution: Bicker for a few more years, wait for an earthquake. Earthquake occurs, bridge collapses, some people die, we pay out a bunch of money. Fed's support building a new bridge using emergency Earthquake Relief funds. New Hwy-99 gets built.
This is exactly how it's playing out. Nothings going to change in this scenario till the bridge falls down.
We get the fed's to pay for the whole thing. Then we can gripe about the massive, bloated federal budget that wastes billions on useless infrastructure like transportation projects and whine about the Dem's not supporting out troops when we ask for another few hundred billion to fund the Iraq war for the next couple of months.
Talk about a win/win...
Dont let reality get in the way of power politics and liberal orthodoxy.
-M M Haugen and the empty Amtrak station, while Highway 2 systematically kills people.
-pull out of Iraq and 12 million kids under 14, half the country's population.......genocide. Just like Cambodia. Remember?
What ever happened to " Its for the children", Witttzy boy? Oh, sorry, that is only for dollars for teachers unions that vote Dem. My mistake.
Liberalism is like waking up and every day is a new day, gather round and cumbaya. Kind of liberating, I guess....
Back to reality....
Posted by: Hank on March 14, 2008 02:28 PMSeems like every time I respond to someone, some new idiot pops on with a series of inane statements and comments.
I don't know about Ms. Haugen's "empty Amtrak station", so I won't attempt to defend it or comment on it in any way.
I do know about US 2 in Washington, especially the stretch from Monroe to Wenatchee. Let me assure you Hank, it's just a highway. The design is outdated now, but it was certainly up to spec when it was originally built. It needs to be updated. But it does not "systematically kill people."
It's the people who drive on it that kill themselves and each other. I know of no accident on that road, fatality or otherwise, where operator error was not the primary cause of loss. If you have information to the contrary, I would be delighted to hear about it.
"-pull out of Iraq and 12 million kids under 14, half the country's population.......genocide. Just like Cambodia. Remember? "
What on earth is that supposed to mean? I do indeed remember Cambodia. Do you? You don't really sound like someone who is old enough to remember the first Gulf War, much less Cambodia. But the situation in Iraq is nothing akin to Cambodia.
It certainly is ironic that the folks who howled in protest when we told you Iraq would be another Vietnam are now using that era to somehow justify the current tragedy.
But like you say Hank... back to reality...
"So it's not lack of awareness, or insensitivity. I'm all for improving the US2 corridor. What's missing is the political will on both sides of the aisle to fix this problem."
False. There IS political will on the Republican side. You have absoultely no evidence defending that nonsensical comment. This is 100% the fault of the Democrats.
Rarely will I say it is all one side's fault. But this case is clear. Say all you want about partisanship and not voting for gas taxes, but at the end of the day, the job of the Democrats is to do what is best for the people of Washington, and instead, they are literally sacrificing lives of Washingtonians just to punish Republicans.
If the Democrats wanted to prove otherwise, they could do something very, very simple: live up to their promise to put safety on U.S. 2 as a higher priority than congestion relief (see Haugen's editorial in the Herald in January, which said exactly that).
My question: does Fred Walser support Senator Haugen's and the Democrats' decision to put SR 532 congestion relief and a Stanwood train station ahead of safety improvements on U.S. 2, or does he condemn the actions of the caucus he is attempting to join?
Simple question.
Posted by: pudge on March 15, 2008 12:32 PMGood to see that the persons driving along Route 2 have absolutely nothing to do with the accident rate there. No conservative would ever demand personal responsibility when the government exists to improve our lives via extra spending.
This rumor about government spending being somehow connected to taxation must be stopped. St Ronald of Reagan proclaimed that taxes can go down while spending can stay the same or rise, and nothing bad would happen. Thus, this must also be true. (A couple trillion dollars of new government debt is not bad. Just ask any modern-day conservative in Congress or the White House.)
Closer to home, which party recently complained about our state budget being too large?
Red herring fallacy. Obviously, drivers have to do with accidents EVERYWHERE. The problems with I-5 north of Arlington and the cable barriers are caused by drivers, yet the Democrats found tens of millions to fix that problem.
This rumor about government spending being somehow connected to taxation must be stopped.
Straw man fallacy. No one ever said they are not connected.
St Ronald of Reagan proclaimed that taxes can go down while spending can stay the same or rise, and nothing bad would happen.
False.
A couple trillion dollars of new government debt is not bad. Just ask any modern-day conservative in Congress or the White House.
False.
Closer to home, which party recently complained about our state budget being too large?
Straw man fallacy, on several counts.
First, most obviously if you know the issues, the Republican plan to fund U.S. 2 would not result in new taxes, and would be fully funded, thereby not increasing the deficit at all. So to say this has anything to do with the issues the Republicans have with the budget shows you don't know the issues.
Second, and more importantly, the Republican line is not "we should cut all government spending." The Republican line is that we are spending too much money on the wrong things. Fixing U.S. 2 is not a wrong thing -- it's a right and necessary thing -- so it has nothing to do with the complaints the Republicans have about out-of-control spending.
tensor, come back when you are prepared to a. argue against things Republicans are actually saying, instead of things you made up and b. understand the issues you're attempting to argue.
Posted by: pudge on March 15, 2008 10:35 PMRed herring fallacy. Obviously, drivers have to do with accidents EVERYWHERE. The problems with I-5 north of Arlington and the cable barriers are caused by drivers, yet the Democrats found tens of millions to fix that problem.
And your evidence for that claim is?
This rumor about government spending being somehow connected to taxation must be stopped.
Straw man fallacy. No one ever said they are not connected.
"Democrats in Olympia aren't taking serious, life-saving safety improvements on Highway 2 seriously because local Republicans won't vote for tax increases."
St Ronald of Reagan proclaimed that taxes can go down while spending can stay the same or rise, and nothing bad would happen.
False.
While some called this crazy theory "supply-side economics", St. Ronald's cult followers called it "Reaganomics". A traditional, Northeastern Republican called it "voodoo economics".
A couple trillion dollars of new government debt is not bad. Just ask any modern-day conservative in Congress or the White House.
False.
If addtional government debt is not bad, why did the House Republicans vote for it six years running, 2001-2006?
Closer to home, which party recently complained about our state budget being too large?
Straw man fallacy, on several counts.
First, most obviously if you know the issues, the Republican plan to fund U.S. 2 would not result in new taxes, and would be fully funded, thereby not increasing the deficit at all.
The Republicans propose additional government spending. There are only three ways to do this: (1) increase taxes, (2) cut other programs, (3) increase the public debt. As they always scream opposition to (1), and have not proposed (2), their only option is (3). And we liberals spend irresponsibly?
tensor, come back when you are prepared to a. argue against things Republicans are actually saying, instead of things you made up and b. understand the issues you're attempting to argue.
Only when you agree to the same, Pudge.
Posted by: tensor on March 16, 2008 11:19 PMUm. What? Are you questioning the self-evident fact that drivers cause the problems, or the well-known fact that Democrats found tens of millions for the problem?
"Democrats in Olympia aren't taking serious, life-saving safety improvements on Highway 2 seriously because local Republicans won't vote for tax increases."
Um. OK, you are obviously not quite with the rest of us here. So I won't bother asking you to explain how this quote backs up your claim that anyone said, or thinks, that spending and taxation are unrelated. It quite obviously does not back up your claim, at all.
While some called this crazy theory "supply-side economics", St. Ronald's cult followers called it "Reaganomics". A traditional, Northeastern Republican called it "voodoo economics".
So? "Supply-side economics" does not, in any way, claim that "taxes can go down while spending can stay the same or rise, and nothing bad would happen." Indeed, Reagan's budget proposals would have resulted in a balanced budget. It's the Democrats who increased spending.
If addtional government debt is not bad, why did the House Republicans vote for it six years running, 2001-2006?
Each had their own motivation, but what's easy to see is that Republican voters disavowed their Republican legislators specifically because of that, because those people are NOT conservative. A conservative in Congress is someone who OPPOSED the dramatic increases in spending.
Only when you agree to the same, Pudge.
Every point you tried to make in this discussion is objectively false, and proven this.
You do not understand conservatism or Reaganomics, as proven; your belief that the Democrats did not find tens of millions for cable barriers (along a stretch of NEARLY PERFECTLY STRAIGHT AND LEVEL HIGHWAY) was proven false; your claim that the motivations of Democrats in not funding U.S. 2 somehow proves that people think taxation and spending are not related was demonstrated to be illogical; your claim that one who thinks we should make fixing trouble spots a priority means that we are ignoring driver error was shown to be fallacious; your belief that that one who thinks that being in favor of spending on some things, should not have a problem with a 33 percent increase in spending over four years, was demonstrated false.
Perhaps you should quit while you are very, very, very far behind.
Since the Republicans have not proposed fixing it with our surplus funds, they may believe it's not that much of a problem, which would make their expressions of concern phony. Maybe they value money over human lives. (I'll accept that, if you insist, but it will be hard to square with how their brethren behaved at the federal level for many years.) Maybe their roster of informative sources runs from KVI to this blog to KVI to some fake 'think tank', and thus they have no idea a surplus exists. Or maybe they don't want to talk about a Democratic-created surplus because it will make Dino Rossi cry. Whatever their reason, their actions reveal their either their lack of immediate concern, or unfitness for their offices. (Those are by no means mutually exclusive, as the voters have noticed.)
Now that we've got that fake "issue" out of the way, we can wrap up the rest. No, I don't understand Reaganomics, for the same reason I don't understand Lysenkoism, creationism, or Intelligent Design. (Apologies for the redundant redundancy.) None of these are systems of thought for understanding the world, and therefore we should not pretend they are. But please, Pudge, show us your great grasp of this Hollywood divorcee's supposed 'economics': use it to explain how Clinton's high marginal tax rates were followed by a long economic expansion, one so good it dumped hundreds of billions of dollars into our treasury, even as our government's spending increased.
Hey, but thanks for making my point: your Saint Ronald of Reagan is not fallible. At least not in your mind.
Your high school debating club's teacher used those logical terms to make your fellow students laugh at you, didn't she? It must have hurt a lot, for you to think that anyone else would cringe in fear when you use them. They were laughing at you, not with you, Pudge, and here's why: The Rapturous Reign of St. Ronnie the Righteous coincided with six years of his party running the Senate. If the House Democrats could push all those he-man-manly Republican men around so easily, maybe, just maybe, your Patron Saint of Arming Mullahs wasn't man enough to rule? (At least not as manly as Bill Clinton, who repeatedly punked a majority of both Houses for a similar length of time with such style, he made it look easy.)
Just sayin'.
Posted by: tensor on March 17, 2008 08:22 PMTell that to Haugen and the Democrats.
Since the Republicans have not proposed fixing it with our surplus funds, they may believe it's not that much of a problem
The Democrats -- led by Senator Haugen -- told them this WOULD NOT HAPPEN. Period. So the Republicans came up with other proposals.
Once again, you do not understand the actual issues. Color me unsurprised.
Indeed, Haugen said she AGREES that Hwy 2 is really that dangerous, and she STILL thinks an Amtrak station in Stanwood is more important. Of course, she also said she would not risk safety for congestion relief, so we know she is a liar: either Hwy 2 is not unsafe, or she DID risk safety for congestion relief. One way or another, she lied.
Now that we've got that fake "issue" out of the way
You tried. Unfortunately, all you got out of the way was the need to further demonstrate your ignorance. Yet, you persist:
I don't understand Lysenkoism, creationism, or Intelligent Design. (Apologies for the redundant redundancy.)
No, sorry, there is no redundancy there. The fact that you think any of those is like the other only further demonstrates your ignorance. If you like, I could show you how they are so clearly different, but I doubt you are capable of understanding something so obviously true.
None of these are systems of thought for understanding the world
So? What's that got to do with your lack of ability to understand them?
But please, Pudge, show us your great grasp of this Hollywood divorcee's supposed 'economics': use it to explain how Clinton's high marginal tax rates were followed by a long economic expansion, one so good it dumped hundreds of billions of dollars into our treasury, even as our government's spending increased.
"Followed by" in the same sense that Reagan's tax cuts were also followed by the exact same economic expansion. Clinton increased taxes in 1993, and the only immediate economic expansion was the one that started in September 1992, when we came out of the recession under President Bush. It was moderate -- to be kind. The serious economic stimulus for the huge economic expansion that gave us a surplus came directly after the 1997 tax CUT.
I am beginning to wonder if you are capable of getting ANYTHING right, AT ALL.
Your high school debating club's teacher used those logical terms to make your fellow students laugh at you, didn't she?
Yes, a very typical leftist tactic: when confronted with facts, resort to mere ad hominem.
Perhaps you should try winning a single actual argument before you try to denigrate my debating skill? Just a suggestion.
The Rapturous Reign of St. Ronnie the Righteous coincided with six years of his party running the Senate. If the House Democrats could push all those he-man-manly Republican men around so easily, maybe, just maybe, your Patron Saint of Arming Mullahs wasn't man enough to rule?
So you are saying that Reagan and the Senate should have ignored the Constitution and forced the House to comply? My, my. I knew you were ignorant; I didn't know you also were in favor of violating the law of the land.
Obviously, Reagan had to compromise to get anything done. Tax cuts and increased military power were his most important broad goals, and to get that, he had to allow the Democrats to increase social spending. I could make a note here about Democrats holding the security of the country hostage to get their social agenda through, but as it is so obvious, I won't bother.
Posted by: pudge on March 17, 2008 11:56 PM