In addition to the broader discussion of Dino Rossi's transportation plan below, note this twist:
By proposing to eliminate the sales tax on "hybrid, electric, and alternative-fuel vehicles," Rossi might well be doing more than his Democratic opponent to try to incentivize the use of less oil-reliant vehicles.
And in stating his belief that "Seattle ought to get back their waterfront" he's moving farther forward on an issue near-and-dear to the hearts of some on the left than Gregoire has gone in her four years in the Governor's mansion.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 16, 2008 07:16 AM | Email ThisHow true Eric. In my own circles, in conversing with liberal colleagues, I have learned that I, who doesn't believe in the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming, have done more to reduce my CO2 emissions than ANY liberal I have come upon. And I am just living withing my means.
Why is it that liberals don't want to themselves live by the rules they want to impose on everyone else?
Electric cars might not be the ultimate answer, but we do know the gas guzzler must go.
The combustion engine cost us way more then the price of the fuel put into it.
Posted by: Doc on April 16, 2008 07:42 AMAnd so the Democrat strategy to bring the USA standard of living down to third world status is continuing, instead of raising third world countries standard of living.
With the Democrats, yes, indeed there will be lesser need of cars since there won't be jobs. The USA will become the country left behind and fed leftovers from all other countries. That is the Democrat utopia and the details fed to the minions by billionaire Al Gore.
At least Rossi has a plan. $600 million for US2 is a good start. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Queen adopt the same plan.
However, I don't agree with "take back the waterfront" nonsense. The viaduct is the waterfront and has been a part of the waterfront since I can remember.
If you want to bring back the 'real' waterfront, put those fish processing plants in business again. Go after the Boldt decision which wiped out the US fishery in this area.
How many know that Elliot Bay had a monster shrimpery back in its day?
I don't want fluffy condos; I want nice blue collar jobs.
Posted by: swatter on April 16, 2008 07:49 AMuh, need I remind you this administration is Republican.
LOL, nice to find the 27% of the country that still loves Bush and denies global warming. I thought you all were myth.
Posted by: Doc on April 16, 2008 07:54 AMBad, Dino!
Get rid of Viaduct...yes! Good boy!
Tunnel? No tunnel..bad boy.
Surface street...yes...here's a num-num...mmmm.
Posted by: John Bailo on April 16, 2008 07:58 AMI have seen no evidence to support such a conclusion - unless one wants to rely on studies that use flawed data. Very flawed data, and flawed methodology. This whole thing may be plausible, but the possibility that it is is somewhere in the one to three percent range of liklihood.
Posted by: JDH on April 16, 2008 08:07 AMIf you ignore the preponderance of evidence and the global scientific consensus.
Posted by: Doc on April 16, 2008 08:21 AMPlease look up the term Oxymoron.
Look up the scientific method and look up the term consensus.
You are a scientific illiterate or you are an idiot, otr you are both.
I have examined Anthropogenic Catistrophic Global Warming reports and studies personally and frequently the conclusions drawn cannot be supported by the data presented, when the data supports the conclusions, drawn the data used is frequently suspect.
Junk science
Posted by: JDH on April 16, 2008 08:32 AMHorse puckey. The internal combustion engine is the biggest enabler of the mightiest economy and the greatest increases in living standards and human freedom ever seen in human history.
Quacks like Christine Gregoire, who want to 'get 50% of us out of our cars' in the next decade or two, have deliberately blinded themselves to the benefits of machinery based on those engines. Then they distort their faces and strike dramatic poses and bellow that the costs of using them are too horrible to bear and must be terminated.
Internal combustion engines: let her try running a farm without them; let her try transporting groceries from farm to her pampered urban constituents without them; let her try attending the next Democratic Convention, or visiting an ailing relative in Walla Walla without them; let her try building a construction job or shipping any freight without them.
Oh, I forgot, she's never produced goods or useful services for the public in her lifetime. She just doesn't get it, when it comes to the working world. She's a queen bee fit only for ruling the rest of us rubes.
Well, we can all play the game of blinding ourselves to benefits while wailing about costs. But entirely too many people play it - although most of them are the pampered urbanites who absolutely depend on those benefits, carelessly naive about the physical processes that bring them their entitlements.
A modest proposal: Let's just try forcing folks out of their cars. We may actually enjoy the results in some ways. Oh, the non-urban economies would immediately collapse, but wouldn't that just be following the mandates of the Growth Management Act, cancelling out sprawl and returning those rural acres to a Ron Sims wilderness? Or is that just an urban fantasy by 10,000 'Friends' of Washington? What do you mean, urbanites would starve? Don't groceries come from Whole Foods? Just go there and get more.
Yes, yes, Sierra Clubbers would have to walk from home to their eco-tours of Chile and wilderness worship in Montana, but what of it? Don't they like walking? And wouldn't all those bothersome power boats and skimobiles and Harley-Davidsons be silenced forever?
More benefits - all the imported rent-a-mobs like the barbarians who trashed Seattle at WTO convention would be history without internal combustion engines. As would ski resorts and professional sports. The Indians would have to row their boats to harpoon the sacred whales, evening the odds. Road rage would come to a screeching halt. No more chain saws.
Is the abolition of freedom of movement worth the blissful quiet of urban peace and love?
Get a second opinion.
Posted by: Yaddacubed on April 16, 2008 09:05 AMDidn't Gregoire say a month ago that "the Sonics are gone and there's nothing I can do about."
Then Dino comes out with a plan to save the Sonics. (Fast Forward)
Yesterday Gregoire now want to sue to save the Sonics...
Just watch, Gregoire will now want to support the tunnel option in the coming months...
He panders to your fantasies that the answers lie simply in building more freeways, he expands the size of proposed projects but magically cuts their cost without detailing specifics (I'll build it faster! is not a specific worth debating), he promises cuts in congestion that credible transportation theories show will not solve congestion, and he pays for it by diverting taxes from one pot to another, never explaining how or where he'll make such dramatic cuts...because, and here's the best part of the fantasy, he'll do all of this without raising taxes!
Yeah! Score! The magic of Republicanism! Just ignore the smoke and mirrors, folks. This is, afterall, pure fantasy.
The Republicans of Washington are watching the game of governance from their lazyboys, and Rossi is the armchair quarterback-in-chief.
Get real, get in the game, or go home.
Posted by: Timothy on April 16, 2008 09:29 AMSo Doc, you grow you own food, heat your own home. did you build your home from tress you cut down yourself?
Gezzz I could go on for hours on this foolish statement.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 16, 2008 09:31 AMIs the Doc really a new moniker for the Dufus?
Posted by: swatter on April 16, 2008 09:51 AMDoc, you are like a barbarian wandering into a library and snatching at the books with pretty bindings, with no comprehension of the painstaking labors that developed the learning in them, nor of the different sorts of learning.
'Preponderance of evidence' is a precise term used in gaging the relative worth of testimony or evidence in English common law. It has no value in science, and must yield immediately to better measurements and observations.
'Science' is a rigorous method for skeptically examining hypotheses. No hypothesis is ever 'proven' correct, and must face and defeat all skepticism forever. Science is NOT a democratic process settled by voting. Nor is science the exclusion of evidence that doesn't support a temporary majority of protagonists.
A 'scientific consensus' is cocktail party gabble. It is no proof of any hypothesis (AGW in this case) - it simply indicates herd mentality. 'Global scientific consensus' indicates a bigger herd, but that just means a more damaging stampede.
If your argument is the product of NEA schooling, it's time to recognize that the warranty is up and it's time to get a fact-based education.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on April 16, 2008 10:03 AMSee, everything in science is theory, but through peer reviewed papers a consensus is reached and the theory becomes acceptable fact. Of course paradigms can shift ...
No body remembers me? I was the one telling you all Dino would never win in the first time.
I forgot what a support group for STUPID this place is.
Posted by: Doc on April 16, 2008 10:09 AMCan you honestly say with a straight face that enough research into cosmic rays and water vapor's effect on the climate has been done to disprove that they could have caused 'climate change'?
As for the actual topic of this post, at least Rossi is taking a position on the viaduct and 520. The Queen simply looks to whichever way the wind is blowing at the moment. I don't agree with the tunnel, but I would like a leader who you know, actually leads. There is no leadership in Olympia right now. A real leader would have made the decision and gone with it. It's a state highway and while she could have listened to Seattle's opinion, the decision wasn't theirs to make.
Posted by: Palouse on April 16, 2008 10:20 AM"Consensus finds a way through conflicting opinions and interests. Consensus is achieved when the outcome of discussion leaves everyone feeling they have been given enough of what they want. The processes of proper science could hardly be more different. The accomplished politician is a negotiator, a conciliator, finding agreement where none seemed to exist. The accomplished scientist is an original, an extremist, disrupting established patterns of thought. Good science involves perpetual, open debate, in which every objection is aired and dissents are sharpened and clarified, not smoothed over.
Often the argument will continue for ever, and should, because the objective of science is not agreement on a course of action, but the pursuit of truth. Occasionally that pursuit seems to have been successful and the matter is resolved, not by consensus, but by the exhaustion of opposition. We do not say that there is a consensus over the second law of thermodynamics, a consensus that Paris is south of London or that two and two are four. We say that these are the way things are. Nor is there a consensus on evolution since creationists will never be reconciled to that theory. There is no possibility of a compromise, in which Darwinians agree that a few animals went into the ark with Noah and their opponents acknowledge that most species evolved."
Posted by: JDH on April 16, 2008 10:31 AM__________________________________________________
"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period." - Michael Crichton
Posted by: AP on April 16, 2008 10:33 AMSeems to be doing that by feeding them lies and insulting the intelligence of the King County voters with his magic no-tax solution. Everyone knows road's coast money and he won't be able to get anything done with the super-majority Democrats in Legislature telling him he's full of it every chance they get. Rossi's plans look and sound more like a pipe dream.
We need more capacity in certain areas. We also need to fix design flaws. What's your solution, doing nothing? Building billion dollar snail rail in Seattle where only 10% of the population lives? Extending snail rail to Tacoma and Everett even though express busses are faster and significantly cheaper? If you don't know where the savings are coming from, you haven't been paying attention closely to state govt. The unions, lawyers, and environmental wackos will see the cuts. By just ending cronyism, we will save money.
Posted by: AP on April 16, 2008 10:44 AMPerhaps you'd be more comfortable living somewhere other than in a pluralistic democracy?
It is easy for Rossi, in the comfort of his lazyboy, to declare whatever nonsense he chooses. That is only considered "taking a position" by fellow armchair quarterbacks.
Rossi isn't even in the game.
Posted by: Timothy on April 16, 2008 10:45 AMWe here in Seattle have every right to say how the place we live and work in looks. We control the construction permits. We are autonomous. Too bad the rest of the State won't stop depending on our tax $$.
Welfare counties talk too much.
Posted by: Doc on April 16, 2008 10:48 AMIt isn't a lie, it isn't a pipe dream. All Rossi has to do is educate people to all the waste in this state that is going to crony unions, lawyers, and religious extremist environmentalists. We are wasting tons of money that should be used on projects, not paying off Democrat cronyies and special interests. The Democrats should be scared. Their corrupt cabal is about to come to an end. If they block the Rossi reforms, be prepared for a Democrat minority in Olympia within a few election cycles.
Posted by: AP on April 16, 2008 10:49 AMRossi Slogan--
Gregoire mistakes costly motion for A-c-t-i-o-n!
Rossi will cost-effectively get things built by replacing the entrenched bureaucrat numbnutz with A-C-T-I-O-N to get things built on the ground rather than more piles of paper!!!
(or something like that).
Do-er vs. Talker
ActionMan vs. Talker
Problem is, you don't even have a team in the game? Apart from Rob McKenna, the Republicans have nobody in the wings, nobody rising on the State level to do anything of substance.
And, Dino Rossi is showing us exactly why. He's nothing more than a sideline wannabe. That transportation dream looks exactly like what it is. The scribblings of somebody who has no clue how State governance actually happens.
Problem is, he's like the candyman for the deluded who think that you can solve all our problems by building more roads, overriding the will of voters, and borrowing money to pay for it all.
Your not even in the game. Put on some sneakers, run a few laps, and then we can talk.
Posted by: Timothy on April 16, 2008 10:55 AMHis point is is perfectly valid; there is no such thing as consensus in science. It is either science fact or not, and AGW is not science fact.
Your quote above screams how big of a closed minded zealot you are. You look for trivial things to dismiss valid points. You religious flat earthers need to open your minds.
Posted by: AP on April 16, 2008 10:55 AMProblem is, you don't even have a team in the game? Apart from Rob McKenna, the Republicans have nobody in the wings, nobody rising on the State level to do anything of substance.
And, Dino Rossi is showing us exactly why. He's nothing more than a sideline wannabe. That transportation dream looks exactly like what it is. The scribblings of somebody who has no clue how State governance actually happens.
Problem is, he's like the candyman for the deluded who think that you can solve all our problems by building more roads, overriding the will of voters, and borrowing money to pay for it all.
Your not even in the game. Put on some sneakers, run a few laps, and then we can talk.
Posted by: Timothy on April 16, 2008 10:56 AMWhat is your transportation solution?
Posted by: AP on April 16, 2008 10:57 AMVersus issuing a bunch of fluffy press releases about how you'll tear down that Viaduct (in 2012) and doing nothing for 4 years. She is in a position of power, yet has done NOTHING to make a friggin decision. That's a FAILURE of leadership.
Posted by: Palouse on April 16, 2008 11:01 AMHaha, somehow we can magically pay for all our transportation needs without having inflation, raising taxes, adjusting for the mandatory minimum wage increases, and not hiring illegal immigrants to do it, by cutting spending? What planet do you live on AP.
We are wasting tons of money that should be used on projects, not paying off Democrat cronyies and special interests.
GOP has their own cronies, Tim Eyman's concrete initiative (I-745) proved that. Wonder how much of Rossi's campaign fund is coming from Construction companies who will benefit from this? Why do these projects mainly benefit King County where only 28% or or so of the population lives? Especially since I-745 did so well here just a few years ago. Seems to me that Rossi is pandering to one country rather than targeting the whole state.
If they block the Rossi reforms, be prepared for a Democrat minority in Olympia within a few election cycles.
Maybe the Dem's will want a more balanced solution rather than a pipe-dream plan that's remarkably similar to one that voters rejected just a few short years ago. I think all voters would feel good about the Legislature respecting their needs.
Dino Rossi is showing, through the release of his transportation scam (it's not a plan, it's a joke) that he understands nothing about transportation or governance, and lots about peanut-gallery pandering.
Posted by: Timothy on April 16, 2008 11:08 AMYep. Stop the handouts to the unions, lawyers, and environmental wackos. We bleed money in this state with excessive union favors and environmental reviews that are basically Democrat special interest handouts. Abolish prevailing wage, streamline environmental reviews, etc. We will save millions of dollars that can go directly into projects. We have the funds, we just are not allocating them properly.
"GOP has their own cronies, Tim Eyman's concrete initiative (I-745) proved that." - Kaelin
So the huge majority of us that use our state's roads are cronies? Give me a break.
Posted by: AP on April 16, 2008 11:12 AMIf we continue to do nothing and it falls it the big one, then the entire country pays for it rather than King County/Washington State taxpayers. Seems like a brilliant plan than wasting millions on a tunnel that can't be expanded, and was the least favorite of the three options presented in the vote.
I must commend Dino on his brilliant way of ignoring the Seattle taxpayer wishes while pandering to the GOP arm-chair drivers who never use the AWV.
Go back to your leftist fantasy land. I am sick of these pathetic talking points. We have a real transportation crisis here, and flinging tired cliches does nothing. And yeah, I have studied this.
I will take Rossi's solution over yours which is the Gregoire model: talk a lot and do nothing.
Let's see who benefited from this idea the most, not the taxpayer but the construction companies. Geez, the state GOP would never get in bed with people who want to make lots of money. They would never hide Darth Timmy to push their agenda.
Abolish prevailing wage, streamline environmental reviews, etc.
Abolish environmental reviews? Let's just do away with the environment all together, in fact lets just get rid of all regulations so construction companies can make a quick buck. We all know unregulated companies do the honest moral thing over making their stock price go up. =P
If you want to build faster abolish the NIBY's. Oh wait, they vote.
We will save millions of dollars that can go directly into projects.
Now tell me AP what is the end result of building more roads? Faster movement? You get to work in 20 min instead of 30min? I dunno if spending billions of dollars is worth 10 min off my commute.
So that was your argument against Sounder and Snail Rail?
"Abolish environmental reviews?"
No, streamline. Abolish the prevailing wage.
"Now tell me AP what is the end result of building more roads?"
More capacity, a better system. Certain roadways need additional capacity. I don't think Rossi's plan goes far enough. Do you ever use 167? Fix that and you also take some pressure off of I-5. Because of our geography, it makes economic and environmental sense to expand and complete the more geographically friendly route.
Posted by: AP on April 16, 2008 11:40 AMOMG, a REAL (as opposed to Rossi's made up one) transportation crisis? Do share. People not getting to work fast enough? Are goods & services not reaching their desired locations because of crumbling pavement? Are hundreds of people dying on Hwy 2 every year?
This is a special interest giveaway disguised as congestion relief. the economy is moving, I'd be more interested on how Rossi is going to deal with the foreclosures in this state? What about hiring more police officers? These seem more immediate crisis as people have more money invested in home values than they do in their commute.
And yeah, I have studied this.
You a transportation specialist AP? Maybe you should go to Los Angeles and see how bigger/better/larger freeways work there. Traffic should improve now that the Sonics fans aren't clogging up I-5/SR-520/Hwy 99 trying to get to the Key Arena.
Why, it isn't his job. If you care about affordability, then why do you favor the Growth Management Act that has artificially jacked housing prices by 6 figures and encourages development in Yelm over King County?
"You a transportation specialist AP? Maybe you should go to Los Angeles and see how bigger/better/larger freeways work there. Traffic should improve now that the Sonics fans aren't clogging up I-5/SR-520/Hwy 99 trying to get to the Key Arena."
I am not suggesting we expand I-5 (except south of Tumwater and at the Seneca Street Exit), I am suggesting we upgrade and fix our highway system. What is your solution to 167? Do nothing? What is your solution for the viaduct, which I reguarly use, do nothing? That isn't a solution. We have a broken highway system tanks to two decades of dumb ideas and inaction, it is time we fix those errors.
Posted by: AP on April 16, 2008 11:46 AMI voted against it, and will likely continue to vote against it. Though it will likely increase my home value.
No, streamline. Abolish the prevailing wage.
Translation: Encourage them to cut corners to save money.
Certain roadways need additional capacity
Or they need people to stop using them so damn much. =P Yes, I agree certain roadways have reached capacity, but some of that is by poor design (like I-5 south from Northgate through downtown).
Do you ever use 167?
Nope. Though I hear you can buy yourself access to the HOV lane. =P
Because of our geography, it makes economic and environmental sense to expand and complete the more geographically friendly route.
I see, we should expand because there are too many people driving solo?
Maybe a better solution would be to give commercial vehicles use of special lanes during peak hours so they can get to their destinations faster and improve the economy.
No, it is cutting away the special interests fat.
"I see, we should expand because there are too many people driving solo? "
No, so trucks can drive on flat ground and save fuel by not having to truck up 700 feet over the South Center Hill. To provide an alternative to I-5 when there is a major accident.
"Maybe a better solution would be to give commercial vehicles use of special lanes during peak hours so they can get to their destinations faster and improve the economy."
Maybe we should cut the special interest fat and allocate 100% of the gas tax revenues to roads. That will fix our road system and keep the economy humming. The gas tax is a user tax, so if you are against roads, you should be in favor of a gas tax decrease.
Posted by: AP on April 16, 2008 11:55 AMSo your saying the GOP should not care about the poor or the predatory lending practices that happened in this state? How elitist of you.
If you care about affordability, then why do you favor the Growth Management Act that has artificially jacked housing prices by 6 figures and encourages development in Yelm over King County?
Because I favor density and would rather not have Port Angeles become a bedroom community for Seattle. The state ends up spending more money building items (like roads/sewage/water) to support the new expansion communities that could be better served by higher density in existing areas.
Go to Louisville, KY sometime if you want to see the effects of unregulated growth. It's sprawl city out there.
What I am saying is that maintaining a constitutional
republic is fraught with peril. There is a history of
pressure being brought and placed upon the financial
sustainability of representative government by people
who "want" without regard to their contribution. AND
this includes people (producers) who look to the
government to give them illegitimate advantages in the
marketplace.
How can anyone have any trust in a government that
raids a trust fund set up to care for the elderly and
infirm to fund anything? AND I mean ANYTHING?
I'm talking Republicans and Democrats here. My
personal opinion is that, for the most part, people
seek elected office in pursuit of power. Both sides?
Yes both sides.
I don't buy my mother's assertion that they went in
good and the system corrupted them. I say they were
cold calculating bastards who care about personal
power first and they made a cold calculated decision
in their alliances.
Let's take a look at Wall Street and the WSJ for a
minute. I read the WSJ every morning and for TEN YEARS
the WSJ has editorialized about what GOVERNMENT
DICTATED mortgage policies would bring. I'm serious,
TEN YEARS. Now I admit they advised taking advantage
of the current situation (you show me ONE damn instance
wherein the NYT has not done the same), BUT they
editorialized non-stop that it was BAD FISCAL POLICY
(again show me ONE damn instance wherein the NYT has
done the same) on a macro level.
Have you heard that from anybody but me? I doubt it.
The WSJ has a responsibility to inform investors. No?
Actually yes they do. The WSJ told it's readers that
"you can make money by taking advantage of what the
GOVERNMENT has created, but be ready to bail out when
this thing blows up, AND IT WILL." Good financial
advice? Hell yes. The warning that it was not Good
governance? Damn right - on the money...
So you show me where the NYT has editorialized
against taking advantage of the easy credit market
(created by government policy) BEFORE the blow up. It
is the same government that you trust and I don't,
GWB's fiscal policies perpetuated this mess. Remember
the government is not GWB alone, it is congress as
well, and probably more so.
The WSJ readers are CONSUMERS of financial info. Those
who took time to read the WSJ and Investor's Business
Daily were prepared. Those who read the NYT ... well
let's just say they are the consumers we worry about
when it comes voting time.
They both were told...AND WSJ readers will take
advantage of any program set up to "bail out
homeowners" (actually mostly consisting of idiot
investors who wanted to flip for profit but were half
educated and mortgage BROKERS and investors in
securities backed by shitty mortgages).
So here lies the rub: I have a mortgage banker, I
don't deal with mortgage brokers, PERIOD. Any
investment broker. My mortgage BANKER is not laid off,
I am not in a financial pickle. I would not be in a
financial pickle if my income was a fraction of what
it is, I may be would be in a smaller house, or own
less investment real estate, but in the the same basic
financial position. So where would the person who was
dealing with a mortgage broker be? May be rich, BUT
probably staring at foreclosure or multiple
foreclosures.
AND in the interest of helping some people who would
be truly deserving - POLITICIANS want the government
to take from me and bail out those who CHOSE to
GAMBLE on their financial future? Let me just say
this, "go pound sand." What they want me to do is save
their sorry asses.
Government, through unsound fiscal policy, drove up
the price of real property I purchased in the last
decade. I paid that, BUT to expect me to advocate for
a bail out of "hard cases" when the outcome will be a
further transfer of wealth I created to speculators
and mortgage brokers...GET F'N LOST.
There will be suffering, but the cure is basically
stealing from the responsible to indemnify speculators
and opportunists, disguised as empathy for those
relatively few hard cases.
So let's talk "greater good" of society, shall we?
There will be hard cases of responsible people who
suffer. But further government intervention portends a
perpetuation of government indemnification of
irresponsibility and opportunism. Is that what a
sustainable economy is built on?
The "Law of Unintended Consequences" comes into play
here. I say "government" knew of and accepted the
consequences - "Big Government" types would like you
to think they were not aware of the outcome of these
policies.
Before you answer make sure you understand the concept
of "red lining" as it applies to the differential in
mortgage approval rates in traditionally
"disadvantaged communities" and WHAT your government
did to "fix that injustice."
Did it help people who had the "protected" skin color
to "get them into" mortgages they could not afford?
Well if the only way to do so was to offer a product
that adjusted, history has shown... What was the
alternative, to offer a product that was "out of reach
financially" or to approve "risky" mortgages only to
people with the "correct" pigmentation? That is
discrimination and proscribed by the 14th amendment.
Make no mistake - when government decries "outcome,"
it comes at a cost. Government said "you shall" to the
mortgage broker community and we are now dealing with
th consequences.
Unintended consequences - or consequences be damned? I
say they said consequences be damned and that is why I
do not trust expansion of government.
More frequently known as "cutting corners to make a buck".
To provide an alternative to I-5 when there is a major accident.
I see, so driving 40 miles out of the way is the better solution to save time/gas? You sound more delusional than Rossi, maybe you should do the math on that.
Maybe we should cut the special interest fat and allocate 100% of the gas tax revenues to roads.
How will that work with McCain's proposed Gas Tax reduction? No revenue + spending millions of dollars on roads. How does that work again?
Roads are nice but sometimes people take buses or ride bikes. What about the ferry system, you don't want to deprive an experienced ferry commuter like pbj of his daily commute?
The gas tax is a user tax, so if you are against roads, you should be in favor of a gas tax decrease.
But the gas tax is patriotic, it artificially raises prices so that our foreign enemies don't profit from our commutes. We as American's band together and take public transit to send a message to the enemies of America...we will not tolerate you sponsoring terrorism. =P
That will fix our road system and keep the economy humming.
I thought you said earlier that it wasn't his job to help the taxpayers of this state. It's not OK for Rossi to help the poor schmoes who have the bank foreclose on their house, but it's fine he helps the car owning commuters who we will throww billions of dollars at the save ten minutes on their commutes. This plan makes it sound like Rossi is an elitist who doesn't care about the small town voters and aims only to help the big cities where he lost by large margins.
Yes, ignore infrastructure so we can get other people to pay for it when it falls down. Is that the Gregoire platform? If we judge by her actions, it would seem so.
Posted by: Palouse on April 16, 2008 12:32 PMReplacing AWV is expensive, thankfully for us Rossi has chosen the most expensive and least efficient option which the voters dislike and he will somehow magically be able to pull money out of a hat to pay for.
I seem to recall someone calculating the numbers on this for the other thread and decided it was a waste of money to replace the AWV since it's cheaper to repair it. At least Gregoire is living in reality vs Rossi's transportation LaLa land.
Yeah Duffie, when you started at #1 I knew it was doomed! lol
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 16, 2008 12:59 PMIncreasing the size of government by 33% in a few short years is expensive too. That increase would more than pay for a tunnel. I haven't seen where the money is coming from (yet), but at least he is showing some leadership, something devoid in Olympia right now.
At least Gregoire is living in reality vs Rossi's transportation LaLa land.
If reality is doing nothing, then you're correct, she's doing nothing. That's not leadership.
Posted by: Palouse on April 16, 2008 01:05 PMSo if she builds the option Seattle voters like least that's an appropriate solution? Nice try.
I haven't seen where the money is coming from (yet), but at least he is showing some leadership, something devoid in Olympia right now.
If he was really concerned about transportation he could get those fund raising calls out and challenge the voters to pony up and embarrass Gregoire.
What did Rossi do for the last 41 months to improve transportation (or anything else for that matter)? Looks like Rossi sat quietly, twiddled his thumbs, and waited to run again. That's quality leadership right there.
I would give her credit for doing SOMETHING. It would at least show leadership on an important issue.
What did Rossi do for the last 41 months to improve transportation
That wasn't his job, it was hers. She failed, miserably.
Posted by: Palouse on April 16, 2008 01:24 PMSure, and then turn around and bash her for not fixing Hwy 2, or spending too much money on something that only benefits Democrat controlled Seattle, or maybe she's diverting money away from more important transportation projects. Whatever she does, there will always be something to fault her for in the GOP mindset.
That wasn't his job, it was hers. She failed, miserably.
Go to the other thread where people accuse Darcy for not doing anything for the last 18 months, therefore she's not qualified. Dino's been sitting on his ass for twice that long, yet he's qualified?
If a person buys a home he can't afford with a loan that has an interest rate he nows is eventually going to go up and isn't able to repay, why is it the government's (and by extension, you and me the taxpayers') responsibility to bail him out when he's about to lose his home?
Posted by: Mike H. on April 16, 2008 01:48 PMHey, some has to look out for you. (-:
But I have noticed that you seem to be the first poster on many of these discussions.
Just can't wait to come in and kill the thread, hmmm duff.
Posted by: Amry Medic/Vet on April 16, 2008 01:56 PM(someone has to look out)
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 16, 2008 01:59 PMWho in God's name enters into a contractual agreement of this magnatudee without having their lawyer review it. Lots of people do business and enter into contractual arrangments written in a language they don't understand, is it my responsibility to indemnify these contracts, or is it the responsibility of the parties to know what they are getting into? It's as simple as that.
Posted by: JDH on April 16, 2008 02:19 PMIf they are elderly to the point of diminished understanding, that is a whole different matter.
Let's be honest. Most of the people who are in this situation are not poor people who can't speak the language or the elderly who are to the point of diminished capacity. The vast majority of folks in this situation are people like me... someone in their mid 20's to early 30's who had never owned a home before, making under $45k, who never the less "had" to own a home, so they bought using and ARM or an interest only or something along those lines. But unlike me, rather than ask themselves what they could afford and settled for a little condo in Renton or Everett or Federal Way or wherever to start, borrowed the most the bank would lend them so they could live someplace trendy. Or, they did settle for some little place, but were already swamped with debt and didn't want to wait to pay it off. And they never used the years they had before their interest rate became variable to refinance. Now the 3 or 5 or 7 years is up in their ARM and the payments on their place they already couldn't afford is going through the roof. Sorrow, it's not the government's job to bail you out because you're lousy with finances.
Is the lender being greedy? Yeah, probably. Does lending money to someone they know can't afford it qualify them as a shmuck? You bet. Is it the government's responsibility to make sure that someone of sound mind not borrow more money than they can afford? Absolutely not.
Posted by: Mike H. on April 16, 2008 03:05 PMShe failed at that too. =0
there will always be something to fault her
No argument there. But we're discussing transportation here, and she has failed miserably at that.
Go to the other thread where people accuse Darcy for not doing anything for the last 18 months, therefore she's not qualified
Darcy wasn't qualified before she ran for office last time. Dino was. Big difference.
Posted by: Palouse on April 16, 2008 03:23 PMDino seems like he's no longer qualified, unless he can show us the magic money hat he plans to use to pay for his pipe-dream projects.
1. Streamline environmental studies - fine, but don't expect a 1/3 drop in project costs - just isn't there.
2. Art requirement for roads - fine.
3. Sales tax on transportation construction - fine. Though I know understand it that when we were getting considerable federal dollars it was a back door way to get more from the Feds - can't really argue that if other states did it too.
4. Bonding and pay as you go - the argument here is that we get more bang for the buck now, and pay it back with dollars that are worth less - similar to a mortgage - interesting though to see how the numbers fall.
5. You need to restate this argument...I don't get at all what you're saying.
6. Transit versus vehicle percentages. This math continues the fallacy of arguing total trips between cars and transit on a 24 hour basis.
Instead, how about apportioning the costs based on trips during commute times? After all, there is NO congestion at 2:00AM, but we seem to think we need to build more roads when during the majority of the day they ALL have excess capacity.
Take 520 for example - increasing the number of lanes on the bridge is to serve commute times, not off-hours. Apportion the spending between transit and vehicles based on the design time of day you want to serve - a more realistic set of percentages would emerge. (Me, I don't really care though - there are 4 stop signs between my home and office - my 12 minute commute has not changed in 25 years - for you, if you are commuting on freeways, well, you're just screwed).
7. I've read the Auditor's report - it was a bit of a disappointment in some of its methodology, conclusions and costs, but in principle you're right - fix the choke points first.
Then, do it smart - compare traffic signals - which have 1/2 the capacity of the roads they serve, to roundabouts that match the road capacity the serve- don't just add more lanes first, fix the places that are inefficient smartly.
8. Trucks in HOV lanes, just as we get the ramps for buses on the left to avoid the weave. How about trucks avoid rush hour?
Posted by: BA on April 16, 2008 06:10 PM
Loving it.
His Stalin loving ideas are coming out and even though I'm not a fan of McLame... it will be funny to watch this show & tell.
By the way............. America still loses! )-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 16, 2008 07:31 PMHahah, rather that exit gracefully Sen. Clinton just take her piss poor campaign strategy and run her campaign straight into the ground. That's great news for the folks here. =)
Hillary is not depending on the Super Delagates to throw the race for her, without both the Popular Vote and the Delegate lead, because she knows that cannot happen. She will throw in her gold spoon threaded towel and look like a good sport before letting that happen.
The Super Delagates wouldn't dare elect her as the nominee, without one or both of those totals. which is almost impossible for her to now achieve.
Why - because there would be rioting in the streets if that happened, aimed squarely at the Democrats.
So that won't happen.
She is now campaigning for the 2012 presidential race.
But, she and bill will make sure Obama does not win, to enable her 2012 re-run.
Sad but true.
Posted by: GS on April 17, 2008 07:17 PMEnough! Time for change! The chance of that viaduct collapsing in another quake are real. And seven years shows that clearly Democrats do not think it is a priority.
Posted by: pbj on April 19, 2008 04:44 PM