Yet another BUSH lie article.

Bush opposes new taxes for funding bridge repairs because there are far too many questions about the way congress people continue to slip ear-mark after ear-mark of (many times) unneeded pork-barrell projects into the roads and transportations bills -- ear-marks to build bridges to no-where, and things like that.

Bush has said that he will not allow gasoline tax increases for transportation funding until after congress cleans up it's own act and stops wasting money on things that are not needed.

After that, he's open to suggestion and negotiation about funding items that are deemed necessary.

Nice try hypocrite (that means you Clueless One).

If Congress didn't ear-mark the funding to unnecessary projects, we'd have enough money for our transportation without raising taxes, even with a war in Iraq.

Reply By: terpfan1980 Posted: Friday, August 10, 2007
Yet another BUSH lie article.

Bush opposes new taxes for funding bridge repairs because there are far too many questions about the way congress people continue to slip ear-mark after ear-mark of (many times) unneeded pork-barrell projects into the roads and transportations bills -- ear-marks to build bridges to no-where, and things like that.

“Bush has said that he will not allow gasoline tax increases for transportation funding until after congress cleans up it's own act and stops wasting money on things that are not needed.

After that, he's open to suggestion and negotiation about funding items that are deemed necessary.

Nice try hypocrite (that means you Clueless One).”


It is time for Congress to give Bush a Lesson on the responsibilities of the Legislative Branch. That is the branch that sets spending NOT the President. Congress is the DECIDER when it comes to spending and taxes. It is time to pass the needed legislation and override the Veto of Bush and show him that HE DOES NOT have to power of the purse!

Reply | | Delete




Reply By: Jythier Posted: Friday, August 10, 2007
“If Congress didn't ear-mark the funding to unnecessary projects, we'd have enough money for our transportation without raising taxes, even with a war in Iraq.” BS!

I agree the Earmarks should END. However, in total they are $24 Billion which will not come close to funding the repair of 70,000 bridges. We need BOTH an END to Earmarks and more money to repair bridges, and Fund Social Security and Medicare. Just think all the Highway earmarks are equal to what we are wasting in Iraq in TWO months!

So which way do you want it?

1. Do you want lower prices at the pump?

-or-

2. Do you want to pay more in taxes for gas?

Reply By: just john Posted: Friday, August 10, 2007
So which way do you want it?

1. Do you want lower prices at the pump?

-or-

2. Do you want to pay more in taxes for gas?


That is not the question. The question is do I want the bridges my family and I drive over to be safe? YES YES YES! That will take money to insure they are safe!

Here's the best part, the title says Bush Opposes Funding Bridge Repairs leading people to believe that Bush does not want to pay to fix the bridge. Instead it should have said Bush Opposes Gas Tax For Funding Bridge Repairs, talk about misleading. Then he writes on this same article Bush only wants to look at reallocating the $24 Billion in Highway funds that are allocated by Earmarks. which means that Bush does want to fix the bridge but from earmarks that he believe are not priorities. And he dares to say that Bush has "faulty judgment"? Sounds to me like he wants to fix the bridge with money that would otherwise be wasted. More like a good judgment than a faulty one.

Then tell the states and federal government to stop spending their money on useless projects like sports arenas and get their act together. 

You are something else gene.  The first one to whine and cry about how bad the "poor" people are due to high gas prices, but yet here you are complaining about a tax. 

You are a typical liberal who thinks the solution to every problem is raising taxes.  The useless federal and state spending is the problem.

So then why did you not point this out in the article as well? Why do=id you just point to the part where Bush refuses but did not point to the Democrats being wrong as well. You see? This is what I mean by you not being balanced in placing blame where it belongs. Give the Democrats a pass in the article while condemning Bush. Nice job Col.



You're right, it's not enough, but you forget there is already money for this as well. In 2005 a $286 billion highway and transit bill was passed. The sad part is that much of this money was actually earmarked for projects that the states they were intended for had to match in order to use and because of this that money would not be used and instead wasted and lost. Here's one, remember earmark for the bridge to now-where for 223 million dollars? That came from these 286 million. Another thing you have to keep in mind Col which you seem to ignore quite often, 70,000 bridges can not be fixed over night, it would take many many years and a whole lot more money to fix them. Money that will come from future highway and transit bills.

OK so that makes this question legit then:



I don't. They need to stop earmarking and start spend the money more wisely. The problem is you keep thinking that more money is the solution to our problems when better management of the funds is the real solution. We only add more money when what we have is not enough, not when we mismanage and have to make up for it.

Here's a hypothetical question:

If you have a child and he breaks a neighbors window. You apologize and pay for it. Then your son breaks another window in another house. What then, do you throw more money at it every time he breaks a window or do you stop him from breaking more windows?

Obviously this is bad money management because you fix the end result but maintain the problem which will result in a repetition of the end result and in turn costing more and more every time the problem repeats itself. The solution is to solve the problem and avoid the repetition which will result in a positive end result or an elimination of the end result.

$342,857. Per bridge. How much does it cost to inspect a bridge? How much does it cost to repair a bridge before it collapses? How much does it cost after it collapses?

I'm sure plenty of the bridges just need to be inspected to be sure they're not falling down. Others need some repairs. Between the two I think an average of $343k isn't too bad.

I like pie.

That is not the question. The question is do I want the bridges my family and I drive over to be safe? YES YES YES! That will take money to insure they are safe!

The vast majority of the $286 Billion of Federal Highway funds are given directly to the states for allocation to repairs within each state.

So you want an increase in the gas tax to pay more money to the states that are not fixing the bridges with the $286 billion that they already get. I'm confused.

No more confused though than you camplaining about the high price of gas and then wanting to add 20% of the latest price drop in gas prices back to the bottom line. I guess it's only ok when the government makes you pay more for gas.

BTW- Why didn't you write a blog about the drop in gas prices?

I like pie.

So does Gene... as long as the only person who profits from the sale of the pie is the government.

Reply By: CharlesCS1 Posted: Friday, August 10, 2007
Here's the best part, the title says Bush Opposes Funding Bridge Repairs leading people to believe that Bush does not want to pay to fix the bridge. Instead it should have said Bush Opposes Gas Tax For Funding Bridge Repairs, talk about misleading. Then he writes on this same article Bush only wants to look at reallocating the $24 Billion in Highway funds that are allocated by Earmarks. which means that Bush does want to fix the bridge but from earmarks that he believe are not priorities. And he dares to say that Bush has "faulty judgment"? Sounds to me like he wants to fix the bridge with money that would otherwise be wasted. More like a good judgment than a faulty one.


No it is the same old refrain NO TAX INCREASES. Bush wants to reallocate NOT provide added money. I agree we should not use EARMARKS which were at an all time high when the GOP was in control of Congress. That does not address the 70,000 bridges that require work. If you or Bush believes that reallocating 24 Billion will provide all the needed funds, you are both in denial. Again it is NOT up to Bush it is the decision of Congress who under our system has the power of the purse. Bush thinks he in the DECIDER for all aspects of the federal government. HE IS WRONG!