It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by centurion1211
Originally posted by Indigo5
Originally posted by centurion1211
In other countries, such as china, or the more developed middle eastern countries, you can watch them building new infrastructure all the time. They want a new high-speed rail system, they just build it. They want to build the world's tallest building, they just build it.
Because those are ROYAL DICTATORSHIPS and COMMUNIST REGIMES. They build on the farmers land and if he complains they lock him up.
Wow...Democracy just too messy for you?...advocating Dictatorial Regimes? ...be like China...?edit on 8-9-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
OK, check out what's being built in Europe then. Like the new CERN facility making all the physics news these days while the competing facility in the U.S. (Texas) was CANCELLED.
Here's information on what they thought the Texas facility would do for jobs and the economy before it was cancelled:
source
Edging out six other states competing for the $4.5 billion particle accelerator, Texas stands to gain 4,500 construction jobs, 3,500 permanent jobs and an estimated $20 billion boost to its economy over 25 years.
Congress officially canceled the project October 21, 1993.[8] Many factors contributed to the cancellation: rising cost estimates; poor management by physicists and Department of Energy officials; the end of the need to prove the supremacy of American science with the collapse of the Soviet Union; belief that many smaller scientific experiments of equal merit could be funded for the same cost; Congress's desire to generally reduce spending; the reluctance of Texas Governor Ann Richards;[9] and President Bill Clinton's initial lack of support for a project begun during the administrations of Richards's predecessor, Bill Clements, and Clinton's predecessors, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. However, in 1993, Clinton tried to prevent the cancellation by asking Congress to continue "to support this important and challenging effort" through completion because "abandoning the SSC at this point would signal that the United States is compromising its position of leadership in basic science".[10] The closing of the SSC had adverse consequences for the southern part of the Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex, and resulted in a mild recession, most evident in those parts of Dallas which lay south of the Trinity River.[11] When the project was canceled, 22.5 km (14.0 mi) of tunnel and 17 shafts to the surface were already dug, and nearly two billion dollars had already been spent on the massive facility.[12]
Originally posted by jibeho
The debate was never even had with these bills to discuss any potential whatsoever.
The Senate blocked them without offering any alternatives
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Southern Guardian
so lets see 75 million ameircans generating their own income instead of getting paid by other people
Originally posted by centurion1211
Originally posted by Indigo5
Originally posted by centurion1211
In other countries, such as china, or the more developed middle eastern countries, you can watch them building new infrastructure all the time. They want a new high-speed rail system, they just build it. They want to build the world's tallest building, they just build it.
Because those are ROYAL DICTATORSHIPS and COMMUNIST REGIMES. They build on the farmers land and if he complains they lock him up.
Wow...Democracy just too messy for you?...advocating Dictatorial Regimes? ...be like China...?edit on 8-9-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
OK, check out what's being built in Europe then. Like the new CERN facility making all the physics news these days while the competing facility in the U.S. (Texas) was CANCELLED.
Originally posted by neo96
i would end them all because private insurance will always be far better than anything the government "gives:" people.
the no substance here is the fact we are 14 trillion dollars in debt with another 115 trillion cost for the "promises" made by the government and cheerleaded more more more by all those gop detractors.
it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see the government has made promises
Originally posted by Sevensight
Not seeing one job in this entire thread proposed that would have been created by any of those bills. How about instead of lying about who is blocking what, you Repubs get on your people to ACTUALLY create some jobs bills that create actual jobs.
Originally posted by Indigo5
Seriously?? Now you are advocating scientific expenditures? I am all for it, but your idealogical bretheren still think the world is 5k years old and that scientists are bible-hating liars who invented Global Warming.
Good luck with that. If you are advocating scientific funding, I am right behind you, but your conservative friends won't feel the same way.
The final cost was estimated at 10 Billion dollars, you convince the GOP that the earth didn't look like "Land of the Lost" a few thousand years ago with people running in a comedic fashion from T-Rex and then we can figure out where we find the 10 Billion.
115 trillion?? What the heck? And you're talking about GOP detractors while discussing this 14 trillion debt? How much of the debt do you believe the GOP are responsible for?
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Originally posted by jibeho
The debate was never even had with these bills to discuss any potential whatsoever.
This was the first thing you discussed in this OP, refering them as "viable". "Opportunities". If this had little to do about the potential of these bills, why argue their potential in the first place? And we've had the same old bills come back and forth over the last what? 20 or 30 years. What on earth distinguishes these bills from previous GOP bills? Really? What's new??
The Senate blocked them without offering any alternatives
Excuse me? Democrats have been offering alternative bills since Obama came into office, but of course the GOP being the party of no, simple said "no". But GOPers should be treated differently when it's the other way around, right? You seem to be highly sympathetic to the GOP, considering they're of the same political ilk.
Originally posted by neo96
yeah well last time i check the gop didnt create:
social security,medicare and medicaid
oh and that thing called the federal reserve
Sometimes, in order to understand why you need something, it helps to find out what it was like before that "something" was created. Before the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, there were over 30,000 different currencies
wasnt the gop who have taxed and regulated business and finance out of the country.
The last time I checked, republicans from all sides were promising that they wouldn't touch the prescious medicare that many of their tea party constituents ironically rely on. Even Ron Paul had gone dead silent on it (even though this had always been his agenda). So much for the GOP not supporting it, they know that it's political suicide.
Originally posted by jibeho
Please detail the ideas from the Dems and Obama that DO NOT involve MORE spending
Business groups and economist Zandi of Moody's Economy.com say companies are unlikely to hire workers just to receive a tax break. That means most of the tax benefits would go to companies that would have hired new workers anyway.
Originally posted by Sevensight
Not seeing one job in this entire thread proposed that would have been created by any of those bills. How about instead of lying about who is blocking what, you Repubs get on your people to ACTUALLY create some jobs bills that create actual jobs.