cch5432 Posted August 19, 2009 Posted August 19, 2009 The Gravina Island Bridge, better know as the Bridge to Nowhere, was a big issue. Costs for it were projected to be $398 million. However, it created a lot of jobs and would have gotten more spending going, stimulating the economy. So, what are the reasons to be against the Bridge to Nowhere? Can one be against the Bridge to Nowhere, but in favor of the $787 billion stimulus package, if the purpose of both is to create jobs and stimulate the economy?
Clyde Posted August 19, 2009 Posted August 19, 2009 Fair question at a high level. How many jobs were created? What was the reason for the bridge? Was it necessary? From an outsiders view and going off of memory this bridge project sure didn't seem to be worth the investment (other than for the 14 people that now use the bridge).
Jim Schue Posted August 19, 2009 Posted August 19, 2009 The Gravina Island Bridge, better know as the Bridge to Nowhere, was a big issue. Costs for it were projected to be $398 million. However, it created a lot of jobs and would have gotten more spending going, stimulating the economy. So, what are the reasons to be against the Bridge to Nowhere? Can one be against the Bridge to Nowhere, but in favor of the $787 billion stimulus package, if the purpose of both is to create jobs and stimulate the economy? That bridge would have to do a hell of a lot of stimulating to make it worthwhile. We are talking about a state with fewer people in it than what resides in Louisville. And I doubt very seriously the entire population of Alaska was going to realize that much of a benefit from it -- more likely, just the isolated area the bridge served. How is that a good value buy?
cch5432 Posted August 19, 2009 Author Posted August 19, 2009 Fair question at a high level. How many jobs were created? What was the reason for the bridge? Was it necessary? From an outsiders view and going off of memory this bridge project sure didn't seem to be worth the investment (other than for the 14 people that now use the bridge). That bridge would have to do a hell of a lot of stimulating to make it worthwhile. We are talking about a state with fewer people in it than what resides in Louisville. And I doubt very seriously the entire population of Alaska was going to realize that much of a benefit from it -- more likely, just the isolated area the bridge served. How is that a good value buy? FWIW, in a state that has less people than Louisville, $1.42 billion of the package has already been announced. (Go to Show Detailed View from Recovery.Gov The Bridge to Nowhere was not a value buy- I oppose it, and any statement I may have made in the past otherwise, I retract- but it was a mere $400 million. I can equally assure you that each and every one of the projects in the $787 billion stimulus package- or Bush's stimulus bill- was not as scrutinized. Why did we cry foul with the puny Bridge to Nowhere, but there is not even a yelp for the stimulus packages?
Clyde Posted August 19, 2009 Posted August 19, 2009 Why did we cry foul with the puny Bridge to Nowhere, but there is not even a yelp for the stimulus packages? You're saying no one has criticized the stimulus package?
cch5432 Posted August 19, 2009 Author Posted August 19, 2009 You're saying no one has criticized the stimulus package? Of course some people have. I just feel like the Bridge to Nowhere was a huge deal to Republican and Democrats and commentators on both sides, but that the Stimulus Package was deemed necessary by all Democrats and many Republicans, when the two of them would have provided the same "stimulating" effects (just to different degrees).
Clyde Posted August 19, 2009 Posted August 19, 2009 Of course some people have. I just feel like the Bridge to Nowhere was a huge deal to Republican and Democrats and commentators on both sides, but that the Stimulus Package was deemed necessary by all Democrats and many Republicans, when the two of them would have provided the same "stimulating" effects (just to different degrees). I will disagree as to the amount of protest against the stimulus bill.
bballfamily Posted August 19, 2009 Posted August 19, 2009 The stimulus aspect would have been limited to the temporary (2-3 yrs?) jobs created to build the bridge and the local population. If your going to spend that kind of money on a bridge, spend it on a new I-75 bridge connecting Covington and Cincinnati, that will carry 10's of thousands of cars and trucks every day.
2 Humped Camel Posted August 20, 2009 Posted August 20, 2009 The stimulus aspect would have been limited to the temporary (2-3 yrs?) jobs created to build the bridge and the local population. If your going to spend that kind of money on a bridge, spend it on a new I-75 bridge connecting Covington and Cincinnati, that will carry 10's of thousands of cars and trucks every day. Probably the only thing you and I will ever agree on.
cch5432 Posted August 20, 2009 Author Posted August 20, 2009 I guess my main question is this. Why was the $400 million project in Alaska so heavily scrutinized, yet the Stimulus packages, totaling over $1 trillion, haven't been at all? I've personally seen one project that the stimulus package went to- a highway in rural West Virginia. I just don't understand why no one cares about the money.
Jim Schue Posted August 20, 2009 Posted August 20, 2009 I guess my main question is this. Why was the $400 million project in Alaska so heavily scrutinized, yet the Stimulus packages, totaling over $1 trillion, haven't been at all? I've personally seen one project that the stimulus package went to- a highway in rural West Virginia. I just don't understand why no one cares about the money. While I don't agree with the size of the stimulus packages, the fact that it is a spread-the-wealth thing, where everybody gets a piece, is why it hasn't received as much criticism as the Alaska thingy. But to say it has received no scrutiny is a bit misleading. Again, the Alaska thing received such heavy criticism is because it would benefit so few people.
Clyde Posted August 20, 2009 Posted August 20, 2009 I guess my main question is this. Why was the $400 million project in Alaska so heavily scrutinized, yet the Stimulus packages, totaling over $1 trillion, haven't been at all? . Are we watching different channels and reading different publications?
cch5432 Posted August 20, 2009 Author Posted August 20, 2009 Are we watching different channels and reading different publications? I don't watch TV, so probably. I guess it just blows my mind more than most people. How the stimulus was seen by so many- as I said, all Democrats and most Republicans- as necessary, but the Alaskan project was an outrage.
ladiesbballcoach Posted August 20, 2009 Posted August 20, 2009 I guess my main question is this. Why was the $400 million project in Alaska so heavily scrutinized, yet the Stimulus packages, totaling over $1 trillion, haven't been at all? I've personally seen one project that the stimulus package went to- a highway in rural West Virginia. I just don't understand why no one cares about the money. I had never, ever heard of the Bridge to Nowhere before Palin became VP candidate. I think that is your answer. It was used by both sides to try and garner votes in the last Presidential election.
Jim Schue Posted August 20, 2009 Posted August 20, 2009 I had never, ever heard of the Bridge to Nowhere before Palin became VP candidate. I think that is your answer. It was used by both sides to try and garner votes in the last Presidential election. You apparently weren't watching very closely. Ted Stevens was getting raked over the coals for it back in '06.
.png.ffa34568722b20f38e3c3ecfcb9a2cd2.png)
.thumb.jpeg.64622635ae2a7585f3b2ce8689c5c6e8(2).thumb.jpeg.d7ac8545049bed7455b5b1792e04b782.thumb.jpeg.eeaea514079dadad3f01f2b35437c9fb.jpeg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.