You apparently weren't watching very closely. Ted Stevens was getting raked over the coals for it back in '06.

 

Why would I care about what was happening to a Congressman from Alaska?

 

I have more important things to do with my time, like posting on BGP.

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.

 

It's better to pay off everybody than to pay off a few.

Why would I care about what was happening to a Congressman from Alaska?

 

I have more important things to do with my time, like posting on BGP.

 

Because you were paying for his pork.

It's better to pay off everybody than to pay off a few.

 

Which is what I said to cc5432 about six times in this thread. Maybe he'll hear you?

It's better to pay off everybody than to pay off a few.

 

Bingo. I was waiting for someone to FINALLY see this.

This thread never got what I intended of it anyways. I meant things on a much higher level.

 

The spending package is being lauded for its "stimulative" effect. Its proponents say that the "spending" will help the economy, creating jobs and getting cash moving.

 

What I was trying to say is that the Bridge to Nowhere would have had the same effect- spending, jobs, the money multiplier effect, etc. Yet it was (correctly) criticized.

 

All spending is not good spending. I was trying to get an answer to this question- if the point of the stimulus package is to create jobs and employ the money multiplier- why was the Bridge to Nowhere a bad thing?

 

Maybe next time I should collect my thoughts till I post :irked:

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?

 

Im a little late getting in on this one, but I believe this is an excellent question.

This thread never got what I intended of it anyways. I meant things on a much higher level.

 

The spending package is being lauded for its "stimulative" effect. Its proponents say that the "spending" will help the economy, creating jobs and getting cash moving.

 

What I was trying to say is that the Bridge to Nowhere would have had the same effect- spending, jobs, the money multiplier effect, etc. Yet it was (correctly) criticized.

 

All spending is not good spending. I was trying to get an answer to this question- if the point of the stimulus package is to create jobs and employ the money multiplier- why was the Bridge to Nowhere a bad thing?

 

Maybe next time I should collect my thoughts till I post :irked:

I struggle to find any spending that is "good spending".

I struggle to find any spending that is "good spending".

 

You are better than that comment.

 

Roads, police, fire departments, military, schools, etc, etc, etc.

From what I remeber, the "Bridge to Nowhere" was part of a larger Transportation funds grant, in which projects were not specified by the Federal Government. The state of Alaska had the freedom to spend the money where it chose, and eventually spent the money elsewhere after all of the ciritisim.

From what I remeber, the "Bridge to Nowhere" was part of a larger Transportation funds grant, in which projects were not specified by the Federal Government. The state of Alaska had the freedom to spend the money where it chose, and eventually spent the money elsewhere after all of the ciritisim.

True. I remember former Gov. Palin getting criticized for bragging that she said no to the Bridge, yet she did not disclose that she merely spent the money elsewhere (instead of rejecting the money on the grounds of principal, and/or spending it on a deficit, as a true fiscal conservative would do).

 

However, I still have not received an answer to the question I tried to ask:

 

I understand that the Bridge to Nowhere would have benefited few people (in terms of usage after completion). Now, the enormous stimulus packages have been heralded for two things: A) create jobs and B) increase spending. There has been little to no scrutiny over what projects that stimulus packages are being spent on- merely "spending" has been sufficient for some. In the interest of solely "creating jobs" and "increasing spending"- I ask what was so bad about the Bridge to Nowhere, which would have created jobs and increased spending, regardless of its post-completion usage?

 

What I am trying to make clear to people is that all spending is not good spending. The scrutiny that the Bridge to Nowhere received was entirely appropriate. However, the individual projects of the stimulus package aren't examined closely- the spending was "necessary to stimulate the economy." If anything that stimulates the economy and creates jobs is good, then why is the Bridge bad?

This thread never got what I intended of it anyways. I meant things on a much higher level.

 

The spending package is being lauded for its "stimulative" effect. Its proponents say that the "spending" will help the economy, creating jobs and getting cash moving.

 

What I was trying to say is that the Bridge to Nowhere would have had the same effect- spending, jobs, the money multiplier effect, etc. Yet it was (correctly) criticized.

 

All spending is not good spending. I was trying to get an answer to this question- if the point of the stimulus package is to create jobs and employ the money multiplier- why was the Bridge to Nowhere a bad thing?

 

Maybe next time I should collect my thoughts till I post :irked:

 

 

Good luck:lol::lol:

True. I remember former Gov. Palin getting criticized for bragging that she said no to the Bridge, yet she did not disclose that she merely spent the money elsewhere (instead of rejecting the money on the grounds of principal, and/or spending it on a deficit, as a true fiscal conservative would do).

 

However, I still have not received an answer to the question I tried to ask:

 

I understand that the Bridge to Nowhere would have benefited few people (in terms of usage after completion). Now, the enormous stimulus packages have been heralded for two things: A) create jobs and B) increase spending. There has been little to no scrutiny over what projects that stimulus packages are being spent on- merely "spending" has been sufficient for some. In the interest of solely "creating jobs" and "increasing spending"- I ask what was so bad about the Bridge to Nowhere, which would have created jobs and increased spending, regardless of its post-completion usage?

 

What I am trying to make clear to people is that all spending is not good spending. The scrutiny that the Bridge to Nowhere received was entirely appropriate. However, the individual projects of the stimulus package aren't examined closely- the spending was "necessary to stimulate the economy." If anything that stimulates the economy and creates jobs is good, then why is the Bridge bad?

IMO, the reason the bridge was critizied so, is because it recived the negative moniker Bridge to Nowhere. I think that if the lawmakers of Alaska felt it was a good thing for thier economy, then I would support it. I feel that they(I'm not sure to which degree to say the Legislature and/or Palin, Stevens) felt after it recived the negative nickname and attention, it wasn't worth the money.

 

I agree with you that all spending is not good spening, and I've been described as a big Government Liberal. I have read some of the stimulus bill, and like parts of it, and don't like others. I think that scrutiny of the Stimulus Bill as a whole is difficult, as it contains many projects over about a two year time frame. The Bridge to Nowhere was a specific part of the Transportation funds, so the comparison of thier critisim is not apples to apples. I think that there will be some projects that will commence from the Stimulus bill sometime next spring, that may get labled negativley, and recive Bridge to Nowhere type scrutiny.