Obama pitches jobs bill in front of bridge that won’t benefit from jobs bill

[red states rule]

Oh well, Obama never was one to mix facts with a campaign speech. If he wants to fix things that are crumbling he might want to focus on his approval rating and job performance






The 48-year-old Brent Spence Bridge spanning the Ohio River near Cincinnati isn't much to look at. But for President Obama, it's become a rallying cry for his $477 billion jobs plan.

He referred to it in his Sept. 8 speech to Congress, saying "there's a bridge that needs repair between Ohio and Kentucky that's on one of the busiest trucking routes in North America." And on Thursday he plans to use Brent Spence as the backdrop for another pitch for his jobs bill, which includes $27 billion in "immediate" highway spending.

But while local officials are delighted with Obama's attention, Brent Spence might not be eligible for that jobs bill money.

"Will funds be available for this bridge? We don't know at this point," said a spokesman for Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, whose district is in the area.

Although some press accounts have described Brent Spence as "crumbling," and the White House says it's an example of "ur gently needed" repairs, the bridge isn't falling apart. In fact, it's designed to last for decades more.

It is, however, "functionally obsolete," which in this case means it's too small to handle the daily traffic load. While designed to handle 85,000 cars and trucks, it now carries more than 150,000, leading to regular backups.

So the plan isn't to do extensive repairs on the bridge, but to build an entirely new one right next to it and keep the old one in use.

The problem is that construction work on the $2.3 billion bridge isn't scheduled to start for three or four years, according to the project's official website.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/585534/201109211722/Obama-Job-Bridge-To-Nowhere-.htm

[Gaffer]

That bridge is designed to last another 20 years easy. Another thing he wants to fix that doesn't need fixing.

[ConHog]

That bridge is designed to last another 20 years easy. Another thing he wants to fix that doesn't need fixing.



Not to defend Obama here, BUT if a bridge is designed to handle X amount of traffic for Y number of years then logic would dictate that If X doubles then Y would be divided in two.

[fj1200]

Not to defend Obama here, BUT if a bridge is designed to handle X amount of traffic for Y number of years then logic would dictate that If X doubles then Y would be divided in two.

Not necessarily. A bridge doesn't have a set number of passes before becoming obsolete.

EDIT:

But I've been over that bridge many times, it sucketh much but still manages to get everyone over the river.

[ConHog]

Not necessarily. A bridge doesn't have a set number of passes before becoming obsolete.

EDIT:

But I've been over that bridge many times, it sucketh much but still manages to get everyone over the river.

I'm no engineer, but it seems pretty logical that a bridge is designed to handle a certain number of cars for a certain number of years means that it actually designed for a certain number of passes. There is definetely no arguing that 80K cars a year over 10 years puts a lot less stress on a bridge than 150K cars a year over 10 years would.

[fj1200]

I'm no engineer, but it seems pretty logical that a bridge is designed to handle a certain number of cars for a certain number of years means that it actually designed for a certain number of passes. There is definetely no arguing that 80K cars a year over 10 years puts a lot less stress on a bridge than 150K cars a year over 10 years would.

It's designed, and overbuilt, for years not passes.

[Gaffer]

If I recall correctly that bridge was just refurbished about ten years ago. I too have been over it many times.

[red states rule]

Not to defend Obama here, BUT if a bridge is designed to handle X amount of traffic for Y number of years then logic would dictate that If X doubles then Y would be divided in two.

Every report says that ANY work on the bridge is YEARS away from starting, but Obama uses the bridge to push his "jobs" bill and gives the impression to his supporters that work could start next week if the bill is passed

Sounds like what he did with the first "stimulus" and Obamacare

[red states rule]

and how about that "Intercontinental Railroad" Obama was talking about while on the campaign trail?





"We’re the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad," Barack Obama.

That's what the president of the United States flat-out said Thursday during what was supposed to be a photo op to sell his jobs plan next to an allegedly deteriorating highway bridge.

A railroad between continents? A railroad from, say, New York City all the way across the Atlantic to France? Now, THAT would be a bridge!

It's yet another humorous gaffe by the Harvard graduate, overlooked by most media for whatever reason. Like Obama saying Abraham-Come-Lately Lincoln was the founder of the Republican Party. Or Navy corpseman. Or the Austrian language. Fifty-seven states. The president of Canada. Etc.

If you talk as much as this guy likes to talk instead of governing, if you believe you are a Real Good Talker as much as this guy does, you're gonna blow a few lines. But this many?

No doubt, we'll see a collection of Obama's Best Bombs on 'Saturday Night Live' this weekend, one right after the other. No doubt. Can you imagine the media coverage of such repeated historical ignorance if it had been the last Ivy League alum president who said it?

The Democrat had traveled to Ohio on Thursday to tout his American Jobs Act, the....
<!-- sphereit end -->...$447-billion boondoggle he proposed to a joint session of Congress this month because his previous $787-billion boondoggle didn't create anywhere near as many jobs as Joe Biden had promised.


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/09/obama-gaffe-jobs-act-speech-brent-spence-bridge-ohio.html?dlvrit=23653

[Psychoblues]

It's designed, and overbuilt, for years not passes.

Bridges are NOT designed, except academically, for years. They are designed for load considerations and are supposed to be inspected regularly, fj2000, for signs of damage and structural integrity. But, yes. They are about 60% overbuilt. All kinds of things interfere with the structural integrity of bridges and other structures. Mainly earthquakes but simple ground erosion, water damage, overloading and all kinds of corrosion factors determine the life of structures. All kinds of structures but mainly bridges are falling apart in this country, fj. To ridicule the Prez and deny the truth indicates something far more ominous and despicable and is certainly not in good faith attempts to save the government and therefore the taxpayers some cash.

Psychoblues

Here is a little something that tells much about the bridge in question.

http://www.brentspencebridgecorridor.com/Schedule.html

Lots of numbers and technicals written by professionals but it beats the hell out of blowing political innuendos and personal prejudices out your ass.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

Bridges are NOT designed, except academically, for years. They are designed for load considerations and are supposed to be inspected regularly, fj2000, for signs of damage and structural integrity. But, yes. They are about 60% overbuilt. All kinds of things interfere with the structural integrity of bridges and other structures. Mainly earthquakes but simple ground erosion, water damage, overloading and all kinds of corrosion factors determine the life of structures. All kinds of structures but mainly bridges are falling apart in this country, fj. To ridicule the Prez and deny the truth indicates something far more ominous and despicable and is certainly not in good faith attempts to save the government and therefore the taxpayers some cash.

The article states, "it's designed to last for decades more." Decades is a measure of years. But why are you arguing things that are not in question? Is the premise of the article incorrect that this particular bridge would NOT benefit? I don't recall anyone saying that all the bridges in this country were pristine and in perfect working order. I'm also not sure how you jump from a jobs bill to "saving the government... and cash."


Here is a little something that tells much about the bridge in question.

http://www.brentspencebridgecorridor.com/Schedule.html

Lots of numbers and technicals written by professionals but it beats the hell out of blowing political innuendos and personal prejudices out your ass.

Then why do you do it?

[Psychoblues]

The article states, "it's designed to last for decades more." Decades is a measure of years. But why are you arguing things that are not in question? Is the premise of the article incorrect that this particular bridge would NOT benefit? I don't recall anyone saying that all the bridges in this country were pristine and in perfect working order. I'm also not sure how you jump from a jobs bill to "saving the government... and cash."



Then why do you do it?

It is NOT designed to last for decades without regular and comprehensive maintenance, fj. Read the damned report and blow your political innuendo and personal prejudices towards an issue that you understand better. But, like another in this thread you justify your ignorance without regard to truth or competence. Tsk, tsk. I once knew ye better than that, my friend.

Psychoblues

[logroller]

It is NOT designed to last for decades without regular and comprehensive maintenance, fj. Read the damned report and blow your political innuendo and personal prejudices towards an issue that you understand better. But, like another in this thread you justify your ignorance without regard to truth or competence. Tsk, tsk. I once knew ye better than that, my friend.

Psychoblues

Building bridges = jobs. Jobs = better economy. Therefore, building bridges = jobs. Pretty much sells itself, right?

Except its not that simple. Building bridges = taxes. taxes = government activity. Government activity = long- drawn out debates. long drawn-out debates = government inefficiency. Government inefficiency = lost tax dollars. Therefore, bridges = lost tax dollars. :coffee:

[fj1200]

It is NOT designed to last for decades without regular and comprehensive maintenance, fj. Read the damned report and blow your political innuendo and personal prejudices towards an issue that you understand better. But, like another in this thread you justify your ignorance without regard to truth or competence. Tsk, tsk. I once knew ye better than that, my friend.

Who in the hell is making that argument??? My God you're so fricking stubborn and trying to win by making points that nobody is disputing. Try and keep up with the actual debate and not the one in your head.

[Psychoblues]

Who in the hell is making that argument??? My God you're so fricking stubborn and trying to win by making points that nobody is disputing. Try and keep up with the actual debate and not the one in your head.

Holy shit, dumbass. The argument continues to be made that the fucking bridge is designed to last for decades. Agreed, with caveat. Regular and comprehensive maintenance and inspections. I see you still haven't read the fucking report, you incompetent fool. About 2 minutes in my board meeting and your ass would be kicking cans down the roadway and wondering just what the fuck happened.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

Holy shit, dumbass. The argument continues to be made that the fucking bridge is designed to last for decades. Agreed, with caveat. Regular and comprehensive maintenance and inspections. I see you still haven't read the fucking report, you incompetent fool. About 2 minutes in my board meeting and your ass would be kicking cans down the roadway and wondering just what the fuck happened.

WTF are you talking about? That caveat is what I said no one is arguing about. Are you that flipping dense? I wouldn't be in ANY meeting with you because I would have to wonder WTF is going on because you would keep arguing about points of agreement.

[Trinity]

That bridge is going to turn into another Paul Brown stadium (Bengals)...a money pit that will take decades to get out of if we ever do. From the looks of it that's not going to happen.....

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2011/07/bengals-to-get-new-instant-replay-system.html