Anyone see that Tulsa World article about Coburn & that I-244 overpass bridge thing? He believes it's just waste and I agree We don't need a rail line with no train service to use it and the bridge they are tearing down was not in bad shape at all, it seems a good re-surface job could of make them like new, I'm no engineer but the supports on the bridge that they are tearing down don't look bad at all. IMO alot of road work is busy work to keep contractors working, They re-surfaced highway 360 in Arlington Texas when there was nothing wrong with the road it was smooth & clean. That is alot of big money being spent there.
I will give kraut this...he has the most appropriate avatar of all TN posters...
Quote from: sauerkraut on July 20, 2011, 02:03:51 PM
Anyone see that Tulsa World article about Coburn & that I-244 overpass bridge thing? He believes it's just waste and I agree We don't need a rail line with no train service to use it and the bridge they are tearing down was not in bad shape at all, it seems a good re-surface job could of make them like new, I'm no engineer but the supports on the bridge that they are tearing down don't look bad at all. IMO alot of road work is busy work to keep contractors working, They re-surfaced highway 360 in Arlington Texas when there was nothing wrong with the road it was smooth & clean. That is alot of big money being spent there.
You've apparently missed the discussion that those bridges are the same design as the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis which collapsed. As far as the intermodal part of it being a waste, I agree to an extent. However, if that feature is not added, it will increase costs in the future for a functional high speed rail bridge. Like it or not, high speed rail will be an integral part of transportation in this country in the future.
Quote from: sauerkraut on July 20, 2011, 02:03:51 PM
Anyone see that Tulsa World article about Coburn & that I-244 overpass bridge thing? He believes it's just waste and I agree We don't need a rail line with no train service to use it and the bridge they are tearing down was not in bad shape at all, it seems a good re-surface job could of make them like new, I'm no engineer but the supports on the bridge that they are tearing down don't look bad at all. IMO alot of road work is busy work to keep contractors working, They re-surfaced highway 360 in Arlington Texas when there was nothing wrong with the road it was smooth & clean. That is alot of big money being spent there.
They resurfaced those bridges just two years ago, they have been resurfaced so many times they looked like a damn quilt.
It's probably best to let these threads go ahead and meet their maker.
You can't reason with a Tulsa World post.
Just an opinion.
Quote from: bokworker on July 20, 2011, 02:09:27 PM
I will give kraut this...he has the most appropriate avatar of all TN posters...
Inteller had had a couple come close. Around the time he was whining about Target he had a little guy running around with his head in flames. Classic.
Oh God, here we go again. This bridge IS needed, the multimodal part is debatable, but the bridge is needed. The old bridge was not structurally sound, no matter how good of shape it appeared to you to be in. If you are not a structural engineer that has inspected the bridge your opinion is invalid.
Also, as Conan said, rail will be a major mode of transportation in the not so distant future, why not be ready for it now? I wonder what Mr. Coburn thinks of I-40 being moved several blocks south in OKC? If that's not waste, then my dictionary must have a typo.
Quote from: ZYX on July 20, 2011, 03:27:06 PM
Oh God, here we go again. This bridge IS needed, the multimodal part is debatable, but the bridge is needed. The old bridge was not structurally sound, no matter how good of shape it appeared to you to be in. If you are not a structural engineer that has inspected the bridge your opinion is invalid.
Also, as Conan said, rail will be a major mode of transportation in the not so distant future, why not be ready for it now? I wonder what Mr. Coburn thinks of I-40 being moved several blocks south in OKC? If that's not waste, then my dictionary must have a typo.
I'm not 100% certain, but isn't one of the MAPS projects funding the I-40 relocation?
Quote from: Conan71 on July 20, 2011, 03:44:57 PM
I'm not 100% certain, but isn't one of the MAPS projects funding the I-40 relocation?
Almost positive they secured federal for that project.
Edit:
QuoteThe reconstructed Crosstown is expected to be open to traffic in 2012. It is estimated at approximately $600 million, a project federally funded using a blend of earmark and regular formula federal dollars.
http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/newsmedia/i40-okc/index.htm (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/newsmedia/i40-okc/index.htm)
Quote from: Conan71 on July 20, 2011, 03:44:57 PM
I'm not 100% certain, but isn't one of the MAPS projects funding the I-40 relocation?
Not at all, that's a federal interstate project money being spent there.
Don't forget, the intermodal part was not really about a possible line to OKC (great if that happens but...). The main reason was that we will need it when we start commuter rail here in Tulsa. Remember the plans to get a starter line from the redevelopent area on the west bank to the Fin Tube site? That could then serve as the nexus for rail that would then branch out to Jenks, the Airport and Owasso, BA, etc. Its that first little node right in and around downtown that will cost the most. After that its relatively smooth sailing and less expensive than widening highways to and from those places in the future. (its costing them 100 million per mile to widen the highway by my house). But anyway, we knew we couldn't get federal or state funding for commuter rail, especially that first, most expensive chunk we would need to get started, BUT if it were sold as being part of the High Speed rail.... then ya get some funding. They are slowly adding together the pieces for eventual commuter rail, and I think are being rather clever about it. Lets hope they keep it up. And too, these types of things (commuter and rail to OKC) will take a while to get going, getting some pieces in place today, tomorrow and the next will only make it that much easier when the time comes when we do decide to make the leap and put them into place. Part of a "thinking ahead" long range strategy. This is just one expense out of the way for either scenario and helps make it all the more likely that the people of Tulsa will be willing to go with the now smaller expense it will take to implement commuter rail or the people of Oklahoma to impement rail to OKC, whichever actually happens or comes first.
Thanks guys you are quite correct. Interested to see if the 2012 timeline comes to pass.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 20, 2011, 02:11:06 PM
You've apparently missed the discussion that those bridges are the same design as the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis which collapsed. As far as the intermodal part of it being a waste, I agree to an extent. However, if that feature is not added, it will increase costs in the future for a functional high speed rail bridge. Like it or not, high speed rail will be an integral part of transportation in this country in the future.
What makes you say that- I believe the bridge in MN was steel and much of that steel was rusty from all the road salt used in winter, this Tulsa bridge has cement supports, and like Coburn said we have no rail system for it and by the time rail (if it ever arrives in Tulsa) comes the bridge will be old & outdated and they will have to tear it down and build a new up dated one. They are just spending money out the wazoo. IMO it's more tax money down the rat hole.
Another thing that frosts me is the building of a new justice center for $54 Million dollars and they want it too look like a kings palace, when they could turn Rosevelt school into a justice center for only $8-$10 Million and the place has two pools and a big gym and all the works, but nope, they come up with excuse after excuse on why that school cannot be turned into a County Justice Center for kids. We must build new for $54 Million dollars a big fancy place. They were talking about this issue on KFAQ radio's morn. show. Tax, spend & waste. I do not believe a new bridge for I-244 is really needed, what about a good bridge overhaul for a fraction of the cost? Then I understand the eastern bridge will be left alone for many years until they can find $30 million dollars to do that one. If the bridge is that bad and in such poor shape like they claim- why are they going to let it alone for many more years? :(
I know, we'll use this instead. It would save a lot of money. It'll even go great with the rest of the buildings downtown.
(http://ethics.tamu.edu/guest/InTheBox/Houses/Shack.jpg)
Quote from: sauerkraut on July 21, 2011, 03:35:48 PM
talking about this issue on KFAQ radio's morn. show.
bingo
This guy cannot be for real. I'm speechless everytime I read one.of his posts. It's like a train wreck I suppose.
Quote from: nathanm on July 21, 2011, 03:38:34 PM
I know, we'll use this instead. It would save a lot of money. It'll even go great with the rest of the buildings downtown.
(http://ethics.tamu.edu/guest/InTheBox/Houses/Shack.jpg)
That's sum funny smile raht ther Nate. Is that a tumbleweed?
Just because we are suddenly deep into austerity doesn't mean that we need to stop hoping, dreaming, planning and thinking about the future (bye bye NASA). If we are going to give up on the future then why even keep the schools open?
Quote from: Hoss on July 21, 2011, 03:57:06 PM
This guy cannot be for real. I'm speechless everytime I read one.of his posts. It's like a train wreck high speed rail crash I suppose.
FIFY
I told you his avatar was appropriate...
Quote from: Conan71 on July 20, 2011, 02:11:06 PM
You've apparently missed the discussion that those bridges are the same design as the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis which collapsed. As far as the intermodal part of it being a waste, I agree to an extent. However, if that feature is not added, it will increase costs in the future for a functional high speed rail bridge. Like it or not, high speed rail will be an integral part of transportation in this country in the future.
Not to defend sauerkraut, but the the Minneapolis bridge definitely was definitely not of the same design as our 244 bridge
(http://www.johnweeks.com/bridges/pics/i35wmiss02.jpg)
via http://www.johnweeks.com/i35w/ms16.html which has more photos
Quote from: BKDotCom on July 21, 2011, 07:03:27 PM
Not to defend sauerkraut, but the the Minneapolis bridge definitely was definitely not of the same design as our 244 bridge
(http://www.johnweeks.com/bridges/pics/i35wmiss02.jpg)
via http://www.johnweeks.com/i35w/ms16.html which has more photos
Hey, I see metal and concrete, what's different?
Okay, who started that rumor on here then, damn it?
I'd read that on here, so I figured it must be true. ;)
The story was started by kimchi. ;)
Quote from: sauerkraut on July 21, 2011, 03:35:48 PM
If the bridge is that bad and in such poor shape like they claim- why are they going to let it alone for many more years? :(
That old disease, fundsarelow.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 21, 2011, 08:34:57 PM
Hey, I see metal and concrete, what's different?
Fastener stresses in the gussets.
Quote from: sauerkraut on July 21, 2011, 03:31:13 PM
...and like Coburn said we have no rail system for it and by the time rail (if it ever arrives in Tulsa) comes the bridge will be old & outdated and they will have to tear it down and build a new up dated one.
It may potentially be used as part of a downtown rail circulator system to get across the river.
It was presented today as part of the draft plan of Fast Forward's Regional Transit System Plan.
www.fastforwardplan.org
Edit:
This will take you directly to a two page handout:
http://www.fastforwardplan.org/Portals/0/Documents/072011RTSP/RTSP_Handout_2page.pdf
Quote from: sauerkraut on July 21, 2011, 03:31:13 PM
What makes you say that- I believe the bridge in MN was steel and much of that steel was rusty from all the road salt used in winter, this Tulsa bridge has cement supports, and like Coburn said we have no rail system for it and by the time rail (if it ever arrives in Tulsa) comes the bridge will be old & outdated and they will have to tear it down and build a new up dated one. They are just spending money out the wazoo. IMO it's more tax money down the rat hole.
Again you and Coburn apparently are thinking about intercity rail which will indeed likely be a ways out, and not inner city rail. I believe the new bridge is an integral part of the short range, 5 year, transit plan. The rail will serve as part of the "foundation network" downtown circulator.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 21, 2011, 08:34:57 PM
Hey, I see metal and concrete, what's different?
Okay, who started that rumor on here then, damn it?
I'd read that on here, so I figured it must be true. ;)
Yes it's totally different from the I-244 bridge, I-244 uses double cement supports, no steel, the MN bridge had alot of rust from road salt and had a totally different design with a harsh climate. The I-244 bridge was built of basic simple design no fancy frills, and it got the job done. Driving past the construction work the posts and supports of the old bridge do not look bad at all. I don't know how old the I-244 bridge is but they were building the I-244 roadway around 1978.
Quote from: sauerkraut on July 22, 2011, 02:34:49 PM
Yes it's totally different from the I-244 bridge, I-244 uses double cement supports, no steel, the MN bridge had alot of rust from road salt and had a totally different design with a harsh climate. The I-244 bridge was built of basic simple design no fancy frills, and it got the job done. Driving past the construction work the posts and supports of the old bridge do not look bad at all. I don't know how old the I-244 bridge is but they were building the I-244 roadway around 1978.
Wow. You do realize that the I-244 bridge was rated "structurally deficient" at a rating of 31, right?
"Dementia, dementia calling"...
Quote from: sauerkraut on July 22, 2011, 02:34:49 PM
Yes it's totally different from the I-244 bridge, I-244 uses double cement supports, no steel, the MN bridge had alot of rust from road salt and had a totally different design with a harsh climate. The I-244 bridge was built of basic simple design no fancy frills, and it got the job done. Driving past the construction work the posts and supports of the old bridge do not look bad at all. I don't know how old the I-244 bridge is but they were building the I-244 roadway around 1978.
I'm glad you can tell that "the posts and supports of the old bridge do not look bad at all".
Reality is that the bridges are 43 years old and carry a lower structural deficiency rating than the bridge in MN that fell.
The bridge that is being replaced carried an overall rating of 32.1 out of 100 (structurally deficient) with a substructure (the posts and supports) rating of 4 out of 10. Which means "POOR CONDITION - advanced corrosion, deterioration, cracking or chipping. Also significant erosion of concrete bridge piers."
65,000 people a day on that bridge, but to your trained eye it's "not bad at all"
The other 244 bridge has a rating of 36.8 with substructure rating of 4 as well.
http://www2.news9.com/bridgetracker/
Quote from: swake on July 22, 2011, 03:23:37 PM
I'm glad you can tell that "the posts and supports of the old bridge do not look bad at all".
Reality is that the bridges are 43 years old and carry a lower structural deficiency rating than the bridge in MN that fell.
The bridge that is being replaced carried an overall rating of 32.1 out of 100 (structurally deficient) with a substructure (the posts and supports) rating of 4 out of 10. Which means "POOR CONDITION - advanced corrosion, deterioration, cracking or chipping. Also significant erosion of concrete bridge piers."
65,000 people a day on that bridge, but to your trained eye it's "not bad at all"
The other 244 bridge has a rating of 36.8 with substructure rating of 4 as well.
http://www2.news9.com/bridgetracker/
Well, hey they could just slap some mortar on it and wrap duct tape around it!
Quote from: Conan71 on July 22, 2011, 04:13:33 PM
Well, hey they could just slap some mortar on it and wrap duct tape around it!
Look at the satallite images again. They did.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 22, 2011, 04:13:33 PM
Well, hey they could just slap some mortar on it and wrap duct tape around it!
You know that's what his 1981 F150 truck looks like. All rust, bondo and duct tape.
Quote from: swake on July 22, 2011, 04:17:40 PM
You know that's what his 1981 F150 truck looks like. All rust, bondo and duct tape.
You forgot chicken wire for a tailgate.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 22, 2011, 04:20:04 PM
You forgot chicken wire for a tailgate.
Cardboard for the little wing window
Quote from: TheArtist on July 22, 2011, 06:51:47 AM
Again you and Coburn apparently are thinking about intercity rail which will indeed likely be a ways out, and not inner city rail. I believe the new bridge is an integral part of the short range, 5 year, transit plan. The rail will serve as part of the "foundation network" downtown circulator.
Coburn was talking about a rail system from Tulsa to OKC and into Fort Worth and currently Tulsa has no rail plan, nothing and they are going to build a costly new bridge for something that does not exist- I'm sure they could of milked a few more years out of the current bridge till they have a rail plan, or something to go with. That's alot of money being spent. Coburn brought up good points and he is against wasting the money. It's just my opinion that they could of re-surfaced the old bridge and fixed any problems and it would of been fine. That current bridge was built in the 1970's. It also seems like constructing that new county justice center for $54 million dollars is a big waste when they can use a un-used school for only $8-$10 Million dollars. Spend, spend & spend! :-X
Quote from: sauerkraut on July 23, 2011, 03:25:20 PM
It's just my opinion that they could of re-surfaced the old bridge and fixed any problems and it would of been fine.
Obviously, very few if any people agree with you. Whether or not we needed the bridge we are getting could be another issue but the old one needed to go.
Quote from: sauerkraut on July 23, 2011, 03:25:20 PM
Coburn was talking about a rail system from Tulsa to OKC and into Fort Worth and currently Tulsa has no rail plan, nothing and they are going to build a costly new bridge for something that does not exist- I'm sure they could of milked a few more years out of the current bridge till they have a rail plan, or something to go with. That's alot of money being spent. Coburn brought up good points and he is against wasting the money. It's just my opinion that they could of re-surfaced the old bridge and fixed any problems and it would of been fine. That current bridge was built in the 1970's. It also seems like constructing that new county justice center for $54 million dollars is a big waste when they can use a un-used school for only $8-$10 Million dollars. Spend, spend & spend! :-X
Sure glad you're not in structural engineering, or the leader of the DOT.
Can you say "St Paul I35 bridge"? Thought you might be able to.
Preparing For D-Day: When Congress Takes Your Deductions
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904233404576460151060383010.html
Some people call them "tax loopholes," while others prefer "tax breaks." In Congress, they are often called "tax expenditures."
Whichever term of art you prefer, hundreds of tax deductions, credits and exclusions that taxpayers rely on every year are at risk of being cut.
The debt-ceiling debate cast these benefits into the spotlight when Senate Finance Committee member Tom Coburn, a Republican from Oklahoma, on Monday released a budget plan he calls "Back in Black." Sen. Coburn's $9 trillion, 10-year package of debt-reducing measures includes $1 trillion in reclaimed tax breaks.
Introducing the plan, he sought to reframe the debate as one of cutting wasteful government spending rather than raising taxes. "Tax subsidies are socialism," he declared.
Of course, one taxpayer's senseless subsidy is another's worthy incentive. The low top rate on long-term gains is supposed to encourage investment. The Earned Income Tax Credit helps the working poor, and the charitable donation deduction fosters worthy causes.
Sen. Coburn's move was followed by another. The Senate's "Gang of Six"—three Democrats and three Republicans, including Sen. Coburn—called for cuts in tax breaks, along with spending cuts and lower marginal tax rates. President Obama's reaction was positive.
What matters now: These breaks aren't cheap. All told, the top 10 individual tax breaks will cost more than $3 trillion in forgone tax revenues between 2010 and 2014, according to estimates by Congress's Joint Tax Committee.
By contrast, the top 10 corporate tax breaks will cost only $350 billion over the same period. (This disparity isn't surprising: the individual income tax long has raised far more revenue than the corporate income tax; it currently brings in more than four times as much.)
What happens next is unclear. There has been talk of postponing decisions about tax breaks until next year. Experts say the Aug. 2 debt-ceiling deadline doesn't allow time to enact major new laws, and then comes the summer recess—giving advocates time to organize to fight changes tooth and nail.
On the other hand, the idea of cutting tax breaks is officially "in play." While the Gang of Six's plan doesn't give details, Sen. Coburn's does.
His plan takes aim at many small breaks for individuals and three big ones. He would limit the popular mortgage interest deduction to first homes worth $500,000 or less, while disallowing deductions for second homes and home-equity loans. He would also limit the working poor to five years of the earned-income tax credit.
Instead of allowing open-ended tax-free employer-paid health insurance, Sen. Coburn would institute a tax-free limit of $7,500 for individual premiums and $15,000 for families. He says these are higher than the current averages, and would be frozen for years and then grow slowly after that.
How to prepare? For now, "Taxpayers who rely heavily on these breaks don't need to panic—but they should pay close attention," says Clint Stretch, a tax analyst with Deloitte Tax in Washington. Changes that are enacted usually don't go as far as changes that are proposed, he adds.
Meantime, here is a rundown of the Joint Tax Committee's top 10 tax expenditures, along with their 2010-14 revenue cost. Medicare doesn't appear on the list because Parts A, B, and D are counted separately. Added together, they would be in fourth place.
Health insurance: Employer payments for health care, health insurance premiums, and long-term-care insurance premiums aren't taxed, costing $659 billion.
Mortgage interest: Homeowners may deduct mortgage interest on up to $1.1 million of debt for up to two homes, costing $484 billion for deductions on 34 million tax returns a year.
Capital gains and dividends: Long-term gains and qualified dividends are taxed at a maximum rate of 15%. Total tab: $403 billion.
Pensions: Defined-benefit pension contributions and earnings aren't taxed (although payouts are), for a total of $303 billion.
Earned-Income Tax Credit: Some 26 million low-income taxpayers a year are expected to claim $269 billion.
Donations: Charitable contributions are largely deductible, costing $241 billion for 36 million claims a year.
State taxes: Deductions for state and local income, sales and property taxes will cost $237 billion for 41 million claims a year.
401(k): Contributions and earnings aren't taxed (although payouts may be), for a total of $212 billion.
Capital gains at death: Assets held at death aren't subject to capital gains tax. Total tab: $194 billion.
Social Security benefits: The portion of Social Security and railroad retirement payments that isn't taxed comes to $173 billion from 28 million tax returns a year.
Write to Laura Saunders at laura.saunders@wsj.com
Salutations to Tom Coburn for trying to BRIDGE the gap..... :o
Quote from: Hoss on July 23, 2011, 04:58:03 PM
Sure glad you're not in structural engineering, or the leader of the DOT.
Can you say "St Paul I35 bridge"? Thought you might be able to.
Again with the "Minneapolis Bridge"...
Via the Myths page on http://www.johnweeks.com/i35w/i35wmyths.html
Quote
The I-35W bridge spanned the river between Minneapolis and Saint Paul.
Not true. The bridge was fully inside of Minneapolis. It is 2 miles from any part of Saint Paul, and the bridge runs north and south, whereas Saint Paul is east of the bridge. There are Mississippi River bridges that cross between Minneapolis and Saint Paul, such as the Lake Street Bridge and the Intercity Bridge (on Ford Parkway), but the I-35W Bridge did not.
Quote from: BKDotCom on July 23, 2011, 05:41:24 PM
Again with the "Minneapolis Bridge"...
Via the Myths page on http://www.johnweeks.com/i35w/i35wmyths.html
BK, please do not introduce facts when all that is going on is the cop's obsession with sauerkraut. He displayed the same obsession in a very sincere and candid thread regarding one of our more frequent posters.
From your article, myth No. 6:
QuoteThe bridge was ready to fall down because it was "structurally deficient".
Not true. The bridge was inspected every year since 1993, and every other year before that. This was not known as a problem bridge or a bridge in trouble. It did have some maintenance items over the years. A key factor with this bridge is that it was an older non-redundant design, which the engineers call "fracture critical". The term "structurally deficient" is an engineering term that can be applied for a variety of reasons. A number of inspections found the bridge to be serviceable, and projected several decades of future service, though none of them would build a bridge like that today knowing what we know since 1967.
You seem rather knowledgeable about bridges. Am I correct?
Quote from: guido911 on July 23, 2011, 06:22:48 PM
BK, please do not introduce facts when all that is going on is the cop's obsession with sauerkraut. He displayed the same obsession in a very sincere and candid thread regarding one of our more frequent posters.
From your article, myth No. 6:
You seem rather knowledgeable about bridges. Am I correct?
You're pretty quick to judge obsessions there.
I'll admit to letting this guy have it until he proves he's a resident. He hasn't. I remind him of it. Much the same way you remind those of us aligning to the left of your utter hatred of our current CiC. The goofy avatars, the sig line, wave after wave of nonsensical video.
Also your defense when any of us utters a cross word about the half-term governor.
Do you use much a/v in the courtroom? Have you even seen one lately?
My point was this. The bridge needed replacing (ours). That much is indisputable. Did I know or care if the I35 bridge crossed over in St Paul? Nope. I should have said Minnesota bridge I35.
But I'm sure the resident fool would have been in line trying to poke jabs at me because I didn't know what city it was in. Why? I was in a hurry.
But I do get a big kick seeing that I get Tony's cankles up, that's for sure.
Take care, there...pardna...
Sincerely
The Sheriff.
Quote from: Hoss on July 23, 2011, 07:14:42 PM
You're pretty quick to judge obsessions there.
I'll admit to letting this guy have it until he proves he's a resident. He hasn't. I remind him of it. Much the same way you remind those of us aligning to the left of your utter hatred of our current CiC. The goofy avatars, the sig line, wave after wave of nonsensical video.
Also your defense when any of us utters a cross word about the half-term governor.
Do you use much a/v in the courtroom? Have you even seen one lately?
My point was this. The bridge needed replacing (ours). That much is indisputable. Did I know or care if the I35 bridge crossed over in St Paul? Nope. I should have said Minnesota bridge I35.
But I'm sure the resident fool would have been in line trying to poke jabs at me because I didn't know what city it was in. Why? I was in a hurry.
But I do get a big kick seeing that I get Tony's cankles up, that's for sure.
Take care, there...pardna...
Sincerely
The Sheriff.
Later Barney.....
Quote from: Breadburner on July 24, 2011, 11:05:51 AM
Later Barney.....
Aaaand...
the frat brother chimes in.
And Tony complains about the "Kirk/Spock" thing?
Quote from: Hoss on July 24, 2011, 12:55:38 PM
Aaaand...
the frat brother chimes in.
And Tony complains about the "Kirk/Spock" thing?
He walks on broken glass....the question is: barefoot?
Let me see if I understand correctly: they are mulling over taxing IRA, pension, and 401K contributions now? I can't say I agree with that as it essentially amounts to double taxation unless they allow for tax free withdrawl after a certain age.
Other than that, the standard deduction is high enough these days that most middle income families don't benefit with the mortgage interest deduction. I don't really see how getting rid of the MID would harm the housing market. It's only one of many advantages to owning a home.
I would also assume a percentage of tax returns have fraudulent charitable donation claims. I'd propose that require documentation to be issued at the time of filing and raise the lower limits of what would be deductible on it. I seriously doubt the tax incentive going away would vastly affect many charitable organizations.
One no-brainer I'm not hearing is stepping up enforcement on tax cheats and deadbeats. The cost of tax fraud or tax evasion is estimated to be in the range of $400 to $500 billion.
Quote from: sauerkraut on July 23, 2011, 03:25:20 PM
Coburn was talking about a rail system from Tulsa to OKC and into Fort Worth and currently Tulsa has no rail plan, nothing and they are going to build a costly new bridge for something that does not exist- I'm sure they could of milked a few more years out of the current bridge till they have a rail plan, or something to go with. That's alot of money being spent. Coburn brought up good points and he is against wasting the money. It's just my opinion that they could of re-surfaced the old bridge and fixed any problems and it would of been fine. That current bridge was built in the 1970's. It also seems like constructing that new county justice center for $54 million dollars is a big waste when they can use a un-used school for only $8-$10 Million dollars. Spend, spend & spend! :-X
Coburn said Tulsa doesn't have a plan? That's disingenuous of him since he knows we have several plans most recently the fast forward plan and planitulsa. Recent polling shows that Tulsans recognize the need for better mass transit and embrace the idea of rail as a component of a transit plan.
If this is about wasting money then you would certainly agree that the status quo of building wider and wider highways to accomodate each individual citizen to pay for and drive their own car (and to find and drill for oil in ever more remote areas (the artic), and then providing a parking spot for each of those people at their desitnation is much more lavish and wasteful then getting all of those people from point a to point b in a single transport module.
IMO that bridge was not in bad shape at all and the last 3 support collums still standing before they knock them down look good, yes- I'm no expert but it's not rocket science to see when something is crumbling and cracking and that does not seem to be the case with those supports. I think they could of milked a few more years out of that bridge.. They are not going to make that new bridge any wider from the drawings of it I seen they tore down the 3 lane bridge only to rebuild it as a new 3-lane bridge when they might as well make it wider for the future traffic but that would make too much sense. The bridge is only 40 years old that's not bad. I get the feeling that some of Tulsa's roads are turning into another Interstate 75 like in Cincinatti, Ohio... It's claimed that I-75 thru metro Cincinatti, Ohio has been under perm. road const. since the day that Interstate first opened in the 1960's, they widen it, then tear it up and fix a retainer wall, then tear that down, then put it back up, add a lane, move a lane, change a exit, move the exit back where it was... Meanwhile traffic is choked up in knots.. I hope that's not what is going to happen in Tulsa.
Quote from: sauerkraut on July 28, 2011, 01:25:24 PM
IMO that bridge was not in bad shape at all and the last 3 support collums still standing before they knock them down look good, yes- I'm no expert but it's not rocket science to see when something is crumbling and cracking and that does not seem to be the case with those supports. I think they could of milked a few more years out of that bridge.. They are not going to make that new bridge any wider from the drawings of it I seen they tore down the 3 lane bridge only to rebuild it as a new 3-lane bridge when they might as well make it wider for the future traffic but that would make too much sense. The bridge is only 40 years old that's not bad. I get the feeling that some of Tulsa's roads are turning into another Interstate 75 like in Cincinatti, Ohio... It's claimed that I-75 thru metro Cincinatti, Ohio has been under perm. road const. since the day that Interstate first opened in the 1960's, they widen it, then tear it up and fix a retainer wall, then tear that down, then put it back up, add a lane, move a lane, change a exit, move the exit back where it was... Meanwhile traffic is choked up in knots.. I hope that's not what is going to happen in Tulsa.
Here again are the real ratings of the bridge from real engineers:
Quote
Reality is that the bridges are 43 years old and carry a lower structural deficiency rating than the bridge in MN that fell.
The bridge that is being replaced carried an overall rating of 32.1 out of 100 (structurally deficient) with a substructure (the posts and supports) rating of 4 out of 10. Which means "POOR CONDITION - advanced corrosion, deterioration, cracking or chipping. Also significant erosion of concrete bridge piers."
The other 244 bridge has a rating of 36.8 with substructure rating of 4 as well.
But I'm guess you won't answer my post, probably too cowardly and/or dumb to deal with facts that are in direct conflict with what you have been told to think.
If there are no responses to a sauerkraut does a sauerkraut actually exist?
We could run a test.
Quote from: sauerkraut on July 28, 2011, 01:25:24 PM
IMO that bridge was not in bad shape at all and the last 3 support collums still standing before they knock them down look good, yes- I'm no expert but it's not rocket science to see when something is crumbling and cracking and that does not seem to be the case with those supports. I think they could of milked a few more years out of that bridge.. They are not going to make that new bridge any wider from the drawings of it I seen they tore down the 3 lane bridge only to rebuild it as a new 3-lane bridge when they might as well make it wider for the future traffic but that would make too much sense. The bridge is only 40 years old that's not bad. I get the feeling that some of Tulsa's roads are turning into another Interstate 75 like in Cincinatti, Ohio... It's claimed that I-75 thru metro Cincinatti, Ohio has been under perm. road const. since the day that Interstate first opened in the 1960's, they widen it, then tear it up and fix a retainer wall, then tear that down, then put it back up, add a lane, move a lane, change a exit, move the exit back where it was... Meanwhile traffic is choked up in knots.. I hope that's not what is going to happen in Tulsa.
You don't widen a bridge only to reduce it down to the main 3 lanes. Are you seriously that dense? Oh, I know what it is. You likely haven't driven on I-244 since, well, probably since there was none and you had to take Southwest Blvd to get to Sapulpa.
Quote from: Hoss on July 28, 2011, 03:59:18 PM
You don't widen a bridge only to reduce it down to the main 3 lanes. Are you seriously that dense? Oh, I know what it is. You likely haven't driven on I-244 since, well, probably since there was none and you had to take Southwest Blvd to get to Sapulpa.
The bridge probably did look pretty good in 1976