Nadler-Bowers passes on voice vote. (4.00 / 6)

Great work there! A smart, targeted amendment that correctly gauged bipartisan support for mass transit infrastructure investment.

Now, hands off, Senate!

And of course, next up is the Neugebauer amendment that would strike all appropriations from the bill, including the transit money just approved.

---

by: Kagro X @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 13:39:48 PM CST

Welll.... (0.00 / 0)

LEts just assume that will fail.

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 14:46:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Peter King even was for this amendment (4.00 / 1)

on MSNBC and the Medicaid provisions (but will vote down the overall bill).

John McCain won't insure children

---

by: magster @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 13:52:42 PM CST

Semi-logical from King (4.00 / 2)

Long Island benefits from increased transit expenditures.  LIRR is a pretty shabby line, with constant delays throughout the Queens section.  Plus a big project has been Moynihan station and the passage between Grand Central and Penn that would let Long Islander commuters off on the East Side.  So this is actually a vote for his constituency on this one issue, although he's voting against them in the broader picture.

"Never be afraid to stand with the minority when the minority is right, for the minority which is right will one day be the majority." -William Jennings Bryan

---

by: circlesnshadows @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 14:03:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

LIRR (0.00 / 0)

I used to take the Metro North pretty regularly in the 90s and the LIRR occassionally.  The LIRR was much better maintained and its workers were better paid.  It may have deteriorated since then.  The LIRR involved a train switch in Queens on the way out to Nassau.  The Nassau station looked better than the one huge Queens station so maybe you have a point.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 14:59:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

what is this Republican bill that they're babbling about (0.00 / 0)

"Even Obama's team says this would create twice as many jobs, at half the cost"

The C-Span caption just says it's more tax cuts. wtf?

---

by: soul creator @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 15:08:41 PM CST

Oh it's just spin (4.00 / 1)

just talking out their a$$.

It's probably has to do with assuming that direct spending creates no jobs and takes forever to spend out while tax cuts produce jobs and are spent out immediately. basically going against every economist (including conservative ones).  

---

by: adamterando @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 15:33:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I swear (0.00 / 0)

Republican talking points are like chaff grenades for logical thinking. They're so incredibly inane, and the fact that a grown person actually takes them seriously makes me start thinking if I'm the one who's actually missing something. Like, "maybe there's something to this tax cut business since they keep talking about it so much...OH GOD SOUL CREATOR GET AHOLD OF YOURSELF"

Dear god.

---

by: soul creator @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 15:45:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hmmmm.... (4.00 / 1)

Well, in the very short term, tax cuts are better, because they are faster.  Over the next month or two, tax cuts would be almost infinitely better at creating jobs then infrastructure spending.  You know, before the infrastructure spending is actually spent.

Then infrastructure spending starts kicking in, kicking ass and taking names.

So sure, start with that obvious point and spin away!  It is still a lie.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 16:00:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]