Baltimore Bridges and Diversity

[RVonse]

Wow, talk about noise

You mean like the Maersk employee who got fired for reporting safety violations to the Coast Guard getting swept under the rug?

The fuck does that mean? That doesn't relate AT ALL to my response, it's just more noise.

You said Idaho shouldn't be on the hook for anything, as if they aren't already on the dole.

Take your pick of 50 states then. I live in Missouri and I don't think I should pay taxes to support a Maersk fuck up either.

I don't know if there will actually be an investigation into why this boat ran into a bridge. Maybe not if Brandon is going to have the whole country paying for it. But if you do actually see an investigation and Maersk is giving secret testimony under closed doors, thats a good clue what is really happening.

 

[Jarhyn]

Take your pick of 50 states then

Pretty sure we already are aware of at least a few states on the dole, so 50 seems a bit high as a number.

Honestly, though, I don't give a fuck what you think you should have to contribute to. You benefited from the bridge as much as you benefit from everything else you complain about the taxes for.

Seriously, there is no difference between such a puerile view on tax spending and say, the asshole that is fine receiving insurance payments for THEIR testicular cancer but is pissed about paying insurance for covering someone else's ovarian cancer because they don't have ovaries. In short, it reeks of financial illiteracy.

Then, literacy was never a requirement for "the base".

 

[RVonse]

Take your pick of 50 states then

Pretty sure we already are aware of at least a few states on the dole, so 50 seems a bit high as a number.

Honestly, though, I don't give a fuck what you think you should have to contribute to. You benefited from the bridge as much as you benefit from everything else you complain about the taxes for.

Seriously, there is no difference between such a puerile view on tax spending and say, the asshole that is fine receiving insurance payments for THEIR testicular cancer but is pissed about paying insurance for covering someone else's ovarian cancer because they don't have ovaries. In short, it reeks of financial illiteracy.

Then, literacy was never a requirement for "the base".

I'm just saying the people who ran into the bridge should pay for the bridge. Not the federal tax payer. If this huge shipping corporation (making over $51 billion last year) isn't required to pay for what they did, what incentive do they have for safely in the future?

There are many other huge conglomerates (like Boeing) who invest in stock buybacks instead of building more safety into their airplanes I could talk about. But that will get us even more off topic than Idaho. Like I said before, these huge conglomerates have completely overwhelmed our regulatory public protections.

 

[Jarhyn]

Take your pick of 50 states then

Pretty sure we already are aware of at least a few states on the dole, so 50 seems a bit high as a number.

Honestly, though, I don't give a fuck what you think you should have to contribute to. You benefited from the bridge as much as you benefit from everything else you complain about the taxes for.

Seriously, there is no difference between such a puerile view on tax spending and say, the asshole that is fine receiving insurance payments for THEIR testicular cancer but is pissed about paying insurance for covering someone else's ovarian cancer because they don't have ovaries. In short, it reeks of financial illiteracy.

Then, literacy was never a requirement for "the base".

I'm just saying the people who ran into the bridge should pay for the bridge. Not the federal tax payer. If this huge shipping corporation (making over $51 billion last year) isn't required to pay for what they did, what incentive do they have for safely in the future?

There are many other huge conglomerates (like Boeing) who invest in stock buybacks instead of building more safety into their airplanes I could talk about. But that will get us even more off topic than Idaho. Like I said before, these huge conglomerates have completely overwhelmed our regulatory public protections.

No, the people who benefit from having a bridge should pay for the bridge. Which is everyone. Because the bridge wasn't necessarily lost due to malfeasance, but due to the sorts of events that just happen from time to time.

If you think Merick needs to pay money, they can be found guilty in a court of criminal malfeasance... After the new bridge is paid for.

Unless of course you just want Maryland to not have the money to replace the bridge, but the only folks who feel that way are shitheads whose feelings on the matter do not have any bearing on the truth of it, so that couldn't possibly be describing you, could it?

 

[RVonse]

No, the people who benefit from having a bridge should pay for the bridge. Which is everyone. Because the bridge wasn't necessarily lost due to malfeasance, but due to the sorts of events that just happen from time to time.

How do I benefit from this bridge? I did not even know it existed until this happened.

And yes I think there was malfeasance because there were employees fired for trying to report safety problems. I think there was plenty of corruption and lobbying as well.

So yes, I think the state of Maryland should go after this shipping company to collect everything they can. If that means putting the company out of business than that should be done first before federal money is released to bailout the state.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, the people who benefit from having a bridge should pay for the bridge. Which is everyone. Because the bridge wasn't necessarily lost due to malfeasance, but due to the sorts of events that just happen from time to time.

How do I benefit from this bridge? I did not even know it existed until this happened.

And yes I think there was malfeasance because there were employees fired for trying to report safety problems. I think there was plenty of corruption and lobbying as well.

So yes, I think the state of Maryland should go after this shipping company to collect everything they can. If that means putting the company out of business than that should be done first before federal money is released to bailout the state.

And then there we were, in a thread, and then you stepped into an "argument from incredulity".

I will blame this either on a lack of will to do due diligence in abstracting benefits, or on a lack of good faith. Both are damning, to be fair.

Do you not buy anything that could come in from a Maryland port?

As to whether there was malfeasance, what you think matters not. That is for a court to decide.

Edit: not to mention the fact that all things told, those taxes aren't coming from you. All things told, your tax bill is miniscule, and if you actually cared about companies with resources paying for the things they damage, you would support a much higher corporate tax rate.

So which is it? Should companies be on the hook to pay for what they use and are given or should they not be?

If you want the horse to give you their dubious oats for paying low taxes, you will be footing the bill for when they are the outsized beneficiaries of taxes.

If you want whoever to pay for bridges, then actually put them on the bill to pay for bridges and let the companies their "insurance" is paid for by be the ones pushing whoever-it-is to take them to court.

The fact is, you buy shit in an environment of interstate commerce and every shipping lane down is another dollar out of your pocket, and everyone else's.

 

[scombrid]

We are into the late stage of capitalism where the writings of Marx are actually coming true. (Im no fan of Marx but he is right about this)

As huge wealthy interests (Maersk) have become consolidated they have completely overwhelmed our regulatory public protections. Corruption brought down this bridge.

Trump is definitely the answer. I’m sure if he can sign more tax cuts for the mega rich and keep running blocker while the GOP dismantles EPA et al. then the people will prevail at keeping the huge multinational corporations from stomping them into the ground.

 

[ZiprHead]

We are into the late stage of capitalism where the writings of Marx are actually coming true. (Im no fan of Marx but he is right about this)

As huge wealthy interests (Maersk) have become consolidated they have completely overwhelmed our regulatory public protections. Corruption brought down this bridge.

Trump is definitely the answer. I’m sure if he can sign more tax cuts for the mega rich and keep running blocker while the GOP dismantles EPA et al. then the people will prevail at keeping the huge multinational corporations from stomping them into the ground.

This is true. RVonse complains about the economic elite while supporting the most elite guy of them all. He's the guy that will suck up to any major corporation for a tax break at the drop of a hat.

 

[RVonse]

No, the people who benefit from having a bridge should pay for the bridge. Which is everyone. Because the bridge wasn't necessarily lost due to malfeasance, but due to the sorts of events that just happen from time to time.

How do I benefit from this bridge? I did not even know it existed until this happened.

And yes I think there was malfeasance because there were employees fired for trying to report safety problems. I think there was plenty of corruption and lobbying as well.

So yes, I think the state of Maryland should go after this shipping company to collect everything they can. If that means putting the company out of business than that should be done first before federal money is released to bailout the state.

And then there we were, in a thread, and then you stepped into an "argument from incredulity".


So which is it? Should companies be on the hook to pay for what they use and are given or should they not be?

If you want the horse to give you their dubious oats for paying low taxes, you will be footing the bill for when they are the outsized beneficiaries of taxes.

If you want whoever to pay for bridges, then actually put them on the bill to pay for bridges and let the companies their "insurance" is paid for by be the ones pushing whoever-it-is to take them to court.

The fact is, you buy shit in an environment of interstate commerce and every shipping lane down is another dollar out of your pocket, and everyone else's.

I do support higher corporate taxes. It is people like Loren who will tell you those taxes are only paid indirectly by consumers but I don't and never did buy that argument.If the Baltimore bridge goes down and my price for goods and services inflates so be it. At least I have the satisfaction knowing part of my higher price will be supporting the other ports (like LA) that did not fuck up and successfully do good business.[/WIKI]

 

[Jarhyn]

No, the people who benefit from having a bridge should pay for the bridge. Which is everyone. Because the bridge wasn't necessarily lost due to malfeasance, but due to the sorts of events that just happen from time to time.

How do I benefit from this bridge? I did not even know it existed until this happened.

And yes I think there was malfeasance because there were employees fired for trying to report safety problems. I think there was plenty of corruption and lobbying as well.

So yes, I think the state of Maryland should go after this shipping company to collect everything they can. If that means putting the company out of business than that should be done first before federal money is released to bailout the state.

And then there we were, in a thread, and then you stepped into an "argument from incredulity".


So which is it? Should companies be on the hook to pay for what they use and are given or should they not be?

If you want the horse to give you their dubious oats for paying low taxes, you will be footing the bill for when they are the outsized beneficiaries of taxes.

If you want whoever to pay for bridges, then actually put them on the bill to pay for bridges and let the companies their "insurance" is paid for by be the ones pushing whoever-it-is to take them to court.

The fact is, you buy shit in an environment of interstate commerce and every shipping lane down is another dollar out of your pocket, and everyone else's.

I do support higher corporate taxes. It is people like Loren who will tell you those taxes are only paid indirectly by consumers but I don't and never did buy that argument.If the Baltimore bridge goes down and my price for goods and services inflates so be it. At least I have the satisfaction knowing part of my higher price will be supporting the other ports (like LA) that did not fuck up and successfully do good business.[/WIKI]

Except that it isn't the port's fault..it isn't much of ANYONE'S fault really. It just kind of fucking happened. At some point, accidents will happen.

The rule of large numbers demands it.

So either vote for the people who will actually raise corporate tax rates, rebuild the bridge so that we all can have nice things, and get the port open so that the rest of us can afford to be a little less busy.

If you don't vote for people who will raise corporate taxes, you are not a supporter of higher corporate taxes.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Baltimore bridge collapse: Who will pay for the destroyed bridge, harmed businesses and lost lives?

The collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Maryland is a multi-layered tragedy: For the families and friends of those killed or presumed dead, it’s a profound and personal loss

abcnews.go.com

Reinsurers to bear the bulk of insured cost of Baltimore bridge collapse, says AM Best - Reinsurance News

The collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge near the Port of Baltimore, Maryland yesterday is expected to drive billions of dollars in insured losses,

www.reinsurancene.ws

I haven't found anything yet that speaks to negligence and to what if any of the cost is borne by the public.

 

[Playball40]

I don't know what size bumper would have deflected it.

Bumpers do work, though they work better as part of an integrated plan than as an afterthought. The goal isn't to wholly absorb the collision, only to deflect the energy of the blow so as to prevent the collapse of the structure. The US had faced an accident of a similar kind in 2007, when the container ship Cosco Busan struck the San Francisco - Oakland Bay Bridge in heavy fog. It was a ship of similar class to the Dali, though twenty meters shorter. The allision tore a massive gash in the ship, and poured millions of gallons of oil into the bay. A disaster of one kind. But the bridge itself sustained very little damage, and even the boat was recovered, refurbished, and remained in operation for another decade.

They were added to the brand new Sunshine Skyway after the first bridge was struck and collapsed in 1980. Of course the first bridge was absolutely terrifying.

 

[southernhybrid]

Wow, talk about noise

You mean like the Maersk employee who got fired for reporting safety violations to the Coast Guard getting swept under the rug?

The fuck does that mean? That doesn't relate AT ALL to my response, it's just more noise.

You said Idaho shouldn't be on the hook for anything, as if they aren't already on the dole.

Take your pick of 50 states then. I live in Missouri and I don't think I should pay taxes to support a Maersk fuck up either.

I don't know if there will actually be an investigation into why this boat ran into a bridge. Maybe not if Brandon is going to have the whole country paying for it. But if you do actually see an investigation and Maersk is giving secret testimony under closed doors, thats a good clue what is really happening.

Yes. There is a very serious investigation already underway, into this bridge collapse. I read that one big problem with the bridges that were built decades ago, is that ships are getting larger and larger, making it more difficult for them to safely pass under some of these older bridges. That ship lost all of its power, making it impossible to steer it away from the bridge. I'm sure that will be thoroughly investigated.

You're also not thinking about the fact that a huge amount of supplies depended on that bridge to transport them to places where they are sold, so many parts of the country need that bridge, not just Baltimore. The destruction of the bridge could increase inflation, due to the shortage of supplies that will result from the lack of a good route to get them where they are needed. Surely, you understand the basics of supply and demand! If not, I suggest you do some reading on basic economic principles. It's really not that hard.

Your views are very shortsighted. I don't think you understand how things like this work and how important bridges and other transportation routes are to the economy of the country.

 

[Elixir]

He's the guy that will suck up to any major corporation for a tax break at the drop of a hat.

Heh, tax break, political “contribution” (bribe) - if it spends, it’s all good. That 180° flip flop he did on TikTok would have tipped off any sentient follower he might have had. But apparently sentience isn’t an attribute that can be found among the MAGAts.

 

[Elixir]

Wow, talk about noise

You mean like the Maersk employee who got fired for reporting safety violations to the Coast Guard getting swept under the rug?

The fuck does that mean? That doesn't relate AT ALL to my response, it's just more noise.

You said Idaho shouldn't be on the hook for anything, as if they aren't already on the dole.

Take your pick of 50 states then. I live in Missouri and I don't think I should pay taxes to support a Maersk fuck up either.

I don't know if there will actually be an investigation into why this boat ran into a bridge. Maybe not if Brandon is going to have the whole country paying for it. But if you do actually see an investigation and Maersk is giving secret testimony under closed doors, thats a good clue what is really happening.

Yes. There is a very serious investigation already underway, into this bridge collapse. I read that one big problem with the bridges that were built decades ago, is that ships are getting larger and larger, making it more difficult for them to safely pass under some of these older bridges. That ship lost all of its power, making it impossible to steer it away from the bridge. I'm sure that will be thoroughly investigated.

You're also not thinking about the fact that a huge amount of supplies depended on that bridge to transport them to places where they are sold, so many parts of the country need that bridge, not just Baltimore. The destruction of the bridge could increase inflation, due to the shortage of supplies that will result from the lack of a good route to get them where they are needed. Surely, you understand the basics of supply and demand! If not, I suggest you do some reading on basic economic principles. It's really not that hard.

Your views are very shortsighted. I don't think you understand how things like this work and how important bridges and other transportation routes are to the economy of the country.

Spot on.
I am reminded of libertarians.
“Libertarians are like housecats. Completely convinced of their own fierce independence while they remain utterly reliant upon systems and things they neither appreciate nor understand.”

 

[RVonse]

He's the guy that will suck up to any major corporation for a tax break at the drop of a hat.

Heh, tax break, political “contribution” (bribe) - if it spends, it’s all good. That 180° flip flop he did on TikTok would have tipped off any sentient follower he might have had. But apparently sentience isn’t an attribute that can be found among the MAGAts.

You have lost me there. I was against allowing tik tok for national defense reasons and still am. I do not remember flipping my opinion.

 

[RVonse]

Spot on.
I am reminded of libertarians.
“Libertarians are like housecats. Completely convinced of their own fierce independence while they remain utterly reliant upon systems and things they neither appreciate nor understand.”

As I said before I would be ok with prices inflating due to this bridge going away. Knowing that it would be temporary anyway until someone else either builds another one or some other state or locality performs the same service as efficiently.

Furthermore, I would even be ok with federal money helping if this is really a randem act or an act of God or a shit that just happens scenario.
I simply don't believe this so far because the evidence seems very suspicious that the shipping company was not acting in good faith and that the Baltimore authorities were not doing their job either. https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/osha/osha20230719-0

 

[RVonse]

Wow, talk about noise

You mean like the Maersk employee who got fired for reporting safety violations to the Coast Guard getting swept under the rug?

The fuck does that mean? That doesn't relate AT ALL to my response, it's just more noise.

You said Idaho shouldn't be on the hook for anything, as if they aren't already on the dole.

Take your pick of 50 states then. I live in Missouri and I don't think I should pay taxes to support a Maersk fuck up either.

I don't know if there will actually be an investigation into why this boat ran into a bridge. Maybe not if Brandon is going to have the whole country paying for it. But if you do actually see an investigation and Maersk is giving secret testimony under closed doors, thats a good clue what is really happening.

Yes. There is a very serious investigation already underway, into this bridge collapse. I read that one big problem with the bridges that were built decades ago, is that ships are getting larger and larger, making it more difficult for them to safely pass under some of these older bridges. That ship lost all of its power, making it impossible to steer it away from the bridge. I'm sure that will be thoroughly investigated.

You're also not thinking about the fact that a huge amount of supplies depended on that bridge to transport them to places where they are sold, so many parts of the country need that bridge, not just Baltimore. The destruction of the bridge could increase inflation, due to the shortage of supplies that will result from the lack of a good route to get them where they are needed. Surely, you understand the basics of supply and demand! If not, I suggest you do some reading on basic economic principles. It's really not that hard.

Your views are very shortsighted. I don't think you understand how things like this work and how important bridges and other transportation routes are to the economy of the country.

Or it might just be a slight difference in ideology. That I would rather seek out the facts first before running instantly for never ending federal funds at all our expense that Biden will use to enhance his political campaign.

In any case, it appeared worth mentioning the opposition party (Republicans) would be better served at least mentioning some of this before speaking about this accident having to do with "wokeness". This is what the OP stated.

 

[RVonse]

If you don't vote for people who will raise corporate taxes, you are not a supporter of higher corporate taxes.

Now who is naive and simplistic in their views? When there are only 2 parties and 1 candidate for each party it is impossible to vote on just 1 issue.

 

[southernhybrid]

If you don't vote for people who will raise corporate taxes, you are not a supporter of higher corporate taxes.

Now who is naive and simplistic in their views? When there is only 2 parties and 1 candidate for each party it is impossible to vote on just 1 issue.

We vote for people besides presidents. Congress has as much power as any president. In fact, Congress can make it impossible for any president to accomplish much, if it's controlled by the opposition party and compromise is off of the table. Only one party is currently a threat to democracy, so that's the biggest problem I see right now. Liz Cheney is a very conservative person, but she is planning on voting for Biden because she knows he will do his best to preserve our democracy. In her book, that I read a couple of months ago, she praised the decency and honesty of the Democrats who she worked with to investigate Trump. Ideology isn't as important as being honest and willing to compromise with the other party as nobody ever gets everything they want. I don't agree with her policies, but I have a lot of respect for a conservative like Cheney, who will do the right thing, when she knows the fate of the country's future is on the table.

As for the bridge, bridges, highways, train rails etc. are all part of our infrastructure. It should be supported by the federal government because we all rely on these things. It has nothing to do with ideology. It has to do with keeping a functioning country that has decent transportation system and location has nothing to do with it. A highway in Georgia is used to transport goods all over the Southeast. So, Georgia gets federal money to help keep major interstates intact. That's sort of like the bridge.

The bridge was indeed an accident. Of course, if you believe idiots like MTG, it was done on purpose by the libs or something like that. That woman is an embarrassment to the country as are her supporters here in Georgia.