Marco Island’s new Jolley Bridge span to open to drivers by end of month - PHOTOS

Crane work marks beginning of Marco bridge expansion

Large crane arrives on Marco Feb. 9

— The Judge S.S. Jolley Bridge has a twin. It’s not quite identical and wasn’t “born,” or constructed, on the same date, but next to the old Jolley Bridge is now another Jolley Bridge.

Drivers will be able to use Marco Island’s new two-lane span by the end of the month, Florida Department of Transportation spokeswoman Debbie Tower said.

When that occurs within the next 10 days, traffic from the existing bridge will shift to the new parallel span and crews will begin working on new roadway approaches to the existing bridge, Tower said.

Eventually, both spans that connect Marco Island to the mainland via Collier Boulevard will be open to the public. The old one will be for northbound traffic headed off the island and the new one will be for southbound traffic headed to Marco.

Though an exact date and time for when traffic will be shifted from the old bridge to the new couldn’t be projected, the transition will be seamless for drivers, Tower assured.

Congestion on the old bridge had in the past caused concern among Marco Island emergency officials, including its fire chief, Mike Murphy.

The main purpose of the approximately $25.5 million federal stimulus project is to improve traffic flow and capacity.

“This is particularly important in hurricane season, since it is on a key hurricane evacuation route and the new bridge is rated to withstand a much stronger storm,” said Bill Trotter, a Marco Island councilman and chairman of the Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization, a board that sets long-term road priorities.

The new span can withstand a hurricane up to a level 5, Trotter has said.

Although the old bridge remains standing after a $9 million rehabilitation in 2009, lost completely were its dilapidated fishing piers, which were ravaged by Hurricane Wilma. There was no money available to build new fishing piers, officials have said.

However, fishing from the bridge isn’t forbidden, Tower said.

“There is a sidewalk on the western side of the bridge. There are areas off the sidewalk for people to stand and look out at the view. We don’t see why people couldn’t stand there and fish,” Tower said.

Also, fishing will be possible from under the bridge with some informal parking available near park-like areas at the base of the bridge.

“There will be substantial new landscaping and pedestrian access,” Trotter noted in an email to the Daily News as he shared a presentation of the landscaping plan provided at the June 10 MPO meeting.

There is no fixed date for full project completion, but construction remains on-schedule with fall completion likely, Tower said.

The project was made possible through the federal stimulus, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

The contract to build the new span over Big Marco Pass is with Lithia-based Johnson Brothers and Tallahassee-based FIGG, which make up the design-build team.

Some Southwest Floridians also were put to work, transportation officials report. Some were hired by the firms directly to work at least through project completion and perhaps beyond.

Other businesses, including Marco Marine Construction and Gulf Marine of Marco Island, Gulf Sands Consulting of Naples and Lee County firms APAC-Southeast and Allied Engineering were among the subcontractors on the job, Tower said.

Passersby also will see work on the medians of Collier Boulevard as they approach and leave the bridge, with much of the area’s landscaping work beginning in July.

© 2011 marconews.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Related Topics

Related Stories

Related Links

Comments » 20

ed34145 writes:

Dear Ms. Tower:

Read the city codes - fishing IS prohibited from bridges on Marco except for approved fishing area UNDERNEATH the bridge...which, of course, doesn't exist.

Fossil writes:

"The project was made possible through the federal stimulus, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009". Thank you President Obama, without the country's help, the residents of Marco Island would have had to pay to leave and return to our own homes via tolls. What has the Repubican Party done to improve the infrastructure of Southwest or all of Florida? What bills have they advanced to improve the unemployment problems we have? What bills have they initited to bring our property values back? When is the U.S. House of Representatives going to start working to dig us out of this recession? When is our Governor going to fullfil his campaign promise and improve the economy enough to increase jobs? Jobs is what the American people want, NOT cuts in taxes for the richest amongst us. NOT 15% tax rates for capital gains. NOT a tax system in which Corporations like GE evade their obligation to pay any tax at all. The new bridge span was built and paid for by the combined efforts of ALL the people of the United States and our great State of Florida. Wouldn't it be nice if the Corporations of America and the richest of us had helped in this effort? Today, only the wage earner contributes, the rest give their money to political campaigns and lobbyists to ensure their continued control of all the wealth of this great nation.

u2cane writes:

Anyone notice that the bridge is already damaged? As you are going off the island near the end of the bridge there appears to be a hole in the concrete wall of the bridge. This is on the side facing traffic on the existing Jolley bridge.

mahiman writes:

Fossil...stop being a crybaby and blaming everything on the republicans. The democrats are even more screwed up. We need to get rid of most of congress and the senate and this hideous president.

ajm3s writes:

in response to Fossil:

"The project was made possible through the federal stimulus, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009". Thank you President Obama, without the country's help, the residents of Marco Island would have had to pay to leave and return to our own homes via tolls. What has the Repubican Party done to improve the infrastructure of Southwest or all of Florida? What bills have they advanced to improve the unemployment problems we have? What bills have they initited to bring our property values back? When is the U.S. House of Representatives going to start working to dig us out of this recession? When is our Governor going to fullfil his campaign promise and improve the economy enough to increase jobs? Jobs is what the American people want, NOT cuts in taxes for the richest amongst us. NOT 15% tax rates for capital gains. NOT a tax system in which Corporations like GE evade their obligation to pay any tax at all. The new bridge span was built and paid for by the combined efforts of ALL the people of the United States and our great State of Florida. Wouldn't it be nice if the Corporations of America and the richest of us had helped in this effort? Today, only the wage earner contributes, the rest give their money to political campaigns and lobbyists to ensure their continued control of all the wealth of this great nation.

Yeah! Obama broke some of his own campaign slogans:

Spread the wealth: So build a second parallel bridge to a community that by all standards is much wealthier than the average city. So in essence, he provided federal monies for the benefit the wealthy class.

Shovel ready projects: This was only one of the less than ~6% of the stimulus monies for infrastructure and shovel ready projects. [the bulk of the monies was to support states' deficits, and maintain bloated government bureaucracy] And which by Florida's own priority standards, was way down the list.

And the biggest secret, employment costs (benefits) are small for infrastructure projects. So the goal of employing folks is small in light of the $25M costs for building the bridge.

I say stimulus was the most inefficient, or is it ineffective use of government dollars? Followed by the "cash for clunkers" program.

I believe Americans got it, now that they have seen Progressives at their zenith. And it is a wasteful slow painful path to mediocrity for its citizens.

And please, don't tell me it could have been worst. There are many mainstream venues that are now making the claim, that in some areas, we have exceeded levels when compared to the Great Depression:

1. in terms of housing valuation
2. in terms of unemployment

Reference:

1. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.ph...

2. http://www.zerohedge.com/article/unem...

Vote 2012!

happy6 writes:

hey fossil...too bad you can't get it through your head that there's no free lunch...YOU AND I paid for this bridge...not President hooch.

Fossil writes:

Ok, so we agree that the bridge was built and paid for by the Feds during the Obama administration. So thank him everytime you cross it. I'm not sure what you are trying to say with all the rest of your ranting. We had a lot more of the middle class living on the island when they tried to impose the cost of the bridge on our residents. Today, you are correct, the wealthy should be charged a primium just for the privlege of gazing on it. The feds didn't spend enough on the stimulas? I agree. Florida has been run by Republicans for quite awhile. So any complaints about a bureaucracy out of control should be directed at conservatives not progressives. After all, history has already established that Republicans spend more then they collect and when given the chance to govern us, they either give it all to the rich or spend all the rest of it. Anyone who has lived in this country for the last 30 years knows what I say is true. You Republicans act like the country has stood still since Ronald Reagan left office. We are so much bigger, every segment of our society has grown and as a result, our government has so much more responsiblity. Shadow: The President is a salaried employee and he has his taxes deducted from his paycheck evey month. Yes, he did pay his fair share. Did you?

marcofriend writes:

in response to Fossil:

Ok, so we agree that the bridge was built and paid for by the Feds during the Obama administration. So thank him everytime you cross it. I'm not sure what you are trying to say with all the rest of your ranting. We had a lot more of the middle class living on the island when they tried to impose the cost of the bridge on our residents. Today, you are correct, the wealthy should be charged a primium just for the privlege of gazing on it. The feds didn't spend enough on the stimulas? I agree. Florida has been run by Republicans for quite awhile. So any complaints about a bureaucracy out of control should be directed at conservatives not progressives. After all, history has already established that Republicans spend more then they collect and when given the chance to govern us, they either give it all to the rich or spend all the rest of it. Anyone who has lived in this country for the last 30 years knows what I say is true. You Republicans act like the country has stood still since Ronald Reagan left office. We are so much bigger, every segment of our society has grown and as a result, our government has so much more responsiblity. Shadow: The President is a salaried employee and he has his taxes deducted from his paycheck evey month. Yes, he did pay his fair share. Did you?

"We are so much bigger" - therein lies the problem. The only thing that has grown in the last 2-1/2 years is the size of government. I guess when we all work for the government and there is no private enterprise at all it is called what? Socialism would be the kindest terminalogy. The Bush era began the spend what you don't have philosophy and now all we can talk about is how many trillions our debt is. I certainly feel badly for the next generation. At least I'll be dead and gone. Our children will never have what we had because they will be trying to pay the bill we left them. Vote for those that want a balanced budget amendment added to our Constitution.

Fossil writes:

ajm: You see, I'm right. Conservatives believe the nation as been stagnent since Ronald Reagan. When they hear "growth", they think in the economic terms or as it relates to size of government. The nation has grown in population and in many other ways. We have more seniors today, more live births, more poverty, and yes, our economy has also expanded during the last thirty years. We also have more millionairs then we have ever had in our history. We have more disabled veterans since the Civil War. We have obligations to support troops fighthing in two theaters. And yes, our debt has increased and the Republicans do not want to pay it, even though they are responsible for it. For those who have not lived very long,that means the government has more responsiblity too. Of course the government has grown. We have a lot more problems today then we did when Ronald Reagan was President. Everything grows in proportion to the needs of the enviornment in which it exists. Including responsiblity. The only thing that has not grown is our revenues. That is one of the reasons we are in trouble. The other is that WE the people continue to elect representatives that enact expensive priorities that WE the electorate demand of them. The big lie that Republicans advanced after the Reagan administration was that if you reduced taxes you would increase revenue. Well, guess what? Not one Reagan economic advisor can be found today to say that theory is true. NO lasting net increase in revenue has ever occurred when you reduce taxes. This is a lie. Common sence tells you that you must increase your income if you increase your living expenses. We, as a nation have not done that. Our children will do just fine if they figure this out. Fear is a tactic of the Conservative right uses to scare the beegees out of you. If you don't beleive me, just listen to the candidates they have running for office. They start out with a doomsday speech and tell you that if you don't throw the "liberals" out, you and your childen will surely parish. They never bother telling you the "how" to their solutions. They speak in generalities and when pressed against the wall, their numbers never add up. This has been true in every Republican adiministration since Ike. Who was the last true fiscal conservative. A Repubican that taxed the wealthy and brought you our national highway system. Oh, did I mention he was a national war hero too. No communist, no socialist just a good American who cared more about his country then he did the blah, blah his party was spouting. You can look long and hard for a Republican Administration that has ever givin us a "balanced budget". So I dread the day that one comes to office and has to operate under such an Amendment. Historically, we know that a Democratic administration has succeeded in having a balanced budget, the Clinton administration.

Ruger writes:

in response to Fossil:

ajm: You see, I'm right. Conservatives believe the nation as been stagnent since Ronald Reagan. When they hear "growth", they think in the economic terms or as it relates to size of government. The nation has grown in population and in many other ways. We have more seniors today, more live births, more poverty, and yes, our economy has also expanded during the last thirty years. We also have more millionairs then we have ever had in our history. We have more disabled veterans since the Civil War. We have obligations to support troops fighthing in two theaters. And yes, our debt has increased and the Republicans do not want to pay it, even though they are responsible for it. For those who have not lived very long,that means the government has more responsiblity too. Of course the government has grown. We have a lot more problems today then we did when Ronald Reagan was President. Everything grows in proportion to the needs of the enviornment in which it exists. Including responsiblity. The only thing that has not grown is our revenues. That is one of the reasons we are in trouble. The other is that WE the people continue to elect representatives that enact expensive priorities that WE the electorate demand of them. The big lie that Republicans advanced after the Reagan administration was that if you reduced taxes you would increase revenue. Well, guess what? Not one Reagan economic advisor can be found today to say that theory is true. NO lasting net increase in revenue has ever occurred when you reduce taxes. This is a lie. Common sence tells you that you must increase your income if you increase your living expenses. We, as a nation have not done that. Our children will do just fine if they figure this out. Fear is a tactic of the Conservative right uses to scare the beegees out of you. If you don't beleive me, just listen to the candidates they have running for office. They start out with a doomsday speech and tell you that if you don't throw the "liberals" out, you and your childen will surely parish. They never bother telling you the "how" to their solutions. They speak in generalities and when pressed against the wall, their numbers never add up. This has been true in every Republican adiministration since Ike. Who was the last true fiscal conservative. A Repubican that taxed the wealthy and brought you our national highway system. Oh, did I mention he was a national war hero too. No communist, no socialist just a good American who cared more about his country then he did the blah, blah his party was spouting. You can look long and hard for a Republican Administration that has ever givin us a "balanced budget". So I dread the day that one comes to office and has to operate under such an Amendment. Historically, we know that a Democratic administration has succeeded in having a balanced budget, the Clinton administration.

You have got to be kidding, the list ist of challenges left by the Clinton Administration was huge: the threat of terrorism after he fired cruise missles into Iraq; a military that had been budget starved for 8 years; a collapsed bubble stock market which would wipe-out $7 trillion of "paper wealth" of Americans; corporate governance problems of unheard of proportions that would shake investor confidence in American companies and resulted in pull-backs in investments of unheard of proportions; distrust of the Department of Justice and the Rule of Law (after 8 years of malfeasance). Did you know that he left Bush a recession? Here is a graph of the market starting to crash before Bush even started....

http://ichart.yahoo.com/z?s=^ixic&a=v&p=s&t=5y&l=off&z=m&q=b

Do you know what he did to the CRA and the effect it had on our market today?

http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1...

The Clinton administration has turned the Community Reinvestment Act, a once-obscure and lightly enforced banking regulation law, into one of the most powerful mandates shaping American cities—and, as Senate Banking Committee chairman Phil Gramm memorably put it, a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks.

.

And look here, Obama was one of the lawyers that sued the banks to give out crappy loans......

http://www.mediacircus.com/2008/10/ob...

In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America’s financial institutions.

The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN’s Madeline Talbott in her pioneering efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards.

Ruger writes:

in response to happy6:

hey fossil...too bad you can't get it through your head that there's no free lunch...YOU AND I paid for this bridge...not President hooch.

Going on a spending spree is always a bad idea when we are broke.

Fossil writes:

Ruger, are you complaining that Clinton balanced the budget? He did so in calaberation with a Republican held House of Representatives. Bill Clinton is known amongst Liberals as the best Republican President the country has ever had. Sometimes spending money has the opposite effect of what's expected. If spending money results in an increase in jobs and manufactoring, then it stands to reason that it brings in more revenue too. Consumption of product results in need to increase inventory resulting in manufactoring and employment oppurtunities which in turn result in increased revenue. Get it?

ajm3s writes:

in response to Fossil:

ajm: You see, I'm right. Conservatives believe the nation as been stagnent since Ronald Reagan. When they hear "growth", they think in the economic terms or as it relates to size of government. The nation has grown in population and in many other ways. We have more seniors today, more live births, more poverty, and yes, our economy has also expanded during the last thirty years. We also have more millionairs then we have ever had in our history. We have more disabled veterans since the Civil War. We have obligations to support troops fighthing in two theaters. And yes, our debt has increased and the Republicans do not want to pay it, even though they are responsible for it. For those who have not lived very long,that means the government has more responsiblity too. Of course the government has grown. We have a lot more problems today then we did when Ronald Reagan was President. Everything grows in proportion to the needs of the enviornment in which it exists. Including responsiblity. The only thing that has not grown is our revenues. That is one of the reasons we are in trouble. The other is that WE the people continue to elect representatives that enact expensive priorities that WE the electorate demand of them. The big lie that Republicans advanced after the Reagan administration was that if you reduced taxes you would increase revenue. Well, guess what? Not one Reagan economic advisor can be found today to say that theory is true. NO lasting net increase in revenue has ever occurred when you reduce taxes. This is a lie. Common sence tells you that you must increase your income if you increase your living expenses. We, as a nation have not done that. Our children will do just fine if they figure this out. Fear is a tactic of the Conservative right uses to scare the beegees out of you. If you don't beleive me, just listen to the candidates they have running for office. They start out with a doomsday speech and tell you that if you don't throw the "liberals" out, you and your childen will surely parish. They never bother telling you the "how" to their solutions. They speak in generalities and when pressed against the wall, their numbers never add up. This has been true in every Republican adiministration since Ike. Who was the last true fiscal conservative. A Repubican that taxed the wealthy and brought you our national highway system. Oh, did I mention he was a national war hero too. No communist, no socialist just a good American who cared more about his country then he did the blah, blah his party was spouting. You can look long and hard for a Republican Administration that has ever givin us a "balanced budget". So I dread the day that one comes to office and has to operate under such an Amendment. Historically, we know that a Democratic administration has succeeded in having a balanced budget, the Clinton administration.

Its the ratios: stuff like government spending as a percentage of GDP, now at, I think 42%.

But for a fair and balanced look at numbers. Do your own research. My concern is your analysis is somewhat off kilter.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/t...

Some European Union countries are in the throws of excessive spending.

So I do not how to enlighten you be it with raw data or current history, in which some debtor nations are preceding us on their path of fiscal sustainability.

So pick your knowledge base, numbers and graphs or history.

ajm3s writes:

in response to Fossil:

ajm: You see, I'm right. Conservatives believe the nation as been stagnent since Ronald Reagan. When they hear "growth", they think in the economic terms or as it relates to size of government. The nation has grown in population and in many other ways. We have more seniors today, more live births, more poverty, and yes, our economy has also expanded during the last thirty years. We also have more millionairs then we have ever had in our history. We have more disabled veterans since the Civil War. We have obligations to support troops fighthing in two theaters. And yes, our debt has increased and the Republicans do not want to pay it, even though they are responsible for it. For those who have not lived very long,that means the government has more responsiblity too. Of course the government has grown. We have a lot more problems today then we did when Ronald Reagan was President. Everything grows in proportion to the needs of the enviornment in which it exists. Including responsiblity. The only thing that has not grown is our revenues. That is one of the reasons we are in trouble. The other is that WE the people continue to elect representatives that enact expensive priorities that WE the electorate demand of them. The big lie that Republicans advanced after the Reagan administration was that if you reduced taxes you would increase revenue. Well, guess what? Not one Reagan economic advisor can be found today to say that theory is true. NO lasting net increase in revenue has ever occurred when you reduce taxes. This is a lie. Common sence tells you that you must increase your income if you increase your living expenses. We, as a nation have not done that. Our children will do just fine if they figure this out. Fear is a tactic of the Conservative right uses to scare the beegees out of you. If you don't beleive me, just listen to the candidates they have running for office. They start out with a doomsday speech and tell you that if you don't throw the "liberals" out, you and your childen will surely parish. They never bother telling you the "how" to their solutions. They speak in generalities and when pressed against the wall, their numbers never add up. This has been true in every Republican adiministration since Ike. Who was the last true fiscal conservative. A Repubican that taxed the wealthy and brought you our national highway system. Oh, did I mention he was a national war hero too. No communist, no socialist just a good American who cared more about his country then he did the blah, blah his party was spouting. You can look long and hard for a Republican Administration that has ever givin us a "balanced budget". So I dread the day that one comes to office and has to operate under such an Amendment. Historically, we know that a Democratic administration has succeeded in having a balanced budget, the Clinton administration.

Your horse feathers is piling on so let me pick one outright piece of crap:

"The big lie that Republicans advanced after the Reagan administration was that if you reduced taxes you would increase revenue. Well, guess what? Not one Reagan economic advisor can be found today to say that theory is true.

Art Laffer (still alive and breathing)!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_L...

Wise up or may I suggest shut up.

Fossil writes:

Oh please. This is the guy that misled the President.

Fossil writes:

ajm: Why don't you ask Reagan's former Treasury Deputy Secretary? In a recent interview he stated there was NO feedback or revenue return when they reduced taxes. You can also find videos of recent officials under GW's administration giving testimony to Congress; like H. Paulson or Edward Lazear saying the theory has no evidence to support it and when inflationary measures, population increases or per capita is factored in the net longterm increase in revenue is non existant. Finally, look at statements by Al Greenspan. Remember him? Everyne listened when he spoke. Well he claims it's a myth too. All Republicans, all admitting that it is a lie and that they never claimed it to be so. The people who advance this lie are Republican elected officials and the propagandists of the right. Numbers can be made to work for you but only when you use ALL the numbers will you arrive at the correct answer. Look to the experts who worked with the actual numbers and were responsible for the collection of revenue and paying the bills. You guys make up facts to advance your own agenda. Don't ask me to shut up so that you can spread falsehoods. You can always find a link to support your point of view from rightwing think tank propagandists.

ajm3s writes:

in response to Fossil:

Oh please. This is the guy that misled the President.

I simply rebutted your comment. Now if you wish to dismiss him then so be it. But, high taxation, oh never mind you will never get it.

And here a video, of Eddie talking about Freddie and Fannie, but later in the video he really talks about taxes and investment and Mr. Obama policies in August of 2010, for your files:

http://www.loansafe.org/lazear-on-fut...

You are truly a product of MSNBC, your language is so similar.

ajm3s writes:

in response to Fossil:

ajm: Why don't you ask Reagan's former Treasury Deputy Secretary? In a recent interview he stated there was NO feedback or revenue return when they reduced taxes. You can also find videos of recent officials under GW's administration giving testimony to Congress; like H. Paulson or Edward Lazear saying the theory has no evidence to support it and when inflationary measures, population increases or per capita is factored in the net longterm increase in revenue is non existant. Finally, look at statements by Al Greenspan. Remember him? Everyne listened when he spoke. Well he claims it's a myth too. All Republicans, all admitting that it is a lie and that they never claimed it to be so. The people who advance this lie are Republican elected officials and the propagandists of the right. Numbers can be made to work for you but only when you use ALL the numbers will you arrive at the correct answer. Look to the experts who worked with the actual numbers and were responsible for the collection of revenue and paying the bills. You guys make up facts to advance your own agenda. Don't ask me to shut up so that you can spread falsehoods. You can always find a link to support your point of view from rightwing think tank propagandists.

"Numbers can be made to work for you but only when you use ALL the numbers will you arrive at the correct answer"

That is why I gave you a link to the raw data, so you can make the analysis. Think for yourself, do not rely on pundits.

Now if you cannot formulate your own analysis, then I will relegate you to the back of the class. To simply paint every comment with anti-Republican colors is an indication, at least from my perspective that you have a narrow view of the world.

What you fail to see is that the Federal government is growing faster (i.e. as a percentage of GDP). In essence, the government services/products growth RATE is larger than the private industry service/products growth RATE.

See to me, this shows up in graphs which show trends over decades in which government is a larger portion of the goods and services produced in this country. When you extend out in the future, you realize it is unsustainable for a true democracy to survive. If you play out to the extreme, all Americans will be employees or living off of the government. And I believe by definition, if 50% of GDP is government, than it is a socialism, NOT capitalism.

And history is giving us a glimpse of the future by what is happening in Greece, which some consider the birth of Western Civilization. What a journey through history!

Is this not clear to you? And this occurs regardless of party affiliations in America, in both Republican and Democrat administrations. What is the common element, Progressivism! The belief that government is the solution to economic problems when in fact, millions of independent small businesses (70%), and thousands that will become large multi-national corporations (30%) are the engines of growth.

So I kinda like Adam Smith instead of Karl Marx for my socio-economic models.

And the more I dialog with you, the distinction becomes more apparent. Even corruption, has no party affiliation. So as with any discussion, I ask that you rise to a higher level of discourse, for the benefit of all.

Or I will go to your level and simply say Democrats caused all the problems to refute your anti-Republican stance.

Is that simple enough?

ajm3s writes:

Fossil:

Here is the stuff my radical hip and young free market "elite" send me on Facebook. I try to stay hip. Believe it or not there are young folks that agree with me and understand Hayek vs. Keynes.

Enjoy! It is what separates us yet what gives America the freedom to pursue our vision.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERT...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnar...

Fossil writes:

ajm: I believe I am beginning to undestand what the problem is. You refuse to comprehend what I write. I do not consult pundits. I refer to the people who are charged with the implementation of the policy. Policy initiatedby politicians. I specificially do not refer to theorists, political activists, polls, opinion givers or pundits who appear on right wing propaganda media and anti-science believers. I look at the source of the links you provide and backtrack on the names of the folks you quote. If they have a consistent history of being biased or have worked for a specific industry or institution of the right or if the think tank is funded by a person or group with an agenda (Koch brothers), I stop paying attention. Look back on what I wrote. I clearly stated that these Agency or Department heads and economic advisors to Republican and Democratic administrations agree on one thing: Tax reduction does not result in longterm net feedback. The data shows it does not result in an increase in revenue. You can look at the complete numbers on the governments CBO website for the years they served. The CBO figures are nonpartisan and recognized as the arbitrator of all bills. A spending bill cannot come before Congress for a vote without first being vetted by the CBO. They are the nation's fact checker. The names of the people I offered have no reason or motive to mislead. They are Republican and are honorable men telling the truth. The theory that lower taxes brings in more revenue is a lie. Trickle down economics means only the top two percent get trickled on. The rest of us get less then nothing.

Share your thoughts

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Comments can be shared on Facebook and Yahoo!. Add both options by connecting your profiles.

Features