Yes, let's be more like China. This woman was a professor at Harvard?
Seriously?
Do you think we should not be investing in actual infrastructure projects?
Or is it just easier to not actually think about it and pretend to be offended by everything?
Did anyone say that we should not invest in infrastructure? No. But let's not pretend that the US and China are in similar situations. China is building bridges and roads everywhere because they don't have bridges and roads. The US started the interstate system in the 1950's. China is building massive dams everywhere. The US did that nearly 100 years ago.
Do you really want to spend 9% of GDP on infrastructure, like China? That's like eliminating 100% of defense spending and still being short $100-200 billion. Of course, Warren doesn't mention that. She just shows some sad looking blue collar workers and says "Derp, I like jobs."
And how convenient that she fails to mention how the infrastructure wipes out cities, destroys historical areas, and endangers countless species. That wouldn't go over too well with her core constituency.
Do you think we should not be investing in actual infrastructure projects?
Or is it just easier to not actually think about it and pretend to be offended by everything?
Did anyone say that we should not invest in infrastructure? No. But let's not pretend that the US and China are in similar situations. China is building bridges and roads everywhere because they don't have bridges and roads. The US started the interstate system in the 1950's. China is building massive dams everywhere. The US did that nearly 100 years ago.
Do you really want to spend 9% of GDP on infrastructure, like China? That's like eliminating 100% of defense spending and still being short $100-200 billion. Of course, Warren doesn't mention that. She just shows some sad looking blue collar workers and says "Derp, I like jobs."
And how convenient that she fails to mention how the infrastructure wipes out cities, destroys historical areas, and endangers countless species. That wouldn't go over too well with her core constituency.
As long as we're making up numbers to argue about, I'll leave that to you. Something tells me the plan isn't "invest so much in infrastructure that we don't have money for anything else."
So what about China's infrastructure being newer? We clearly need a huge overhaul of this country's infrastructure.
It's news to me that it 'wipes out cities,' because here I always thought that it builds them and improves them.
And while it's fun to jokingly stereotype her 'core constituency,' if historical areas and endangered species are the best arguments you've got...
Did anyone say that we should not invest in infrastructure? No. But let's not pretend that the US and China are in similar situations. China is building bridges and roads everywhere because they don't have bridges and roads. The US started the interstate system in the 1950's. China is building massive dams everywhere. The US did that nearly 100 years ago.
Do you really want to spend 9% of GDP on infrastructure, like China? That's like eliminating 100% of defense spending and still being short $100-200 billion. Of course, Warren doesn't mention that. She just shows some sad looking blue collar workers and says "Derp, I like jobs."
And how convenient that she fails to mention how the infrastructure wipes out cities, destroys historical areas, and endangers countless species. That wouldn't go over too well with her core constituency.
As long as we're making up numbers to argue about, I'll leave that to you. Something tells me the plan isn't "invest so much in infrastructure that we don't have money for anything else."
So what about China's infrastructure being newer? We clearly need a huge overhaul of this country's infrastructure.
It's news to me that it 'wipes out cities,' because here I always thought that it builds them and improves them.
And while it's fun to jokingly stereotype her 'core constituency,' if historical areas and endangered species are the best arguments you've got...
What numbers are being "made up?"
No one denies our infrastructure is in need of serious repairs. But there's a big difference between repairing roads and bridges, and building new roads and bridges for more than a billion people.
As just one example, the Three Gorges Dam displaced more than a million people if I remember correctly.
"Core constituency" = hardcore liberals. Not sure what's funny about that, but I'm sure they'd be bitching about tearing up the environment to build new infrastructure.
""He has to control the paint. It's not his choice, it's his responsibility, it's his duty, it's his obligation." Bill Walton on Roy Hibbert.
She's drawing a contrast between China's infrastructure spending and ours - she's not saying let's automatically jump to 9%. And that's obvious.
You're fighting against things that she didn't say using specific instances of negative infrastructure effects. What does the Three Gorges Dam have to do AT ALL with saying we should spend more on infrastructure?
If that's the logic you're going to argue with you could literally be against anything.
She's drawing a contrast between China's infrastructure spending and ours - she's not saying let's automatically jump to 9%. And that's obvious.
You're fighting against things that she didn't say using specific instances of negative infrastructure effects. What does the Three Gorges Dam have to do AT ALL with saying we should spend more on infrastructure?
If that's the logic you're going to argue with you could literally be against anything.
Ugh.
China is spending 9% of it's GDP on infrastructure because it is undertaking projects like the Three Gorges Dam. The US spending on infrastructure would go way up if, for example, we were building the Grand Coulee dam today (that thing would probably cost a trillion dollar to build today).
She says China is at 9% and we're at 2 point whatever and we can do better. Not a leap to say she's implying we should be a 9%. Of course she doesn't actually say how much we should spend, or how to pay for it. Or what constitutes "infrastructure."
""He has to control the paint. It's not his choice, it's his responsibility, it's his duty, it's his obligation." Bill Walton on Roy Hibbert.
It was kind of amusing to follow the "Scott Brown won't make the debate", "Harry Reid just cancelled all votes so Scott Brown doesn't have an excuse to not debate", "Scott Brown leaving for Boston", "Scott Brown needs the Doug Mirabelli police escort treatment to make the debate" drama on Twitter.
If lawn signs are any indicator, this will be a lot closer than Brown/Coakley.
Dan, not sure I'd go as far as shockingly fantastic. I think they both accomplished what they wanted to, but in doing so kept going back to the same basic points over and over again. Warren's a tax lover who benefited from affirmative action; Brown loves big oil, the top three percent, and doesn't love women as much as his commercials tell me he does. In a parallel universe where there were actual undecided voters watching last night, I'm not sure how many of them would have been swayed.
If the work in question was confined to consulting with admitted counsel (e.g., attorneys for asbestos insurers), as long as Prof. Warren did not file a sole appearance for a client, nor provide services to “laypersons”, she would likely be within the safe harbor of ABA Model Rule 5.5 (c)(1), as adopted in the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Responsibility (permitting non-Massachusetts lawyers to provide “legal” services “undertaken in association with a lawyer who is admitted to practice in this jurisdiction and who actively participates in the matter”.) Furthermore, _if_ Professor Warren’s work were limited to consultative services in the form of providing or guiding research and writing for trial/appellate/amici counsel, it would be little different from that of a “law student intern” permitted to assist an admitted attorney under ABA Model Rule 5.3, Comment [1], as adopted in Massachusetts.
This woman was a professor at Harvard? 
