I assume the answer is some variation on “because Congress passed a bill that funded the construction of the data mining center but hasn’t passed bills that fund the needed infrastructure work.” What else is there to say?
Exaggerate much? Who said anything like no windows or chairs? I’m just saying that it’s money wasted to pretty up buildings such as the one I mentioned. They’re doing their nefarious deeds in air conditioned comfort, so they’re already ahead of half the people who paid for the damn thing.
Here’s Obama droning on about a bill that was to go to fund infrastructure. It was passed. You may remember it. It was known as “the Stimulus”.
I invite you to visit East Berlin. There you will see building where people did much worse things without architectural embellishments. I’m sure it makes it much better.
If you want to see some real embellishments, look at the MIT Strata Center
Yes, and that was not nearly enough to fund all the repairs that are needed around the country. That’s why Obama has continued to push for more infrastructure repair funding over the last four years. Way to call him boring, though- you totally showed him.
I’m sure that picture was taken with a very badly warped lens. That’s gotta be the explanation!
No, it’s exactly the same thing. First, you have no idea whether the curvature might be related to function. The curve might track the sun during the day, giving maximum lighting on the inside and minimizing need for lighting. Many buildings now include solar features that create electricity and incorporate that into large amounts of glass. If you read about modern architecture you’ll see that buildings are routinely designed to maximize any number and variety of useful technologies in the design itself that saves money over the building’s life and creates a better space inside.
But let’s assume just for the sake of your argument that the design has no functional purpose at all technologically. What about the people who work in it? The complex is in the middle of nowhere. Those working there probably will spend their entire working days inside buildings. They can’t walk in and out at pleasure and there is nowhere to go in any case. The NSA is competing against the theme park atmosphere of Google and other high tech firms for the best young minds in these fields. Having a good place to work is critical. Do you honestly think that telling potential employees that to work for the government they have to forgo all ordinary workplace enjoyment for fear of offending Son of a Rich is a viable strategy? Do you honestly think that keeping workers in a monk’s cell motivates them to do better jobs and not want to quit to work in a better environment in the private sector? Would you take and stick with a job if told, “hey, it’s in the middle of Utah and you’re sacrificing all the normal amenities of the workplace, but it’s got air conditioning so why don’t you just shut up”?
You know what we have here? A rare case of the old-fashioned sense of begging the question. You’re assuming that money is being wasted to “pretty up buildings” but also ask what the justification for the waste is. What if there is no waste at all? What if the only problem is your attitude and your assumptions?
It didn’t go to infrastructure because he’s either a liar or incompetent. The majority of it went to prop up state governments and public unions. And in what world is 787 billion dollars not enough to fix roads and bridges. Do you live somewhere they mix hunks of gold in with the asphalt?
Ok, so this is just an anti-Obama rant. I didn’t realize that based on the thread title.
Because that’s not what all of the money was for. About $105 billion was set aside for infrastructure, including $27.5 billion for highway and bridge construction. Not all of the $105 billion was for infrastructure repair.
I’m sorry I didn’t realize that we couldn’t discuss politicians in a thread about how things get funded by the government.
Marley, Obama specifically, very specifically, pushed the idea for the monstrous spending bill stating that it would be for infrastructure spending and “shovel ready projects”. So why did such a relatively small portion of it go to infrastructure spending? Is it because he’s a liar or is it that he’s incompetent, not that these are mutually exclusive.
nm
Of course you can, but your rant is only tenuously connected to the OP.
Because that’s how Congress decided the money should be spent. Perhaps you’ve heard the saying that Congress has the power of the purse strings? I can see you would like this to be Obama’s fault, but that’s not how the system works. Obama asked Congress to approve the stimulus funding and they decided to approve a $787 billion package, a large portion of which was tax breaks and not actual spending. Of that total, they allocated about $105 billion for infrastructure, some of which went to things like road and bridge repair. And no, that’s not enough to deal with all of the outdated roads and bridges and other infrastructure around the country, which is why Obama has continued to press the issue. If the objection is “we don’t have the money to fix the bridges and roads,” that seems penny wise and pound foolish. But to get back to the original point it has nothing to do with the NSA facility because money doesn’t just sit around in great big piles waiting for someone to spend it.
How can the NSA build all these buildings and data collection centers?
Because the NSA is one of 15 intelligence agencies that are part of the “black budget”, unaccountable and unknown.
Last year, 2012, the black part of the US budget was $75 Billion dollars. Very few members of Congress are allowed to know where or how this money is spent.
The NSA has a real, classified budget, and access to an unknown amount of the $75 Billion black budget.
Dear NSA,
If you ego surf and find this thread, I hope you’ll accept my apology if I hurt your feelings when I criticized your new buildings. They’re just great. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I love you.
SoaR
The inefficient part of the stimulus package was the tax cuts. The cutting back by state governments was and is a big contributor to the high unemployment rate, which is a big contributor the slow recovery. The money to the states helped reduce the number of teachers and cops who were fired. Clearly you think that their union membership means they should be out on the street.
You also clearly have no idea how expensive it is to do infrastructure repairs for the entire country.
We’d be in better shape today if the stimulus package had been bigger.
I can only assume this is performance art. “What the fuck? The NSA building has a curved wall!”
The OP’s rant was wrong in both its assumptions and conclusions. DJ Motorbike’s rant was wrong in both its assumptions and conclusions. That’s a pretty big connection.
In addition to the other ways you’ve been corrected, let me add that you don’t know the definition of “shovel ready projects.” The idea of a stimulus is that the money has to be spent immediately. A slow trickle of money into the economy is helpful, and indeed has happened over the past few years with good results, but it’s not a stimulus to a crashed economy. “Shovel ready projects” were those that the states had already spent the time studying and doing prep, environmental, and design work for. But hardly any of the main infrastructure needs fell into that category. Nobody knew ahead of time that the money would become available to do these projects. They require years of work to get to the shovel-ready stage. A true infrastructure program - which would cost trillions, of course, not a measly $787 billion - would need to take this into account. It’s a program for decades, not for today.
You’re right. The connection wasn’t tenuous, it was tedious.