$810 Million Officially Awarded for high-speed rail line to Milwaukee (Clinton: sales, insurance)

[ccjarider]

Originally Posted by FryGuy

I think what he was saying is that roads are heavily subsidized by taxpayers. The government does all sorts of things that do not "pay for themselves" such as national defense, highways, public health, etc. In fact the purpose of government is to do things that do not turn a profit. If there was a profit to be made, then private industry would do it. Government steps in to provide necessary services that would not be profitable to the private sector. Having a reliable transportation network is in the interest of the United States, therefore we must pay to maintain one.
This is completely different than the argument you put forth about the government spending everything it takes in. While I believe that deficits are harmful to the economy, running up huge government surplus is just as bad. It introduces horrible inefficiencies into an economy.
The argument that someone can voluntarily pay more tax is patently ridiculous. One person's $3000 does nothing. It's when everyone's money is pooled together things can get done. That is how policy and government works. If one person could build a bridge, or fund a fire department, they likely would do it, but you hardly want to rely on charity to fund essential functions. That's why we must be taxed in order to provide them. In addition, even people who would like taxes increased don't want to be paying more than their fair share. That's the point of living in a great country. It takes shared sacrifice to get there.

FAIL
Government deficits create inneficiencies by having money taken out of wealth producing enterprises to finance government debt. This is hugely inneficient use of money.

human nature will never allow for government surplus to occur. People will vote themselves "free" goodies as they do today even with current huge deficits.

[FryGuy]

Originally Posted by ccjarider

FAIL
Government deficits create inneficiencies by having money taken out of wealth producing enterprises to finance government debt. This is hugely inneficient use of money.

human nature will never allow for government surplus to occur. People will vote themselves "free" goodies as they do today even with current huge deficits.

I specifically said deficits are bad for an economy. Surpluses are bad for the same reason. It takes money out of the economy.
I do think Deficits are ok for infrastructure only. It is a capital investment similar to when a company buys a new factory.
These past couple of years have made us think that any government spending is inefficient just due to the fact it's government spending. I'm not saying there is not waste, but to think there aren't areas where government can make intelligent investments (and that these already exist) means you are likely spouting political dogma and not paying attention.

[ccjarider]

Originally Posted by FryGuy

I specifically said deficits are bad for an economy. Surpluses are bad for the same reason. It takes money out of the economy.
I do think Deficits are ok for infrastructure only. It is a capital investment similar to when a company buys a new factory.
These past couple of years have made us think that any government spending is inefficient just due to the fact it's government spending. I'm not saying there is not waste, but to think there aren't areas where government can make intelligent investments (and that these already exist) means you are likely spouting political dogma and not paying attention.

It is not dogma. Dogma is a belief based not on fact, but on emotion and superstition. It is indeed, verified fact that "most" government spending does not add value. Rather it hampers the creation of wealth through inneficiencies and dollars chasing low value enterprises.

You can probably point out a few exceptions to the rule. In general though, large government investment does not produce wealth/value. Rather it is short term political payoff to keep politicians employed as politicians and does nto make good business sense.

[Jesse276]

Originally Posted by ccjarider

It is not dogma. Dogma is a belief based not on fact, but on emotion and superstition. It is indeed, verified fact that "most" government spending does not add value. Rather it hampers the creation of wealth through inneficiencies and dollars chasing low value enterprises.

You can probably point out a few exceptions to the rule. In general though, large government investment does not produce wealth/value. Rather it is short term political payoff to keep politicians employed as politicians and does nto make good business sense.

Really? Yeah, the post avove is political dogma. I guess the government funded military, police, firefighters, roads, schools & on & on... these don't add value.

Why look at the paradise Somalia has become without all these wasteful 'parasites'.

Not really sure why I posted this, it's not like the person will change their views. Either they really are that dense or they're a partisan hack... facts won't be changing their mind.

[munna21977]

Its not always about making money. Next time you hit any interstate highway, only 50 % of the costs is covered by fuel tax while rest is subsidy from federal government. by contrast 62% of the costs of amtrak is covered by ticket sales.

Originally Posted by Milwaukee City

Their is not even one single rail system that "makes" money. Just so everyone is aware of that. Even the light rail out in LasVegas is going BK, the one that runs the length of the strip where if one rail system would work you would think it would be that one due to thew thousands of people that walk along the strip and the terrible traffic in LV.

[ccjarider]

Originally Posted by Jesse276

Really? Yeah, the post avove is political dogma. I guess the government funded military, police, firefighters, roads, schools & on & on... these don't add value.

Why look at the paradise Somalia has become without all these wasteful 'parasites'.

Not really sure why I posted this, it's not like the person will change their views. Either they really are that dense or they're a partisan hack... facts won't be changing their mind.

I know this is hard to accept but, most of the items you mention could be easily provided by private sector with more rational thought process and efficiency. Hard to take - I know.

Your example, Somalia; is in the condition it is because of corrupt tribal government and lack of private enterprise, not because of it.

Anyway - have a great weekend.

[FryGuy]

I don't think a military could be effectively provided by the private sector. I'd be interested in any modern examples of where this has worked. The same goes for roads and infrastructure, and for schools. You simply cannot have things essential to the function and defense of the country be provided by private industry.
Medicare part D is an example of inefficient government spending. It basically amounts to a multi billion dollar giveaway to drug companies, which artificially drives up drug prices. Perfect example of government interference introducing inefficiency to the market.
The problem is that none of the people who complain about government waste said one word when the Bush administration pushed it through. There was huge spending during that time and the tea party was nowhere to be found. We were just as broke then. So the question is, what is the difference now? Hmmm.

I fully realize there is wasteful spending by the government. There is plenty that the democrats advocate that is wasteful. I just want intellectual consistency.

[Milwaukee City]

either way, we are broke and cannot afford it anyway. We have much more pressing needs at this time.

[Jesse276]

Originally Posted by Milwaukee City

either way, we are broke and cannot afford it anyway. We have much more pressing needs at this time.

Broke? Right, everyone gets that broke is really code word for 'we can only spend on 'R' boondoggles.'

[northbound74]

Originally Posted by Jesse276

Really? Yeah, the post avove is political dogma. I guess the government funded military, police, firefighters, roads, schools & on & on... these don't add value.

Why look at the paradise Somalia has become without all these wasteful 'parasites'.

Not really sure why I posted this, it's not like the person will change their views. Either they really are that dense or they're a partisan hack... facts won't be changing their mind.

Military, police, firefighters, roads... sometimes public schools, most conservatives don't have issues with. At some point you have to say stop, because freedoms seriously get infringed upon. There are inconsistencies on both sides concerning the repealing of everyone's liberties.

Yes, our highways are subsidized, but allow for so much commerce to take place, that they more than pay for themselves through the taxes that commerce generates. A commuter train doesn't do that, nor can you run tracks everywhere you need to go... unless you want to see train tracks behind every Wal-Mart, Target, grocery store, mall, restaurant, school, factory, warehouse, etc.