Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Royal Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-11-2013, 06:44 AM  
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $6855
Conservatives find Government does help them earn money

Wyoming locals pick up tab for Yellowstone snowplowing
Sequester cuts idled federal plows and threatened the park's opening day. Even though most here favor limited government, this isn't quite what they had in mind.


By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times
April 6, 2013, 7:00 p.m.
CODY, Wyo. — For many, the federal budget ax that fell last month has meant a few nicks here and there. For Joe Kondelis, it's sliced a lot deeper.

After stewing for days, the 53-year-old opened his wallet and delivered a $2,000 check to the Cody Chamber of Commerce to help pay for snowplowing at Yellowstone National Park. It wasn't easy. Cash is scarce once Yellowstone shuts down for the winter.

But after automatic spending cuts idled the National Park Service plows and threatened to delay opening day for two weeks — two weeks that could cost his beer distributorship $100,000 in sales — Kondelis felt he had no choice.

"You live and die by the tourist market," he said beneath a framed picture of the Budweiser logo, which loomed overhead like a portrait of the family patriarch.

Fearing an economic disaster — people planning their vacations sometimes hear just the words "closed" and "Yellowstone" and there goes the whole summer — the chambers in Cody and Jackson Hole raised $170,000 to pay for the state to step in and fire up its snowplows. The work began last week and, barring a major storm, the park's east and south entrances will open on time in early May.

The story could end there, a happy tale of small-town pluck. Many in Cody are proud of how the community of fewer than 10,000 rallied to save the tourist season from sequestration, as the $85 billion in cuts are called.

"It kicked us right in the pants," said Mike Darby, a partner in the Irma Hotel, which was built in 1902 by "Buffalo Bill" Cody himself. "And thank God we rose up and kicked them back. We did."

But a weave of contradictions surrounds the episode, reflecting the tension between self-sufficiency and codependence, between these Westerners' stated desire for a smaller, more limited government and reliance on the services that people have come to expect from far off, little-loved Washington, D.C.

"We all want to cut the deficit but don't want to sacrifice the lifestyle that money makes possible," said Warren Murphy, a retired clergyman and one of the few avowed progressives in this deeply conservative part of a deeply conservative state. "Sequester is just a small sample of what you get."

Dan Wenk, the superintendent of Yellowstone, is the face of the federal government around Cody and his popularity underscores the truth that it's harder to dislike a neighbor than some faceless bureaucrat inside the Beltway. When the cuts hit, Wenk had to slice $1.75 million from his $35-million budget and do it with the fiscal year just about half-over.

He trimmed his payroll. He scaled back travel and training programs. Finally, he decided to idle the Park Service snowplows for two weeks, saving $30,000 a day and leaving it to the spring thaw to help clear more than 300 miles of roadway. The idea, Wenk said, was to ensure there was money left to keep Yellowstone open throughout the peak summer months. "We cut the budget in a way we thought was absolutely the least impactful," he said.

Locals were nearly unanimous in their praise for Wenk and the way he worked with community leaders and state officials to find a solution that got the plows rolling. It is a lesson, they said, that Washington should heed.

"We just talked it through," said Claudia Wade, marketing director for the county tourism office. "Everybody came to the table and said, 'How can we work this out?' Not, "Whose fault is it?'"

There are limits, however, to that goodwill. Wade and others insist the fundraising drive, or Park Service bailout, or whatever people choose to call it, was a one-time thing. "It was an important point that we'd only do it this time," said Scott Balyo, executive director of the Cody chamber.

Even so, many worry about precedent. Kondelis, who works alongside his wife and two sons in their beverage business, explained why he contributed: "I believe in this community and we need to step forward like everybody else. But my biggest issue was … the politics isn't going to change. So next year, they're going to say, 'Oh, you guys figured it out, you guys came to the table, so this cut was good.'"

The relationship between Washington and the West has always been fraught. The region's proud creed of independence ignores the crucial role the federal government plays in its prosperity. At the same time, few things grate more than the presumption that a distant landlord can better manage the land than the people who live on it. (The federal government controls about half of the acreage in Wyoming.)

People in Cody are used to dealing with natural disasters, like the wildfires or heavy snow that occasionally close Yellowstone and sucker-punch the economy. But this crisis felt artificial, man-made, and thus avoidable.

It's not that residents don't want to reduce the deficit. Washington needs "to grow the economy, not the government," said Jay Linderman, who owns an Italian restaurant on Cody's main drag and grudgingly gave $200 to pay for plowing. What rankles locals is the indiscriminate nature of the sequester, which cut programs across the board without weighing individual merits.

But therein lies the perennial rub: Cuts that are welcomed in the abstract are not always appreciated when they hit home. And everything the government does, however small, touches somebody.

"If it's a national park, it shouldn't be our burden to operate," said Bob Brandt, manager of the Cody Hotel, which sits on the main highway to Yellowstone, about 50 miles away. His business contributed $2,500 to the snowplow fund.

If not entitlement, locals at least share a feeling that Washington has obligations it mustn't slough off, even as spending declines.

"You pay your taxes to get certain services," said Bruce Eldredge, executive director of the Buffalo Bill Historical Center, a world-class museum in the center of town, which delivered a $10,000 check to the chamber. "We would, I think, probably argue as a community that we pay our federal taxes to make sure the park is open at a specific time."

For his part, Wenk assumes the cuts made under sequester represent "the new normal." Yellowstone's budget has been shrinking for the last few years, even as the number of visitors has grown. Looking ahead to next year, Wenk said everything — including the snowplowing schedule — is on the table.

The state, meantime, has seized on the fundraising publicity to get an early jump on its summer tourism campaign. As a crowd cheered and cameras recorded the scene last week, big yellow tractors began chewing through the snow, bearing placards with the promotional theme "Yellowstone or Bust."

From: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,5412062.story

/So I'm supposed to feel bad for the guy who had to spend $2,000 of his own money to help guarantee $100,000 in sales? Yeah, it sure does suck that the Federal Government wasn't there to help out that guys profit margin with my money.
Posts: 3,971
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 06:21 AM   #46
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $6855
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
That's easy. If a road were truly private, the owners of the road would pay for plowing it.
But who is paying the owners of the road? are we to have toll stops at ever intersection?(talk about cutting into productivity) Maybe we should let companies scan our plates so they can track where we went? Are you comfortable with letting a single company own every road in a city? And if not, how do we divide a city up between companies?
Posts: 3,971
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 06:44 AM   #47
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $6855
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
Let's not use a cherry-picked specific, because it doesn't prove anything relative to my point #3. My point #1 is an acknowledgement that we can find individual examples of government owned/maintained infrastructure that benefit our economy. But that doesn't mean that every conceivable government owned/maintained infrastructure project is going to be positive. To disprove point #3, you'd have to show that EVERY form of government owned/maintained infrastructure is a net benefit to our economy. All that's needed to prove that my point #3 is valid is one example of government owned/maintained infrastructure that fails to be a net positive. For example, it ended up not being built, but do you think the famous "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska was going to be a net economic benefit? Maybe it was, but I think it's more likely that it was not.


In 2009, Barack Obama promised that his massive porkulus spending spree was going to be investment in infrastructure. Later, we found out it was just a gift to friendly constituents and very little of it had to do with infrastructure. We do have infrastructure needs in this country, but this administration can not be trusted to address those needs. Furthermore, I doubt that you and I would agree on what level of infrastructure is appropriate.
Okay, bridge to nowhere is one example. The following are examples of government infrastructure that has positive benefits for the country at large: Roads, highways, sewer treatment, water treatment, electricity, damns/levees, waterway maintenance, etc. Do you believe that those have had a negative effect on our country?

I don't believe that one bad project is a reason to be against all projects. Do you believe that under a private system there wouldn't be waste? or bad projects?

2009 had very little to do with infrastructure?

Infrastructure Investment
Total: $105.3 billion
Transportation


Road and highway construction is the biggest single line infrastructure item in the final bill. Projects funded by the ARRA have a sign marking them, like this one in Middletown, Rhode Island.


Sign for an ARRA funded road-widening project on Colorado State Highway 9 north of Breckenridge, Colorado.
Total: $48.1 billion,[42] some in the form of Transportation Income Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Grants
$27.5 billion for highway and bridge construction projects
$8 billion for intercity passenger rail projects and rail congestion grants, with priority for high-speed rail
$6.9 billion for new equipment for public transportation projects (Federal Transit Administration)
$1.5 billion for national surface transportation discretionary grants
$1.3 billion for Amtrak
$1.1 billion in grants for airport improvements
$750 million for the construction of new public rail transportation systems and other fixed guideway systems.
$750 million for the maintenance of existing public transportation systems
$200 million for FAA upgrades to air traffic control centers and towers, facilities, and equipment
$100 million in grants for improvements to domestic shipyards
[edit]Water, sewage, environment, and public lands
Total: $18 billion[43]
$4.6 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers for environmental restoration, flood protection, hydropower, and navigation infrastructure projects
$4 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund wastewater treatment infrastructure improvements (EPA)
$2 billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund drinking water infrastructure improvements (EPA)
$1.38 billion for rural drinking water and waste disposal projects
$1 billion to the Bureau of Reclamation for drinking water projects for rural or drought-likely areas
$750 million to the National Park Service
$650 million to the Forest Service
$600 million for hazardous waste cleanup at Superfund sites (EPA)
$515 million for wildfire prevention projects
$500 million for Bureau of Indian Affairs infrastructure projects
$340 million to the Natural Resources Conservation Service for watershed infrastructure projects
$320 million to the Bureau of Land Management
$300 million for reductions in emissions from diesel engines (EPA)
$300 million to improve Land Ports of Entry (GSA)
$280 million for National Wildlife Refuges and the National Fish Hatchery System
$220 million to the International Boundary and Water Commission to repair flood control systems along the Rio Grande
$200 million for cleanup of leaking Underground Storage Tanks (EPA)
$100 million for cleaning former industrial and commercial sites (Brownfields) (EPA)
[edit]Government buildings and facilities


Impact of the ARRA on Department of Defense facilities across the nation.
Total: $7.2 billion
$4.2 billion to repair and modernize Defense Department facilities.
$890 million to improve housing for service members
$750 million for federal buildings and U.S. Courthouses (GSA)
$250 million to improve Job Corps training facilities
$240 million for new child development centers
$240 million for the maintenance of United States Coast Guard facilities
$200 million for Department of Homeland Security headquarters
$176 million for Agriculture Research Service repairs and improvements
$150 million for the construction of state extended-care facilities
$100 million to improve facilities of the National Guard
[edit]Communications, information, and security technologies


Federal Communications Commission (FCC) map showing the availability of broadband internet access in the U.S.
Total: $10.5 billion
$7.2 billion for complete broadband and wireless Internet access
$1 billion for explosive detection systems for airports
$500 million to update the computer center at the Social Security Administration
$420 million for construction and repairs at ports of entry
$290 million to upgrade IT platforms at the State Department
$280 million to upgrade border security technologies
$210 million to build and upgrade fire stations
$200 million for IT and claims processing improvements for Veterans Benefits Administration
$150 million to upgrade port security
$150 million for the security of transit systems
$50 million for IT improvements at the Farm Service Agency
$26 million to improve security systems at the Department of Agriculture headquarters
[edit]Energy Infrastructure
Total: $21.5 billion[44][45]
$6 billion for the cleanup of radioactive waste (mostly nuclear weapons production sites)[46]
$4.5 billion for the Office of Electricity and Energy Reliability to modernize the nation's electrical grid and smart grid.
$4.5 billion to increase energy efficiency in federal buildings (GSA)
$3.25 billion for the Western Area Power Administration for power transmission system upgrades.
$3.25 billion for the Bonneville Power Administration for power transmission system upgrades.

One year after the stimulus, several independent macroeconomic firms, including Moody's and IHS Global Insight, estimated that the stimulus saved or created 1.6 to 1.8 million jobs and forecast a total impact of 2.5 million jobs saved by the time the stimulus is completed.[77] The Congressional Budget Office considered these estimates conservative.[77] The CBO estimated according to its model 2.1 million jobs saved in the last quarter of 2009, boosting the economy by up to 3.5 percent and lowering the unemployment rate by up to 2.1 percent.[78] The CBO projected that the package would have an even greater impact in 2010.[78] The CBO also said, "It is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package."[79] The CBO's report on the first quarter of 2010 showed a continued positive effect, with an employment gain in that quarter of up to 2.8 million and a GDP boost of up to 4.2 percent.[80]

On the other hand, economists Timothy Conley of the University of Western Ontario and Bill Dupor of the Ohio State University used state level variation to estimate that while the stimulus created or saved 450 thousand government jobs, it destroyed or forestalled 1 million private sector jobs, thus costing jobs on net.[81] Conley and Dupor's analysis has been criticized for its seemingly statistically irrelevant results.[82][83][84] Other researchers have come to significantly more positive conclusions about the bill's effects on jobs. Economist Dan Wilson of the Federal Reserve, who used similar methodology, without the same identified errors, estimates that "ARRA spending created or saved about 2 million jobs in its first year and over 3 million by March 2011."[85]

The CBO also revised its assessment of the long-term impact of the bill. After 2014, the stimulus is estimated to decrease output by zero to 0.2%. The stimulus is not expected to have a negative impact on employment in any period of time.[86]

In 2011, the Department of Commerce revised some of its previous estimates. Economist Dean Baker commented:

[T]he revised data ... showed that the economy was plunging even more rapidly than we had previously recognised in the two quarters following the collapse of Lehman. Yet, the plunge stopped in the second quarter of 2009 — just as the stimulus came on line. This was followed by respectable growth over the next four quarters. Growth then weakened again as the impact of the stimulus began to fade at the end of 2010 and the start of this year. In other words, the growth pattern shown by the revised data sure makes it appear that the stimulus worked. The main problem would seem to be that the stimulus was not big enough and it wasn't left in place long enough to lift the economy to anywhere near potential output.[87]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...nt_Act_of_2009

I am not someone who will advocate starting projects just to start projects, but anything putting American workers to work is 100 percent bad. I am sure that the majority of us have driven on MO Roads, can we not agree that MO could use some infrastructure help?
Posts: 3,971
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 09:08 AM   #48
chiefzilla1501 chiefzilla1501 is online now
MVP
 

Join Date: Aug 2008
Casino cash: $8666
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
cdcox is a narrow-minded professor. Who woulda' thought our colleges came to this when it comes to novel and new ideas.

For the record, I fully and absolutely support prioritizing private companies building and maintaining the actual roads. Especially if they have to compete for contracts. I also don't think this is a terrible idea in doses. The key caveat is that trucks are paying over $30 in tolls and cars up to $9, so it's pretty much an express lane for drivers with deep pockets. I welcome states tinkering with the Indiana model, as long as the planning doesn't interfere with current free roads and that there is a central authority as a gatekeeper.
Posts: 20,438
chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 09:12 AM   #49
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $9816
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 View Post
For the record, I fully and absolutely support prioritizing private companies building and maintaining the actual roads. Especially if they have to compete for contracts. I also don't think this is a terrible idea in doses. The key caveat is that trucks are paying over $30 in tolls and cars up to $9, so it's pretty much an express lane for drivers with deep pockets. I welcome states tinkering with the Indiana model, as long as the planning doesn't interfere with current free roads and that there is a central authority as a gatekeeper.
How idealistic of you.
Private Roads
The most common type of private road is a residential road maintained by a homeowners association, housing co-op, or other group of individual homeowners. There are also networks of private highways in Italy and other nations. Such highways typically are toll roads whose upkeep is paid for with user fees,[1] for example, the Dulles Greenway in Virginia.

England and Wales are thought to have about 40,000 private roads[citation needed]. ..

Private road associations manage two-thirds of the total road network in Sweden.

In Canada private roads are main access routes or private driveways onto private property. These roads are maintained by private owners of the land they occupy. Most private road do not have any name signage other than a sign indicating the ownership status.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_road
Private roads reduce congestion, which is a result of excess demand for transportaton. This causes economic shortage. This is reality—not idealism.
__________________

Last edited by BucEyedPea; 04-14-2013 at 09:23 AM..
Posts: 57,679
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 09:28 AM   #50
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $9816
To you scoffers of private roads....including the close-minded professor:

Private Roads
Eric Peters

Want to hear what a scoff sounds like? The next time you're talking to a political scientist, an economist, or a public employee, mention the possibility of a private road. Roads aren't supposed to be private, right? They are supposed to be "public goods," meaning that capitalists can't or won't build them so government has to. ...

Take Virginia's just-completed "Dulles Greenway" toll road. Privately conceived, funded, and operated, this 14-mile extension of an existing limited access highway connects Northern Virginia suburbs with the Main Washington-D.C. area transportation arteries.

It is the first modern highway in America underwritten solely by private venture capital--and the first private toll road built in Virginia since 1816.

The impetus behind the construction was an exploding number of people who need to get from here to there. Travel demands and low-price road access have made the public roads a headache. A 15-mile trek in these suburbs can take up to 90 minutes. Ordinarily, the state would built more roads, but the money couldn't be raised, thanks to the political priority of welfare demands...

This is called meeting consumer demand...not something the political process is very good at. It's happening as state's fail to deal with transportation demands because welfare budgets are more important.
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=202
__________________
Posts: 57,679
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 11:28 AM   #51
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $9816
Geezaz! Look at all those lunatics!!!
I understand, though, that people laugh at things they don't understand or have little knowledge of.
__________________
Posts: 57,679
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 12:44 PM   #52
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
But who is paying the owners of the road? are we to have toll stops at ever intersection?(talk about cutting into productivity) Maybe we should let companies scan our plates so they can track where we went? Are you comfortable with letting a single company own every road in a city? And if not, how do we divide a city up between companies?
If someone builds a private road, they can use whatever business model they think is appropriate to earn money from it. Maybe they have toll booths. Maybe they charge the people who use that road for access to their property pay a subscription. These are just two possibilities, but there could be many others.

You seem to have some kind of mental block here where you think it's got to be all or nothing. As if either every road has to be a public asset or every road has to be private. It doesn't have to work that way. Most conservatives are comfortable with public roads in large part. You act as if the reaction to Obama's braindead "you didn't build that" comment means conservatives think that all government infrastructure is both illegitimate and ineffective, but that's just not the case. That's why this thread seems so silly to begin with.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 01:03 PM   #53
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
Okay, bridge to nowhere is one example. The following are examples of government infrastructure that has positive benefits for the country at large: Roads, highways, sewer treatment, water treatment, electricity, damns/levees, waterway maintenance, etc. Do you believe that those have had a negative effect on our country?

I don't believe that one bad project is a reason to be against all projects. Do you believe that under a private system there wouldn't be waste? or bad projects?

...

I am not someone who will advocate starting projects just to start projects, but anything putting American workers to work is 100 percent bad. I am sure that the majority of us have driven on MO Roads, can we not agree that MO could use some infrastructure help?
It's not just one bad project. There are all kinds of bad projects. I could probably do like you do and google something like "bad government infrastructure projects" find several articles and then cut and paste a novel length response, but that's just annoying.

The mere existence (or at least near-existence) of one bad project proves the point that not all infrastructure projects are worth pursuing. So if we can get beyond that point, the question becomes how can I tell a bad project from a good project? One approach that comes to mind is to assess whether or not a given project will actually be a net positive or a net negative economically. Unfortunately, this can be a complicated question and we have a lot of people on both sides of this issue who are willing to spin the data/analysis to prove whatever they want to prove. That's why you can't simply accept a study that tells you what you want to hear and believe the issue has been settled. Posting links to these studies proves very little.

I don't think "anything that puts Americans to work" is a very good test. I assume you've heard of the parable of the broken window, but if not, it's a good place to start. We could employ all the unemployed people we have with make work projects, but if we're doing nothing but breaking windows in order to employ people to fix them, we aren't really achieving anything worthwhile.

As for MO roads (and roads in many other states), I agree that there is work to be done. But the manner of getting that work done is important too. There are tradeoffs to be made between going on a crash program involving hiring a bunch of new people in order to get the work done rapidly versus a slower paced program that utilizes the people who already do this for a living and the equipment already in place. The former requires you to expand your capacity beyond a sustainable level so it might be good in the short term because more people have jobs and the roads get fixed faster, but the downside over the long term might outweigh that short term gain.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 01:44 PM   #54
chiefzilla1501 chiefzilla1501 is online now
MVP
 

Join Date: Aug 2008
Casino cash: $8666
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
If someone builds a private road, they can use whatever business model they think is appropriate to earn money from it. Maybe they have toll booths. Maybe they charge the people who use that road for access to their property pay a subscription. These are just two possibilities, but there could be many others.

You seem to have some kind of mental block here where you think it's got to be all or nothing. As if either every road has to be a public asset or every road has to be private. It doesn't have to work that way. Most conservatives are comfortable with public roads in large part. You act as if the reaction to Obama's braindead "you didn't build that" comment means conservatives think that all government infrastructure is both illegitimate and ineffective, but that's just not the case. That's why this thread seems so silly to begin with.
I may have misread this as well. For the record, I agree with a lot of what buceyedpea has proposed in this thread. I just disagree with the implication (I don't know if I misread it or not) that central planning shouldn't be an important piece to this, in terms of transportation or road decisions that could affect our current infrastructure. For example, bypasses and neighborhood roads are one thing. It's another if a new road project affects a major artery we use today.
Posts: 20,438
chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 01:50 PM   #55
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 View Post
I may have misread this as well. For the record, I agree with a lot of what buceyedpea has proposed in this thread. I just disagree with the implication (I don't know if I misread it or not) that central planning shouldn't be an important piece to this, in terms of transportation or road decisions that could affect our current infrastructure. For example, bypasses and neighborhood roads are one thing. It's another if a new road project affects a major artery we use today.
I think it's rare to find someone who is against some degree of planning when it comes to roads. But I think it's obvious that we don't want a Federal bureaucrat in Washington DC planning our local roads, so "central planning" sometimes means local government, sometimes state, and in a limited set of cases (like big-picture interstate highway system) it might mean federal. And I think it makes sense to consider private ownership as an alternative wherever an attractive, locality-enhancing business case can be made.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2013, 01:52 PM   #56
chiefzilla1501 chiefzilla1501 is online now
MVP
 

Join Date: Aug 2008
Casino cash: $8666
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
I think it's rare to find someone who is against some degree of planning when it comes to roads. But I think it's obvious that we don't want a Federal bureaucrat in Washington DC planning our local roads, so "central planning" sometimes means local government, sometimes state, and in a limited set of cases (like big-picture interstate highway system) it might mean federal. And I think it makes sense to consider private ownership as an alternative wherever an attractive, locality-enhancing business case can be made.
Yes, absolutely agreed.
Posts: 20,438
chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 05:46 AM   #57
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $6855
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
If someone builds a private road, they can use whatever business model they think is appropriate to earn money from it. Maybe they have toll booths. Maybe they charge the people who use that road for access to their property pay a subscription. These are just two possibilities, but there could be many others.

You seem to have some kind of mental block here where you think it's got to be all or nothing. As if either every road has to be a public asset or every road has to be private. It doesn't have to work that way. Most conservatives are comfortable with public roads in large part. You act as if the reaction to Obama's braindead "you didn't build that" comment means conservatives think that all government infrastructure is both illegitimate and ineffective, but that's just not the case. That's why this thread seems so silly to begin with.
Don't assume I am thinking about conservatives taking quotes out of context. The only quote I responded I have posted was in direct relation to what I already said the point of this thread was. "Government does not create jobs" -Mitt Romney. You can try and spin why the thread was created, but I have point blank said the reason and you look silly ignoring it.

Why do you think my asking questions that haven't been answered are some type of mental block? Because the questions are hard for you to answer? IF you want private roads, those questions are worth asking.
Posts: 3,971
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 05:51 AM   #58
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $6855
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
How idealistic of you.
Private Roads
The most common type of private road is a residential road maintained by a homeowners association, housing co-op, or other group of individual homeowners. There are also networks of private highways in Italy and other nations. Such highways typically are toll roads whose upkeep is paid for with user fees,[1] for example, the Dulles Greenway in Virginia.

England and Wales are thought to have about 40,000 private roads[citation needed]. ..

Private road associations manage two-thirds of the total road network in Sweden.

In Canada private roads are main access routes or private driveways onto private property. These roads are maintained by private owners of the land they occupy. Most private road do not have any name signage other than a sign indicating the ownership status.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_road
Private roads reduce congestion, which is a result of excess demand for transportaton. This causes economic shortage. This is reality—not idealism.
Collectives work best at the local community, I have no problem with homeowner associations and what not maintaining their suburbs. I hardly see a difference between a homeowners association and small city. No one is suggesting taking away city utilities, in fact I think I mentioned that.

I am glad though that you are starting to see the power of collectives. Though a homeowners association isn't exactly the same thing as a individual free market.

"pivate roads are main access routes or private driveways onto private property." -- I didn't know we were counting those.

So am I to take it that you don't want to completely privatize city roads? Cause we can agree on these small time roads you have as an example.
Posts: 3,971
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 05:55 AM   #59
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $6855
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
I think it's rare to find someone who is against some degree of planning when it comes to roads. But I think it's obvious that we don't want a Federal bureaucrat in Washington DC planning our local roads, so "central planning" sometimes means local government, sometimes state, and in a limited set of cases (like big-picture interstate highway system) it might mean federal. And I think it makes sense to consider private ownership as an alternative wherever an attractive, locality-enhancing business case can be made.
Its crazy to assume that any liberal when speaking on this subject wants D.C. to plan local communities. What evidence do you have of even believing such a notion? When nothing of the sort has been said, would it not be best to assume that we are talking about the current way all this is funded? Local planning except for state roads and federal highways.
Posts: 3,971
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 06:02 AM   #60
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $6855
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
It's not just one bad project. There are all kinds of bad projects. I could probably do like you do and google something like "bad government infrastructure projects" find several articles and then cut and paste a novel length response, but that's just annoying.

The mere existence (or at least near-existence) of one bad project proves the point that not all infrastructure projects are worth pursuing. So if we can get beyond that point, the question becomes how can I tell a bad project from a good project? One approach that comes to mind is to assess whether or not a given project will actually be a net positive or a net negative economically. Unfortunately, this can be a complicated question and we have a lot of people on both sides of this issue who are willing to spin the data/analysis to prove whatever they want to prove. That's why you can't simply accept a study that tells you what you want to hear and believe the issue has been settled. Posting links to these studies proves very little.

I don't think "anything that puts Americans to work" is a very good test. I assume you've heard of the parable of the broken window, but if not, it's a good place to start. We could employ all the unemployed people we have with make work projects, but if we're doing nothing but breaking windows in order to employ people to fix them, we aren't really achieving anything worthwhile.

As for MO roads (and roads in many other states), I agree that there is work to be done. But the manner of getting that work done is important too. There are tradeoffs to be made between going on a crash program involving hiring a bunch of new people in order to get the work done rapidly versus a slower paced program that utilizes the people who already do this for a living and the equipment already in place. The former requires you to expand your capacity beyond a sustainable level so it might be good in the short term because more people have jobs and the roads get fixed faster, but the downside over the long term might outweigh that short term gain.

If you would to place all the positive benefits of public infrastructure and all the negative benefits on a scale, which do you think would weigh more? I don't throw the baby out with the bath water. There have been far more positive benefits to infrastructure that bad.

And I don't even understand what you are saying in that last paragraph. "As for MO roads (and roads in many other states), I agree that there is work to be done. But the manner of getting that work done is important too. There are tradeoffs to be made between going on a crash program involving hiring a bunch of new people in order to get the work done rapidly versus a slower paced program that utilizes the people who already do this for a living and the equipment already in place." What does this even mean?

IF you are talking about road construction, you do know that our state has a strong union that builds them, that this union requires them to go to a trade school to learn how to build roads and that these workers are ready to go right now.
Posts: 3,971
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:39 PM.


This is a test for a client's site.
A new website that shows member-created construction site listings that need fill or have excess fill. Dirt Monkey @ https://DirtMonkey.net
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.