 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to satellite68
Re: Why is this an acceptable course of action? said by satellite68:And guess what? If this project fails, then the bonds involved will have to be paid. If the people voted for it, they know the risks. Should it not be up to the residents of this place as to whether that's an acceptable risk? Even if that means the residents who are not interested in this service will be made to cough up the money to pay for it?
If the people who wanted this service put forth their own private effort without the involvement of the government, then that risk would be theirs alone. It isn't practical to burden the taxpayers with even more obligations considering all of the existing responsibilities tasked unto local governments in the first place.
--
"At the moment of conception." |
|
RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | said by pnh102:Even if that means the residents who are not interested in this service will be made to cough up the money to pay for it? I think the appropriate comment is the same one I hear all the time for those who want service and do not have it. Move to a place that does not have people wanting this type of service.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
|
|
wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | reply to pnh102
Are you saying that the vast majority of people do not want reliable communications, video, and internet?
Sure, some people may not like it. Much like subsidizing costs for schools across all taxpayers. Some people, who don't have children, oppose having to pay taxes for schools. So yes, some residents may have to pay whether they like it or not.
How about you build your own road, so we don't have to pay for yours. If the minority opposes, then the minority sucks it up.
cw |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by wentlanc:Are you saying that the vast majority of people do not want reliable communications, video, and internet? ..... cw no, he is saying that businesses should be able to do whatever they want, including pre-emptive lawsuits to crush any possible competition.
In pnh102's view, the government is no good for anything (including down to the local, town level) and should not be allowed to do anything to interfere with or disrupt anything a business wants to do.
free market rules and all that - we can see how well that's working for the world. |
|
 rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to pnh102
pnh 102 do you feel the same way about us taxpayers bailing out banks and hedgefunds? let the private sector fend for themselves? they are using middle class tax payer money to bail these institution out. we all know by now rich folk don't pay taxes. so why is it wrong for a town of middle income earners wanting to join the 21st century to use initiative to do so when the private sector which you endlessly champion will not provide the services needed for this town to remain economically viable? it's their town... socialism for the affluent is good right but not regular folk. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to nasadude
said by nasadude:free market rules and all that - we can see how well that's working for the world. Free market is awesome. I will start a business that catches the poor and minorities and processes them into bio-diesel (hey americans are fat! time for lipid recovery) and pet food. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:said by satellite68:And guess what? If this project fails, then the bonds involved will have to be paid. If the people voted for it, they know the risks. Should it not be up to the residents of this place as to whether that's an acceptable risk? Even if that means the residents who are not interested in this service will be made to cough up the money to pay for it? If the people who wanted this service put forth their own private effort without the involvement of the government, then that risk would be theirs alone. It isn't practical to burden the taxpayers with even more obligations considering all of the existing responsibilities tasked unto local governments in the first place. Please. EVERYTHING your local government spend smoney on has peole paying for something they feel is "unecessary" now you wan to make exceptions. TDS sucks. PERIOD. I have afrind thatlives a few miles outside of town. For some reason TDS is his local phone company and even though they offer DSL in the town just west of him in the next county they REFUSE to bring it out to him. They'll gladly offer him crapy dial-up for $22 a month of course he also needs to pay in excess of $25 for a landline he has ZERO use for. So nearly $50 a month for dial-up? Um yeah right. That's TDS.
If the project fails the polticians will be voted out of office the point is does the community have the RIGHT to decide whether they ant to fund this type or thing or not and the answer is YES. Whether or not you disagree with the community even doing the project surely you MUST agfree they should have the right to decide. In what twisted logic should BUSINESS get to decide what a the local government does. They are not elected by the people. |
|
rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY | the government of a Dictatorship which is controlled by corporations.... the USA. we no longer have any rights. |
|
| reply to patcat88
soylent green |
|
