dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6
share rss forum feed


Mason2
Saceur
Premium
join:2006-01-06
reply to bicker

Re: [NH] 44.4 Million for NH Broadband

said by bicker:

...it isn't really that impressive, given that it is federal money they're using, rather than pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps.
As of 2005 (most recent numbers quickly available) NH received 71 cents back of every dollar the state sent to Washington ranking 47th out of 50 states in the country.

Your own state of MA, a vastly wealthier state with more industry, private enterprise and infrastructure, takes back 81 cents of every dollar, ranking 40th out of 50.

NH is a fiercely independent state. We have put up with private industry and state government failures keeping the state in the dark ages for decades. It is high time we received and accepted funding we well deserve to help the state modernize to better compete in a modern economy.

said by bicker:

It is also disappointing that they see fit to compete with private enterprise. This is not only unfair (the government is exempt from its own taxes), but anti-American.
Tea-party nonsense. Upon completion of the infrastructure build only private companies will be allowed to sell to the public access to the network infrastructure. The state of NH will not be an ISP and will in no way be competing with local private enterprise.

Sources:

»www.taxfoundation.org/research/s···685.html

»www.newhampshirefastroads.net/faqs
--
A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.

bicker

join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA

said by Mason2:

said by bicker:...it isn't really that impressive, given that it is federal money they're using, rather than pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps.
As of 2005 (most recent numbers quickly available) NH received 71 cents back of every dollar the state sent to Washington ranking 47th out of 50 states in the country. Your own state of MA, a vastly wealthier state with more industry, private enterprise and infrastructure, takes back 81 cents of every dollar, ranking 40th out of 50.
So not a big difference between the two, yet loads of NH people stream into MA for jobs, while comparatively few MA people stream into NH.

said by Mason2:

NH is a fiercely independent state.
Perhaps to its own detriment, but the question I raised is whether or not NHites generally are willing to accept the down-sides of their fierce independence, or instead insist on having both the trappings of that fierce independence as well as the benefits of inter-dependence?

said by Mason2:

We have put up with private industry and state government failures keeping the state in the dark ages for decades.
I'm not sure what your point is with regard to this. :confused:

said by Mason2:

It is high time we received and accepted funding we well deserve to help the state modernize to better compete in a modern economy.
Yes, I don't disagree in the abstract, but what I'm talking about is the extent to which NH has (mostly in the past - I know things are definitely changing) refused to raise their own funding (tax their own people) to help the state modernize to better compete in a modern economy.

That's all I was saying, at least in regard to the federal funding issue.

said by Mason2:

said by bicker: It is also disappointing that they see fit to compete with private enterprise. This is not only unfair (the government is exempt from its own taxes), but anti-American.
Tea-party nonsense.
Not at all. I'm a staunch opponent of the Tea-party nonsense. My comment is strictly a matter of true capitalism. Government should be applying its resources to bridge the gap between what is needed and what private industry is not interested in providing. That's a very long-standing principle that our nation has operated in concord with for decades. This would be a remarkable change of heart, in that respect.

said by Mason2:

Upon completion of the infrastructure build only private companies will be allowed to sell to the public access to the network infrastructure. The state of NH will not be an ISP and will in no way be competing with local private enterprise.
Yes, I suppose that that does mollify me a bit; assuming that they end up living up to those commitments.


vaxvms
ferroequine fan
Premium
join:2005-03-01
Wormtown
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Charter

said by bicker:

So not a big difference between the two, yet loads of NH people stream into MA for jobs, while comparatively few MA people stream into NH.
uhhhh... where are you getting your numbers?


Mason2
Saceur
Premium
join:2006-01-06
reply to bicker

said by bicker:

So not a big difference between the two, yet loads of NH people stream into MA for jobs, while comparatively few MA people stream into NH.
Obfuscation. Your original complaint was that NH is taking Fed money to improve its infrastructure instead of paying for it with state funds. My retort was that MA takes more fed money than NH does, thus I found your complaint a bit hypocritical.

As regards NH residents working in MA, I can not find hard numbers, though I assume you are correct... because MA has a vastly larger population and economy and therefore more jobs. This is a problem because...? This is great for MA. NH residents paying taxes to MA for the privilege of participating in the MA economy but using very little if any services besides roads.

The counter to your argument, of course, is that MA residents actually do "stream" in to NH to purchase goods and services SO THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO PAY TAXES IN MA.

With one hand you criticize NH for not taxing its residents sufficiently and taking federal funds (back) for infrastructure improvements and with the other hand you drive to NH because you do not wish to pay taxes.

I am sure you will agree that one could see a bit of hypocrisy here.

The point of the thread is not to have a fiscal policy turf war between NH and MA. The point is that if there are federal funds available for broadband infrastructure improvements and NH receives and uses those funds... this is a good thing for NH and all its surrounding neighbors. End of story.

If anything it might be argued that it is a bad thing for MA. It will mean more jobs and more opportunity for NH residents in NH... which will lessen the tax proceeds in MA.

said by bicker:

Yes, I suppose that that does mollify me a bit; assuming that they end up living up to those commitments.
State and Federal law requires that they do so. The state of NH can not, on a whim, get in to the ISP business.
--
A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.