 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |
to amigo_boy
Re: rly?said by amigo_boy:Are you seriously arguing that we shouldn't have invested in sewers, water, roads, electric, gas and telephone? Did I? I love how you always change the subject when you lose an argument.  It is cute. Now, let me bring you back to the topic. Can you prove to me that in this current economy, where it is a fact that just about every state and local government is having trouble paying for its current obligations, it would be wise for the same governments that cannot currently pay for their existing obligations to enter into new obligations? said by amigo_boy:They don't show results overnight. And, particularly not 30 years worth of results. Shrug. I guess we need to borrow and spend $2 trillion then. Maybe even $10 trillion. That will get the economy going again. |
|
| |
said by pnh102:Can you prove to me that in this current economy, where it is a fact that just about every state and local government is having trouble paying for its current obligations, it would be wise for the same governments that cannot currently pay for their existing obligations to enter into new obligations?
Can you prove that the same reasoning didn't apply when societies faced the perplexing question of whether to build water, sewer, roads, electric, gas, etc? Obviously, it is my opinion that it would have been much better to do this in 2007 when there was more tax revenue to fund it. We'd also be that much closer to obtaining the benefits.
Your position is that we shouldn't have done it then either. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2011-Mar-29 12:51 pm
Sorry. I've thrown down way too many real-world facts at this argument that hold up my side. Please address or disprove the issues I've raised, and then we can continue. |
|
| |
said by pnh102:Sorry. I've thrown down way too many real-world facts at this argument that hold up my side. Please address or disprove the issues I've raised, and then we can continue.
Ditto. I've explained how broadband is ubiquitous and a necessary component to life, the economy, etc. Like water, sewer, roads, etc., it is not well served by leaving it to so-called "free-market" forces. Your response is "well, you must want government to do everything." When I turn that around on you, to show how you enjoy a lot of things which the government does, and obviously don't want the government to do nothing you claim that I've changed the subject. I guess we'll have to let viewers form their own opinions about the merit of each of our arguments. I appreciate having the opportunity to show yours for what I believe they are. |
|
 firephotoTruth and reality matters
Premium Member
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA |
to pnh102
said by pnh102:Now, let me bring you back to the topic. Can you prove to me that in this current economy, where it is a fact that just about every state and local government is having trouble paying for its current obligations, it would be wise for the same governments that cannot currently pay for their existing obligations to enter into new obligations? This is a law that applies to future deployments. What part of "future" applies to "current economy"??? It's fully with no shame an attempt to protect only privately held incumbent operators. They include open ended wording so they can use phantom "costs" to inflate rates for no reason. |
|
| |
srsly to pnh102
Anon
2011-Mar-29 2:14 pm
to pnh102
So, just for the sake of clarity, you feel it is the roll of each state to dictate how municipalities spend their local tax revenues as well as limiting the scope of bond initiatives? Does this idea scale and does it match your ideology, at scale? |
|
| |
FireJack to pnh102
Anon
2011-Mar-29 3:09 pm
to pnh102
you have tried to lead this discussion in a useless direction
the argument here should not be about whether local communities can decide to run infrastructure. that is up to them, not you.
worry about your own community, not someone else's.
the constructive argument here is why corporations are suing to maintain their control and whether they should be able to dictate how a community wants to run itself.
it doesnt matter if the local govt will run it poorly. it is completely beside the point.
what matters is that the people can choose for themselves and corporations not being able to tell an entire community what they can and cant do by using the corrupt political and justice system.
your argumentative red herring has no bearing on anything at all except to distract from the real issue. |
|
 JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
1 recommendation |
to firephoto
said by firephoto:said by pnh102:Now, let me bring you back to the topic. Can you prove to me that in this current economy, where it is a fact that just about every state and local government is having trouble paying for its current obligations, it would be wise for the same governments that cannot currently pay for their existing obligations to enter into new obligations? This is a law that applies to future deployments. What part of "future" applies to "current economy"??? It's fully with no shame an attempt to protect only privately held incumbent operators. They include open ended wording so they can use phantom "costs" to inflate rates for no reason. And why is a state government shilling for and passing a law for the benefit of less than a handful of private corporations? Why aren't these corporations competing on their own merits? Talk about no "free market". |
|
| |
to pnh102
said by pnh102:Sorry. I've thrown down way too many real-world facts at this argument that hold up my side. Please address or disprove the issues I've raised, and then we can continue.
Your assertion is laughable. You've provided no facts whatsoever. All of it is opinion based on a "I have mine, screw you!" belief system. Your hypocrisy is unbelievably transparent when you whine about AT&T's rising prices and how government should step in to prevent them from gouging customers- because you're an AT&T customer. |
|
| |
to amigo_boy
The main problem all U.S. governments are facing (federal, state and local) for the last 20-30 years is that the religion of "tax cuts as panacea" has taken hold. If government services and subsidies that most people want (and believe government should provide) need to be slashed, that's too bad, it's more important that Bradley Moneybucks III be able to buy a couple of extra sports cars/jetskis/vacation homes per year than that government be funded properly so it can maintain services and infrastructure for everyone's use. |
|
| |
said by Papageno:it's more important that Bradley Moneybucks III be able to buy a couple of extra sports cars/jetskis/vacation homes per year than that government be funded properly so it can maintain services and infrastructure for everyone's use.
It's starting to remind me of Mexico. The so-called "haves" didn't feel collective allegiance to their fellow citizens. "I got mine, screw everyone else." They controlled government to preserve huge disparity in wealth and income. The result is apathy among the general population. One of the wealthy will be kidnapped, and the police are in on it to some extent. They general population will know something about who did it, where the wealthy guy is stashed away. But, they don't say anything. The system doesn't exist for their benefit, why should they put their neck on the line? It's gotten so bad that the wealthy are moving to the US. (You can obtain an immigration visa if you have enough assets.). They'll work the same magic here. There's already a substantial "I've got mine, screw everyone else" sentiment here (as evidenced by America's wealth/income disparity growing over the past 30 years to the point we're close to Mexico's.). What's remarkable to me is that the people who protest the loudest about "socialism," and "tax increases" have little chance of earning more than $100k. It's like they're defending the top 1/10th percent of society who have quadrupled their incomes over the past 30 years of deregulatory politics -- as the lower 50% of American's income lost ground. It's like the 5% of Black Louisianans who voted for David Duke (former KKK grand wizard). I don't get it. |
|
It is cute.
