Is the economy really improving?

[JJ Husker]

Well this turned into a shitfest in no time at all....

[cm husker]

So....you are saying kids in omaha are more important than kids in Cozad, valentine or Mccook.

 

They are worth the investment but not western Nebraska kids.

 

 

Not saying that at all. I don't think people in western nebraska should be subsidizing Omaha, either. My suspicion is that very little in taxes paid by western NE residents makes its way to projects in Omaha, though (like most rural states, rural communities are net "takers" when it comes to tax spending).

 

But it would be much cleaner to simply have everyone pay taxes, receive a minimum income (which may completely offset any tax) and then let the demand go where it may.

[knapplc]

Well this turned into a shitfest in no time at all....

 

I sincerely apologize for my role in that.

[cm husker]

So....you are saying kids in omaha are more important than kids in Cozad, valentine or Mccook.

 

They are worth the investment but not western Nebraska kids.

 

Jobs in western Nebraska aren't as important either.

 

The interstate system was put in place as much God military transportation than civilian.

 

States like New York have to get goods to California. How do they do that without the interstate or rail road?

 

The question is fine but the answer should be obvious for someone opening their eyes.

 

 

I've addressed these topics earlier, but I'll sum up: I'd much prefer that the producers and consumers in NY and California directly pay for the cost of those roads (through tolls for example), so that they internalize the cost of their use. As of now, as I mentioned before, they are getting a major corporate subsidy.

Let me try a simple example. If I produce a case of wine in California that I want to sell in NY, I'll need to ship it by ground. In a perfect world, the cost of shipping would be completely borne by the producer (and likely passed onto the consumer).

 

I agree, to some degree, that the interstate system was built for strategic defense reasons (though I think that was mostly pretext) - that said, if that was the case, then the US Gov was the consumer and it made sense for them to pay for it. It makes less sense than they should maintain it, at least beyond what they would pay as a consumer (e.g., when the Nat Guard uses an interstate, they should pay the toll).

 

I don't agree with everything in this article (or the tone), but it does do a good job of summarizing the world before federal road funding and how less federal funding could save everyone more money and actually drive costs to those who actually make use of the product. http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/transportation/federal-highway-funding

 

This link also mentions the issue about half way down: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/08/tight-budget-congress-can-save-42-billion-by-eliminating-bad-government-programs

 

 

 

and from your original article, it's worth noting that further investment in broadbands for communities that can't support it on their own may be throwing good money after bad:

 

 

While broadband helped lure Eleutian Technology to Ten Sleep, it wasn't enough to keep it there. After three years, the company decided to move. Eleutian needed a bigger building, but no water or sewer lines ran to the large lot it had bought a quarter-mile outside of town, and the cost of installation was too high. Plus, Ten Sleep lacked adequate housing for Eleutian employees, some of whom had to live in trailers, and the long drive to the Yellowstone Regional Airport was burdensome.

 

So Eleutian moved to Cody, population 9,500 – a city by Wyoming standards. A Cody-based economic development team secured a grant to build the company's headquarters, which Eleutian now leases with the option to buy at below market value in the future.

"We just couldn't compete with the bigger area," says LeeAnn Chenoweth, executive director of the Washakie Development Association in Worland, Wyo., which tried to keep Eleutian in Ten Sleep. "Having broadband can attract business, but places that have 200 or 300 people are probably always going to be challenged by the economy of scale."

 

Strikes me that the business grabbed it's government taxpayer funded subsidies, stayed their minimum time and then moved on. That's a huge problem with these programs. It's not just about start up costs. Think "Trump's Mexico Wall" as an example of the type of money pit that could be created.

[cm husker]

 

I believe engaging in conversation with you involves multiple goalpost moves, irrational contentions, unsupported and largely comical opinions and in general is a waste of time. I apologize to anyone who's read this. I know better.

This is exactly the problem with trying to discuss or debate basic ideas and notions with liberals. They don't listen and refuse to accept the facts which are plain to see if one would simply open one's mind to them.

 

 

 

So, who is the liberal that you're referring to in this discussion? me? because my arguments are decidedly conservative, not progressive.

 

Or are you just making a general blanket statement?

[cm husker]

 

It's not "rural people' it's The People. The point has already been made and you want to argue semantics.

 

Electricty, High speed internet, clean water, paved roads. They're for the common good! Is a rural hospital supposed to go without those things and let patients die because they don't have an ekg, Xray, clean drinking water, or good road to transport the patient to a specialty center? Like wise in this age of rapid information transfer and databases being online; are they supposed to let someone suffer from a curable issue because they need to flip through their book which may or may not have the latest information about the ailment? Similar points can be made for farmers, teachers, grain storage facilities, police officers, fire departments, ranchers, veterinarians, power plants... the list goes on and on.

 

This is common sense. It's not about picking winners and losers, it's about the genral welfare.

 

 

What else should we add to this list of projects for the common good? You raise a great issue when you bring up rural hospitals. Should every rural hospital have top of the line cancer and burn units? If not, why not? Wouldn't something like that be for the "common good"? Heck, it'd even provide jobs to doctors and nurses and janitors and hospital admins. Why not just expand every rural hospital to be full service like an LA or NY hospital?

 

You see, I actually agree, the list of "general welfare" can go on and on and on - and it will as long as special interests are there to convince people that it's only "fair" and for the "common good."

 

Question is, who is going to pay for it? What will be sacrificed in place of it?

 

Because what "common good" advocates don't realize or admit is that the dollars taken from people for use on "common good" pet projects mean that those people lose out on things good for them. It's simply a form of corporate welfare (because who do you think makes bank on these types of projects) and 9 of 10 times it results in a massive transfer of wealth from the less wealthy to the more wealthy.

 

...

For those who do advocate for gov provided broodband, what is the line? Why don't you agree with government provided cars? Or gov. provided healthcare? Or gov provided vacations? These are undeniably all things that make society more productive. How do you pick and choose the winning projects?

 

 

 

Is "government should provide broadband" willing to answer these questions?

 

Anyone?

 

Or should government spending be simply based on "this project benefits me or makes sense to me, so we should have it" and then let the various interests fight it out? If that's the approach, how do we cap spending?

 

This is a much deeper issue than any single project, whether it be interstates, public schools or rural broadband.

[huskerfan2000]

 

 

For starters we went from high speed internet to wifi...

That isn't moving the goal posts.. just different forms of delivery.

That was tongue in cheek. I knew what he meant, but it was low hanging fruit. Knap already pointed out one instance of the movement before. But if we're going to argue semantics we better keep arguing them...

 

 

 

sometimes it is hard to tell..

[ZRod]

 

I believe engaging in conversation with you involves multiple goalpost moves, irrational contentions, unsupported and largely comical opinions and in general is a waste of time. I apologize to anyone who's read this. I know better.

 

This is exactly the problem with trying to discuss or debate basic ideas and notions with liberals. They don't listen and refuse to accept the facts which are plain to see if one would simply open one's mind to them.

[ZRod]

 

 

It's not "rural people' it's The People. The point has already been made and you want to argue semantics.

Electricty, High speed internet, clean water, paved roads. They're for the common good! Is a rural hospital supposed to go without those things and let patients die because they don't have an ekg, Xray, clean drinking water, or good road to transport the patient to a specialty center? Like wise in this age of rapid information transfer and databases being online; are they supposed to let someone suffer from a curable issue because they need to flip through their book which may or may not have the latest information about the ailment? Similar points can be made for farmers, teachers, grain storage facilities, police officers, fire departments, ranchers, veterinarians, power plants... the list goes on and on.

This is common sense. It's not about picking winners and losers, it's about the genral welfare.

 

 

What else should we add to this list of projects for the common good? You raise a great issue when you bring up rural hospitals. Should every rural hospital have top of the line cancer and burn units? If not, why not? Wouldn't something like that be for the "common good"? Heck, it'd even provide jobs to doctors and nurses and janitors and hospital admins. Why not just expand every rural hospital to be full service like an LA or NY hospital?

 

You see, I actually agree, the list of "general welfare" can go on and on and on - and it will as long as special interests are there to convince people that it's only "fair" and for the "common good."

 

Question is, who is going to pay for it? What will be sacrificed in place of it?

 

Because what "common good" advocates don't realize or admit is that the dollars taken from people for use on "common good" pet projects mean that those people lose out on things good for them. It's simply a form of corporate welfare (because who do you think makes bank on these types of projects) and 9 of 10 times it results in a massive transfer of wealth from the less wealthy to the more wealthy.

 

...

For those who do advocate for gov provided broodband, what is the line? Why don't you agree with government provided cars? Or gov. provided healthcare? Or gov provided vacations? These are undeniably all things that make society more productive. How do you pick and choose the winning projects?

 

Is "government should provide broadband" willing to answer these questions?

 

Anyone?

 

Or should government spending be simply based on "this project benefits me or makes sense to me, so we should have it" and then let the various interests fight it out? If that's the approach, how do we cap spending?

 

This is a much deeper issue than any single project, whether it be interstates, public schools or rural broadband.

Nobody wants to answer your questions because they are ridiculous. How does the government choose which roads are 2 lane, 4 lane, 6, 8? Which intersections need stop signs, street lights, yeild signs. How does the government decide where to locate military bases? Where to place fire stations, police precincts, and other government entities? Usually common sense and research. Something that is sorely lacking in your reaponses. This isn't Ferraris and gold plated roads.

[cm husker]

So, despite soaring debt and a general sense that government is run by corrupt politicians intent on securing reelection through pork barrel spending, you're going with "government makes these decisions based on common sense and studies."

 

That simply doesn't make sense.

 

The government has been an incredible engine for redistribution of wealth. What the critics don't grasp is that it's most commonly redistributed wealth from the have nots to the have's.

 

The solution is not "trust the government more."

 

And you're still avoiding the question. Who makes the calls? Sure, no ferraris is an easy one. But several billion to broadband? Is that the right call?

[ZRod]

And that's exactly the response I was expecting. The difference between you and I is that; I believe government can work for the people and better their lives. Yes this is an awful time in its history, but most of the blame can actually be placed on the people themselves and who they choose to elect. The government is a byproduct of the people. Of the people, by the people, for the people.

 

Cut funding to crap we don't need and there will be room for needed wealfare improvements.

 

Your question has already been answered, since you can't use context I'll spell it out. The government.

[cm husker]

You're simply arguing for more of the same, then. Eisten or someone once had an observation about trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results. But, Ok, fine. I'll meet you on that ground.

 

By what criteria should the government pick and choose which projects are funded and which are not?

 

Why does broadband access to rural towns qualify for a massive outlay of funds?

[huskerfan2000]

And that's exactly the response I was expecting. The difference between you and I is that; I believe government can work for the people and better their lives. Yes this is an awful time in its history, but most of the blame can actually be placed on the people themselves and who they choose to elect. The government is a byproduct of the people. Of the people, by the people, for the people.

 

Cut funding to crap we don't need and there will be room for needed wealfare improvements.

 

Your question has already been answered, since you can't use context I'll spell it out. The government.

 

 

Any historical evidence of that? I mean the type of government you think we should have. If you think that is now you are sadly mistaken. What we are seeing today is a government growing in size and power, taking from some to make others lives free from working for what they want/need, and at the same time controlling the economy via economic crippling regulations.

[ZRod]

 

And that's exactly the response I was expecting. The difference between you and I is that; I believe government can work for the people and better their lives. Yes this is an awful time in its history, but most of the blame can actually be placed on the people themselves and who they choose to elect. The government is a byproduct of the people. Of the people, by the people, for the people.

Cut funding to crap we don't need and there will be room for needed wealfare improvements.

Your question has already been answered, since you can't use context I'll spell it out. The government.

 

Any historical evidence of that? I mean the type of government you think we should have. If you think that is now you are sadly mistaken. What we are seeing today is a government growing in size and power, taking from some to make others lives free from working for what they want/need, and at the same time controlling the economy via economic crippling regulations.

Why yes, I think there is evidence. I'm glad you asked. Towns, cities, states, even the federal government at times (think recovery from the great depression). Any evidence of your assutions? Everyone I know, myself included, still need to work. Apparently they missed my redistribution check...

[ZRod]

You're simply arguing for more of the same, then. Eisten or someone once had an observation about trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results. But, Ok, fine. I'll meet you on that ground.

By what criteria should the government pick and choose which projects are funded and which are not?

Why does broadband access to rural towns qualify for a massive outlay of funds?

I'm not trying the same thing, so Einstein doesn't apply here. And once again your last question has already been addressed.