Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

New Governors kill 1.2 billion rail funding and jobs


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#46 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 20,086 posts

Posted 07 November 2010 - 10:11 AM

The Government does not create jobs.


LOL


Yeah, no huddlers here are gov't employees...


good lord we deserve what is coming to us.

#47 Jangler

Jangler

    a head full of candy corn

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 47,629 posts

Posted 07 November 2010 - 10:12 AM

you asked. The Government makes deals for jobs to come here. Like the deal Obama just made in India for 50,000 jobs. But he didn't create those jobs the private company did. Those jobs will exist if they are in America or not.

#48 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 07 November 2010 - 10:12 AM

no it only creates government jobs, which means...uh i dunno

#49 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 17,198 posts
  • LocationMatthews, NC

Posted 07 November 2010 - 10:13 AM

things like inside subdivisions and what not are generally built by the contractor the housing developer uses, but interstate, highway, and parkway construction (the things you actually use) would never be built by a private entity acting on their own accord.

and for the most part, it's not as if the government has all the equipment in a shed somewhere. they simply bid out the work. you'll notice different company logos on the vests of everyone doing road construction.

it's an inconvenient truth for that whole "government doesn't create jobs" crew that won't explain exactly what they mean.


Exactly, those are the kinds that usually get public (usually federal) funding because no private entity can be forced to build them.

However, if a developer wanted to put up a shopping center by the intersection of a 2 lane state highway and a four lane interstate, they would be required to widen the state highway based on trips generated and they would probably want to build an exit from the interstate on their own.

Or if somebody builds on a 4 lane road, they'll be required to pay at least a prorated amount to upgrade the existing road. This is how roads usually get improved, at least around here.

Just saying many would probably be surprised just how much road funding and construction comes from developers and private sources, due to traffic impact requirements by local and state governments.

Carry on.

#50 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 07 November 2010 - 10:21 AM

okay, let's break this down step by step.

you asked. The Government makes deals for jobs to come here.


the government very rarely does anything to make "jobs come here." As a matter of fact, taking the last forty years or so of American history, the government has gone out of its way to send jobs OUT of the country. Starting with Nixon and Deng Xiaoping basically agreeing that China would become America's manufacturing sector (can't force people to work at gunpoint in the USA), all of reagan and bush's reign, really picking up steam with NAFTA, then finally reaching its peak with the financial crisis which was caused in part by the repeal of glass-steagall, everything the government has done has been in favor of finance and against labor.

there aren't many finance jobs. so no, the government does not actually make deals for jobs to come here.

Like the deal Obama just made in India for 50,000 jobs.


obama didn't trade like vespene gas for the indians to build a 50,000 person factory in huntersville.

obama negotiated a weapons deal which will lead to a certain number of people working on it that already have the jobs. He's actually saying "I'm creating work for x number of employees.

I'm not sure what the weapon systems are but they're likely drones.

But he didn't create those jobs the private company did.


actually no it would be impossible for a weapons company to sell anything if three things didn't happen

1. the united states government didn't pay for them to be developed
2. the united states government didn't buy them
3. the united states government didn't permit them to be sold to other countries

while all you may see is a private entity that makes things and sells them to the government, what it actually is a government researched item being sold by a government subsidized industry (since it can only have one customer it's fair to say the weapons industry is subsidized) to the american government or other governments they decide.

if that sounds private to you then you're hella retarded

Those jobs will exist if they are in America or not.


actually no one else in the world is stupid enough to spend as much money on the military as the united states so no probably not.

#51 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 07 November 2010 - 10:22 AM

Or if somebody builds on a 4 lane road, they'll be required to pay at least a prorated amount to upgrade the existing road. This is how roads usually get improved, at least around here.


oh that's interesting and makes perfect sense.

#52 CLTPanther

CLTPanther

    This Space for Rent

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,946 posts

Posted 07 November 2010 - 10:24 AM

yea, i'd rather spend on infrastructure that is needed like high speed rail rather than dumb poo like a bridge 18 people are going to use.

#53 Squirrel

Squirrel

    Drink a beer and relax

  • ALL-PRO
  • 12,742 posts

Posted 07 November 2010 - 10:26 AM

trains were barely in use at the time of the constitution's writing. Germany had a couple of England was beginning to invest in them, but for the most part they were just some whimsical technology that no one understood. The first rail wasn't laid down in the United States until 1826.

My point is it's very dumb for anyone to go to the constitution and use it as an excuse not to build rail because the founding fathers didn't call for it. It basically didn't exist.

Post offices had been around since the Mongols and roads had been around since you tech wheel in civ 5 in the 5th millenium BCE. Do you see why it's different?

However, if you really want to cite a founding father's opinion because it matters to you for some reason (which it shouldn't because it's the most irritating, childish thing in the world) you should read what Thomas Jefferson had to say about Westpoint. He had a few reasons for founding it, but mostly he was in love with the idea of the army corps of engineers, a publicly funded group of professionals who'd go around the wilderness building levees, damns, roads, etc, everything he felt was necessary for the construction of a country.

Montgomery Meigs of Civil War fame was probably the most famous, and he built the largest infrastructure project in the country at the time which was a damn that still supplies fresh water to washington dc (since it was a malarial town and disease had just killed a president)

for these interesting stores and more buy this book.



yes, it's almost as if they mandated the transportation that was widely available for a fledgling country in the mid 18th century.

I'm sure if there had been wide use trains and the availability of steel and if james watts had spawned in philadelphia an agrarian southern society with very few suitable ports for shipping would have had a lot of interest in there being an ability to quickly transport their goods. That's just a thought though.



It's not possible. Airlines do not make a profit.

On top of that, every single level of the airline industry has been almost completely subsidized by the government. The actual planes were just converted military technology paid for by the government that was handed to the private sector in the 50s. No private entity would have paid for the initial R&D.

Every single airport is publicly financed. No private entity could afford to build a serious one.

The government stepped in and broke up all the unions in the air line industry because the airlines couldn't afford to keep up their end of the agreement.

Every time one of the big ones goes bankrupt the government steps in and props them up because the entire system of capital depends on the quick movement of labor, people, and materials.

so now while you might buy buy your plane tickets from delta.gov it's hardly a private industry.


Stay out of airlines you have no clue what you are talking about. If the government is propping up airlines where is Pan Am, TWA, Eastern? As far as airline union goes most majors have unions just that most airlines filed bankruptcy to force them to take price cuts.

As far as airports yes the initial cost the goverment will provide money and help airports. But the Goverment also use the airline tax fund to improve airports and to help build them.

As far as profits go its a thin line. If oil doesnt go up they make money. They either make millions or lose millions.

Edited by Squirrel, 07 November 2010 - 10:29 AM.


#54 Jangler

Jangler

    a head full of candy corn

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 47,629 posts

Posted 07 November 2010 - 10:30 AM

I like Big Government. Big Government is the only reason I have for living. I pray to Big Government.



Good to know.

#55 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 07 November 2010 - 10:34 AM

If the government is propping up airlines where is Pan Am,


profitable parts were bought up by delta

TWA,


an airline formed at the behest of the postmaster general? merged with american airline

Eastern?


yeah they just vanished.

As far as airline union goes most majors have unions just that most airlines fled bankruptcy to force them to take price cuts.


there are other aspects of the airline industry, like oh I dunno air traffic controllers?

as I learned in tin pin, they're the ones actually flying the planes.

As far as airports yes the initial cost the goverment will provide money and help airports. But the Goverment also use the airline tax fund to improve airports and to help build them.


doesn't matter if they'd never been built in the first place :D

#56 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • MFCEO
  • 20,086 posts

Posted 07 November 2010 - 10:35 AM

Gov't spending pulled us out of the great depression.

Our economy is based on three legs, consumer, corp, and gov't.

If all of those stop sending, we be fugged. It takes one to jumpstart the others. Started to work, there has been growth in the economy for 15 months now. Well, time to stock up on the beanie weanie's now that the know nothings are back in town.

#57 Squirrel

Squirrel

    Drink a beer and relax

  • ALL-PRO
  • 12,742 posts

Posted 07 November 2010 - 10:44 AM

profitable parts were bought up by delta



an airline formed at the behest of the postmaster general? merged with american airline



yeah they just vanished.



there are other aspects of the airline industry, like oh I dunno air traffic controllers?

as I learned in tin pin, they're the ones actually flying the planes.



doesn't matter if they'd never been built in the first place :D


ATC I can almost see your point if the airlines didnt pay taxes. Back in the day when airlines was regulated yes the government propped them up. There is talk of re-regulation of the airlines. Which I dont see happening. The goverment needs to stop regulating the Utility industry that is where alot of waste is right now.

As far as airlines go right now this is the fewest airlines in the US since when they where formed. Deregulation brought in a 20 year period of instability that is still trying to work itself out. We are the point where there will only be 5 top carriers and a bunch of regionals.

#58 Squirrel

Squirrel

    Drink a beer and relax

  • ALL-PRO
  • 12,742 posts

Posted 07 November 2010 - 10:45 AM

Gov't spending pulled us out of the great depression.

Our economy is based on three legs, consumer, corp, and gov't.

If all of those stop sending, we be fugged. It takes one to jumpstart the others. Started to work, there has been growth in the economy for 15 months now. Well, time to stock up on the beanie weanie's now that the know nothings are back in town.


Actually WWII did.

#59 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 07 November 2010 - 10:49 AM

Actually WWII did.


actually <oversimplified thing> cured <very complicated thing>

#60 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 07 November 2010 - 10:54 AM

im reading a book right now called This time it's different: eight centuries of financial folly and it's really really really good but they kinda put forward that the great depression wasn't really that big of a deal in the united states and was no worse than a recession outside of the rural west (where everyone lost their homes and land) and the current recession is already much worse lol


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com