All of a sudden Keynesian economics is OK by conservatives

[Incisor]

Yeah.. that's not trickle down economics. The government would be in charge of making sure that the road, bridge etc was up to code.

So why not just have the government build it themselves? If it's going to have to be up to code anyway, what's the point in having a private company do the "investing" and then we pay them back -with interest, I'm sure- at some point in time, though that is squishy and undetermined? Seems convoluted and a long end-around from direct government spending from increased taxes on the wealthy and businesses. Seems like going through a third party is where a lot of waste can and does happen.

Their profit depends on the publics willingness and ability to use the road/bridge/etc.

Do you really think that the business that builds the road won't get paid back regardless of the condition of the road? Charter school folks get paid even though their charter schools suck. Same with private prisons. How is this any different? Seems like a steady march to fascism to me.

Some of the tax cuts that where in the ARRA I disagreed with because they would not have the effect of actually building needed infrastructure or repairing needed infrastructure but where to try and get investment into things that were not needed currently or had issues with whether they could even come to fruition.

You can't force investment. The idea of waiting for a private firm to make an "investment" in public infrastructure is pointless. They're never going to do that or agree to do that unless they get a guarantee that their investment will be recouped. The difference between Obama's Infrastructure Bank and what you're proposing is under Obama's proposal, there isn't investment in individual projects required. Instead, there's a general "bank" that businesses contribute to that the government then spends on public infrastructure. If you want to call that "investment", fine. But it's still government spending and way more efficient than having to deal on a case-by-case basis, with multiple "investors", which is what you're describing.

Honestly.. this is just more of your partisan diatribe. I would suggest you take such stuff to the conspiracy theory forum.

It's the hard truth that you have to face. It doesn't belong in a conspiracy forum because it's the truth. The Conservative opposition to Obama was amnesiac at best, opposing the very things they supported for no other reason than politics.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Ummm okay... how is that materially different from what I said gimmee in the context of the discussion.

Uh, the timing of the payment....and what the tolls are paying for.....and who collects the tolls....and where the monies came from in the first place....ya know....just about all of it.

The question is asked why the people building the bridge can't jack up prices later.

I'm not concerned with that question, it wasn't based upon the example....none of my comment concerned "the question".

 

[Gimmesometruth]

didn't you know, the private investors were going to build that infrastructure and GIFT it to the government to avoid its cost being added to the national debt
[enter sarcasm icon of choice]

What I really luv about Dr J is his whining about my not knowing what the debate is all about....when he can't even review the thread to see what bridge was being discussed. But that doesn't stop him from going off on some fantasy scenario as you describe.

 

[Incisor]

Well lets see.. first the tax cut is not trickling down. Its actually for building a specific road, or bridge whatever and not only unlocking the person getting the tax cuts investment.. but also investments of lost of other businesses THAT DO NOT GET A TAX CUT.So if you say build a highway and give a tax cut to the investors that build that highway..HOW is that tax cut "trickling down" from the restaurants that are being built along the exits of that highway in order to service the folks driving along it? Those restaurants DID NOT GET A TAX CUT.. so how is it trickling down from them? The gas stations along the highway DID NOT GET A TAX cut.. so whats trickling here?

We aren't talking about the tertiary effects of infrastructure spending. Those restaurants would open regardless of who built the road because the road itself brings demand. My point is why do you insist on going through a third party -who will just skim off the top for themselves- to do something the government has done before on a grand scale?

What happened is real investment which leads to real wages, and jobs all along that highway.

And what jobs are those? Service industry jobs. And didn't we just get through a debate about how service industry workers are paid so little, they require welfare to supplement their low incomes? I thought Conservatives didn't think service industry jobs were jobs worth touting because they're largely part-time, right????

 

[Incisor]

The most likely scenario is that government would get used to the revenue generated from the tolls once the bonds were paid off and would continue to charge people in order to keep using the revenue.

...because you cut revenue when you cut taxes. All of this goes back to the premise that you can incentivize business to invest in public infrastructure when historically, that has never produced positive outcomes. We see this over and over with charter schools and private prisons. Outcomes don't improve (and may actually end up being worse), but the folks running those firms made their money anyway, so whatever. There would be no need for tolls if you didn't have private businesses "invest" in infrastructure with the government offering a bond while the far simpler and more direct solution is to raise taxes on wealthy and businesses, and then use that money to hire folks to fix/improve/construct the road. You know, like how Ike did it in the 50's when he built our highway system.

the tax cut would not likely be an income tax cut for the rich. it would be a specific tax cut.. like a decrease in the taxes on the civic bond that investors provided the state.

When a much simpler and easier solution would be to raise taxes so taxpayers weren't indebted to big business. There's no incentive for a private business to "invest" in public infrastructure that might not have any benefit to them. So what we would have is a series of On-Demand roads...where certain roads are "invested" because the business "investing" will profit off that construction. Like Walmart "investing" in a new road for its store in Bumblescum, Nowheresville. So while that investment is good for Walmart, it doesn't really do much for the folks who shop at Target.

 

[jaeger19]

So why not just have the government build it themselves? If it's going to have to be up to code anyway, what's the point in having a private company do the "investing" and then we pay them back -with interest, I'm sure- at some point in time, though that is squishy and undetermined? Seems convoluted and a long end-around from direct government spending from increased taxes on the wealthy and businesses. Seems like going through a third party is where a lot of waste can and does happen.
.

Actually government building it themselves is what makes it squishy and undetermined. Where does the federal government get the revenue? From projected taxes? In the future? Or does it just end up going into deficit spending and debt. And what is the buy in from the contractors? Take a long time, stretch out the costs, pad your costs etc.. The government is paying you., Now if your return depends on the public USING that infrastructure you are building.. you have an incentive to do it on time, underbudget, and do quality work.

Do you really think that the business that builds the road won't get paid back regardless of the condition of the road?

Well, if there getting paid is due to tolls, then it would stand to reason if the road sucks and no one uses it.. their return will be compromised.

Charter school folks get paid even though their charter schools suck

Well.. to point out.. if that happens then its the fault of government for not providing enough oversight. But you seem to think that government is better at oversight than private companies.. so please explain.

You can't force investment.

You can certainly help it along a LOT.

They're never going to do that or agree to do that unless they get a guarantee that their investment will be recouped.

Right whether that's a private investor investing.. or a government getting a contractor to develop something.. the contracto is going to want to get paid.

The difference between Obama's Infrastructure Bank and what you're proposing is under Obama's proposal, there isn't investment in individual projects required. Instead, there's a general "bank" that businesses contribute to that the government then spends on public infrastructure.

Right.. So I am supposed to just give money to this bank. without any definitive project.. timeline, or return known. Yeah.. that makes a lot of sense. NOT.

It's the hard truth that you have to face. It doesn't belong in a conspiracy forum because it's the truth. The Conservative opposition to Obama was amnesiac at best, opposing the very things they supported for no other reason than politics.

Like I said.. it belongs in the conspiracy theory.

 

[jaeger19]

Uh, the timing of the payment....and what the tolls are paying for.....and who collects the tolls....and where the monies came from in the first place....ya know....just about all of it.

I'm not concerned with that question, it wasn't based upon the example....none of my comment concerned "the question".

Oh so now the state doesn;t collect the tolls? then who collects the tolls?

And now the state doesn;t own the project.. someone else does?

WTF?

I'm not concerned with that question, it wasn't based upon the example....none of my comment concerned "the question".

Then I don't give a rats butt. I responded to a poster with such question.. you jumped into the conversation.. and now you aren't concerned about it..

Whatever,,, I am not concerned with your fantasy conversations.

 

[jaeger19]

We aren't talking about the tertiary effects of infrastructure spending. Those restaurants would open regardless of who built the road because the road itself brings demand. My point is why do you insist on going through a third party -who will just skim off the top for themselves- to do something the government has done before on a grand scale?
??

Of course we are talking about it. Your assumption is that the infrastructure will be built anyway. Which is an erroneous assumption;.

Dude.. you are still going through a third party if the government "builds it".. they are still going to hire contractors etc. And there is less incentive for those contractors to be on time, more incentive to have cost overruns etc.

And what jobs are those? Service industry jobs. And didn't we just get through a debate about how service industry workers are paid so little, they require welfare to supplement their low incomes?

NO YOU just made that statement.. I am in the service industry.. and my workers don't generally qualify for welfare.

Stop your partisan BS.. it gets so tiresome. and its irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[jaeger19]

...because you cut revenue when you cut taxes. All of this goes back to the premise that you can incentivize business to invest in public infrastructure when historically, that has never produced positive outcomes. .

First.. no you don't necessarily cut revenue when you cut taxes. When I get a tax break on municipal or state bonds.. the state or municipality benefits. So I get a tax break where I pay less tax on the income off the bond.. but I might not made that income in the first place without the bond.. so there is an increase in revenue.

Not to mention.. there is increase revenue from the investments made due to the infrastructure that is built with those bonds.

When a much simpler and easier solution would be to raise taxes so taxpayers weren't indebted to big business.

You can try.. but right now.. we are at our historic level for revenue generation.. and historically we have had little success going beyond that. PLUS your assumption is that those tax revenues WILL be used for infrastructure and not say given to a foreign country or spent on a myriad of other things.

There is though incentive for business to invest in infrastructure that they KNOW will benefit them. And if Walmart invests say in a new road for its store.. walmart is not surrounding that road..you realize that right. And so a medical office might go in by the walmart (so people can see their doctor and go pick up their prescriptions),. and other stores, and services that take advantage of people going to walmart to shop.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Oh so now the state doesn;t collect the tolls? then who collects the tolls?

This is a typical example of the crap you continuously TRY to pull here, I DID NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT "the state not" doing something, YOU were in an argument about PRIVATE companies BUILDING.... AND COLLECTING TOLLS. It is NOT "in the context " of the debate, since the debate about "bridges" WAS predicated on those over the Ohio River.

Do us all a favor and try, just once, following yer own advice.

And now the state doesn;t own the project.. someone else does?

More examples of you NOT knowing the context.

WTF?

Agreed.

Then I don't give a rats butt. I responded to a poster with such question.. you jumped into the conversation.. and now you aren't concerned about it..

Whatever,,, I am not concerned with your fantasy conversations.

The IRONY, you are always creating fantasy scenarios, it is the only scenario you win at, whereas the real bridge conversation was literally the concrete example of the Abraham Lincoln Bridge.

 

[jaeger19]

This is a typical example of the crap you continuously TRY to pull here, I DID NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT "the state not" doing something, YOU were in an argument about PRIVATE companies BUILDING.... AND COLLECTING TOLLS. It is NOT "in the context " of the debate, since the debate about "bridges" WAS predicated on those over the Ohio River.

Do us all a favor and try, just once, following yer own advice.

.

.
Gimmee.. I pointed out in the conversation that the state would be owning AND collecting the tolls.

The IRONY, you are always creating fantasy scenarios, it is the only scenario you win at, whereas the real bridge conversation was literally the concrete example of the Abraham Lincoln Bridge

Gimmee.. I never responded to that conversation. Never.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

.
Gimmee.. I pointed out in the conversation that the state would be owning AND collecting the tolls.

fantasy.

Gimmee.. I never responded to that conversation. Never.

Never said you did, as a matter of fact, I have implied throughout yer ignorance of it, ie, you don't do what you demand of others.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

My point really is we should pay for infrastructure and not add it to the debt. I don't really care how or who pays for it as long as it is not added to the national debt.

It does add to the debt, your own example does add to the debt as I already showed. There will not be a complete direct repayment for all funding provided....but that is OK, because we know that in reality it will more than pay for itself....which makes the whole argument moot.

 

[Moderate Right]

It does add to the debt, your own example does add to the debt as I already showed. There will not be a complete direct repayment for all funding provided....but that is OK, because we know that in reality it will more than pay for itself....which makes the whole argument moot.

You should be exstatic then about adding 15,000 border patrol jobs and the infrastructure bill of building the wall.

 

[jaeger19]

fantasy.



Never said you did, as a matter of fact, I have implied throughout yer ignorance of it, ie, you don't do what you demand of others.

1. the only fantasy is yours.:

Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post

they aren;t the owner.. the state is the owner that sets the tolls to pay back the private company for their services in building it.

Never said you did, as a matter of fact, I have implied throughout yer ignorance of it, ie, you don't do what you demand of others

Gimmee... if you are going to jump into a conversation. then you should know that conversation.

SINCE I DID NOT jump into the conversation about whatever friggin Bridge you are talking about.. I thus.. have no need to know the conversation.. understand now gimmee?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

You should be exstatic then about adding 15,000 border patrol jobs and the infrastructure bill of building the wall.

No, not at all, we have far too many BP in this area as it is and the "wall" is going to cause an greater decline in AZ-Mexico trade. The majority of AZ residents are against the proposal. But hey, nice try in attempting to shift the, your, argument.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

1. the only fantasy is yours.:





Gimmee... if you are going to jump into a conversation. then you should know that conversation.

SINCE I DID NOT jump into the conversation about whatever friggin Bridge you are talking about.. I thus.. have no need to know the conversation.. understand now gimmee?

No, I perfectly understand, yer gonna always indulge in fantasy scenarios and ignore the concrete, real examples being discussed. Playtime at a tea party is always a winner when you get to set the table.

 

[jaeger19]

No, I perfectly understand, yer gonna always indulge in fantasy scenarios and ignore the concrete, real examples being discussed. Playtime at a tea party is always a winner when you get to set the table.

look at you crawfish.

:lamo

 

[Gimmesometruth]

look at you crawfish.

:lamo

Oh...I'm walking back statements....uh..yeah, no.

Jaegerfantasyland.

 

[Critter7r]

Oh jeeez. Here we go with yet another lefty who doesn't give a damn about the poor. You want them to have more money just so they can spend it all. Give them more money right up to the point where they save one dollar and then cut them off because we can't have anyone save money whether it is the rich or the poor. Saving money is going against your liberal religion.

JB gave a well-thought-out, reasonable synopsis of paying for border agents by taking from the rich, vs. taking from the poor, vs. adding to the deficit. There was no mention of poor people saving anything, only their reduced ability to spend if more was taken in tax for the agents (and since poor people - overall - already save nearly nothing, his analysis was spot on).

 

[Critter7r]

Tolls or state payments are two examples. I have no doubt there will likely be other tax consequences that will make it profitable for companies.

But seriously whats wrong with a toll road? the money is coming from somewhere. Should people that use the infrastructure be responsible for paying it.. or should some poor guy in Idaho have to pay more in taxes so that a wealthy business man in New York has a faster way to get from NYC to his summer home in the finger lakes?

just sayin...

Hmmmm ... I dunno. Maybe tax that wealthy guy more.

 

[Incisor]

You should be exstatic then about adding 15,000 border patrol jobs and the infrastructure bill of building the wall.

The overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants are people who came here on airplanes and overstayed their visas. So a wall won't do anything to stop that, unless you're going to build a wall 30,000 feet tall.

 

[Moderate Right]

No, not at all, we have far too many BP in this area as it is and the "wall" is going to cause an greater decline in AZ-Mexico trade. The majority of AZ residents are against the proposal. But hey, nice try in attempting to shift the, your, argument.

But think of all those infrastructure jobs. You guys love infrastructure.

 

[Moderate Right]

JB gave a well-thought-out, reasonable synopsis of paying for border agents by taking from the rich, vs. taking from the poor, vs. adding to the deficit. There was no mention of poor people saving anything, only their reduced ability to spend if more was taken in tax for the agents (and since poor people - overall - already save nearly nothing, his analysis was spot on).

That's just it. You guys don't ever mention anything about the poor saving anything. You want everyone to spend, spend, spend, and not save anything. In other words, you don't give a damn about the poor.

 

[Moderate Right]

The overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants are people who came here on airplanes and overstayed their visas. So a wall won't do anything to stop that, unless you're going to build a wall 30,000 feet tall.

That's not the point though! You guys should be ecstatic about all that infrastructure spending because even if the wall itself doesn't do a damn thing, you have given people a bunch of jobs and just think what that will do for the economy! A liberal Utopia. And, if we build it 30,000 feet tall that's even more jobs to stimulate the economy and these jobs aren't going to be minimum wage jobs.