aramike

quote: And, now that I think about it, if a not-so-friendly country was to set up a dummy company and purchase some of our more important roadways, they could undermine American commerce simply by failing to maintain those roads. In effect, they could destroy America from within. Not with bombs or radical brainwashing ... but by doing absolutely nothing. Just sit around and let the roads crumble.Government oversight wouldn't allow that to happen. Part of the stipulations of such deals are a requirement to post a large bond of money and assists that would be siezed should a company decide to not meet their maintenance obligations.

By the way, if you want to try to say that the real solution is to cut spending, go ahead - I won't argue. I think that's the way to go. However, considering that the nature of the beast is to feed itself, I still find that giving it less sources of "food" is a good idea. Hence, private highways.

WTF??? Derek, you're going soft. I can't remember the last time you were nice to a newbie...

Never use Derek's loins and a guy named "Dick" in the same post again. Creepy.

quote: Efficiency doesn't mean squat in this case.Umm yes it does. quote: Doesn't matter how eficient or inefficient they are, you have no choice but to take a particular road, and pay whatever tolls they charge.Right. But if the government is less efficient do you think you'll still pay lower tolls/taxes? Someone is GOING to pay for that inefficiency. Furthermore, government can impose restrictions on a private company under fair business practice/fleecing laws, therefore restricting the amounts that said company can charge you. That government, however, has NO similar restrictions set upon itself. quote: The facts remain. 1. Citizens paid for the road. 2. From then on, they were only supposed to pay for road upkeep. 3. Government leases the road. (You think they leased it at cost? I think they leased it at a premium.) 4. Leasing company now charges citizens to recoup the lease costs, maintenance costs, administrative costs, and profits. 5. Citizens are therefore paying TWICE for that same road. 1: Citizens pay for EVERYTHING if you think about it. 2: Wrong. They not only pay for upkeep, they also pay for the administration thereof including government inefficiency. Furthermore, it isn't quite that simple. Citizens would also be accountable for: pensions, TIFT Districts, property value variance, etc. 3: EXACTLY! And those "premium" dollars are now government dollars that you don't have to be taxed for. Furthermore, all individuals will not be taxed for upkeep of a road that they all do not use as that cost is passed solely onto the drivers of said road. Remember: a private company cannot impose FURTHER taxes. Think of it this way: if the inefficient government finds a shortfall in the funding for maintaining its own toll roads, that bill is passed on to the taxpayers. If this happens with a private company, that bill can only be passed onto those who use the road. The bottom line is that SOMEONE has to pay for everything. It simply costs less to have private enterprises be responsible for the administration of such things. 4/5: No, AGAIN YOU ARE NOT PAYING TWICE! Yes, you are paying the leasing company for the cost of the lease. HOWEVER, as I have explained SEVERAL TIMES, the money that company pays for the lease is PAID BACK TO YOU. Government money is TAX money, and the leasing company pays the government money. So, while you think that you're actually shelling out for the road TWICE, you're actually only paying for it ONE TIME. You're only looking at it halfway if you don't get this. I'm going to point this out ONE LAST TIME, and I'm going to break it down as best I can. 1: Tax dollars were spent to build road. 2: Government recouped said tax dollars from leasing company as well as taxes on company's profit. Ergo, NO TAX DOLLARS WERE *ACTUALLY* SPENT. Ergo, YOU ARE ONLY PAYING FOR THE ROAD *1* TIME. If you spend $100 on something but subsequently recieve the money back, YOU DIDN'T SPEND IT. quote: It's not capitalism. That leasing entity can't fail. If there's a road from point A to point B, and the detour will take you 20 miles out of the way, your option is pretty obvious. Subtract the costs of the toll from the costs of taking the detour + your time.So, businesses that "can't fail" aren't forms of capitalism? ARE YOU SERIOUS? quote: There's a reason why roads are PUBLIC. Build with public money, and are supposed to be maintained with public money.WRONG! The reason most roads are public is because they HAVE to be built on public land. quote: The money that the company pays the government are not recouped in any way, shape or form. It's just a gimmick for the government to get a fresh cash infusion.You just contradicted yourself in those two sentences. Even in the OTHER thread, you seem to not understand this one simple principle: tax money is government money is public money. You paid tax money. It becomes government money therefore public money. Now, when another entity pays the government money, it becomes public money with is also "tax" money. Therefore, government has more money to spend on the same things that they would otherwise TAX YOU FOR. Ergo, each individual SAVES TAX MONEY. Dude, you're looking at about 3/4s of the picture while trying to describe the whole thing. See, I DO see where you're coming from, but I find it to be overly simplistic when it comes to deciding whether or not this is a good thing. Okay, here's another basic economic principle: Let say the government has a $1 billion defecit in spending. They can either cut spending (yeah, right), make up the difference in taxes, or lease a road. They HAVE to do SOMETHING, because that money doesn't just appear out of nowhere. So, by leasing the road, you save said amount of dollars in taxes. Furthermore, by paying tolls to a private, efficient company who's profits are taxes and regulated, you save ADDITIONAL dollars in taxes. If you were paying those tolls to the unregulated government who's ineffecient, you end up paying MORE. Remember this: someone ALWAYS has to pay... quote: If they don't lease it, all they are stuck with is money allocated for maintenance from DMV fees and other little sources. If they lease it out, they get a big chunk at one time, and then constant tax stream from tolls, while STILL getting their allocations from DMV and other sources.Right, but that money now can be used for other things that you would otherwise have to pay TAX dollars for. What, did you think the government was just opening a big bank account and laughing while it got fat and rich off of YOUR money? Hardly. Now, you could say that it would WASTE some of the money -- BUT, efficiency doesn't matter, right? Actually, that is PRECISELY WHY I'd rather have private entities running our roads as they then become something that government inefficiency doesn't impact. Your argument is essentially that you'd rather the government WASTE our money than a private company profit off of it. Said argument is silly considering that, when the company profits off of it, they pay more in taxes, causing us to pay less, AND THEREFORE SAVING EVERYONE MONEY. quote: With people like you defending those dealings.If you want to categorize me as "people like me", I must now reciprocate: People LIKE you can't see any further than the $3 more in tolls they are paying to comprehend the $5 LESS in taxes they are paying. Wait, you want to argue you aren't saving that $5? Let's have that argument. [YOU] The government is spending it on something else so I have to still pay the taxes. [ME]Sure, but the government is spending it on SOMETHING else that YOU would otherwise have to pay for. [YOU] Why should I have to pay for something I don't use? [ME] Why should everyone pay for a road that NOT EVERYONE uses? [YOU] Because it's MY road and *I* want to save the money. See the endless cycle yet? Maybe you WON'T see a savings in tax DOLLAR amounts, but you WILL see the savings through the fact that less increases are needed. And THAT is why I am OK with this. See, "people like me" look a little further than the number posted on the toll sign to decide whether or not we are in agreement with something, and if it will save us money. [ 07-20-2006, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: aramike ]

quote: However, unlike government. The private company wouldn't charge only for supposed maintenance costs. A private company would charge me maintenance costs + costs to recoup the lease + costs of running their bussiness operation + profits.Dude, private industry is almost ALWAYS more efficient. I don't know why people are always so against companies making money. quote: How are my taxes repaid? Anything that is charged beyond maintenance costs is costing me more than it should. You're kidding, right? It is naive to think that the government would be any more cost-effecient. Money you would pay the government goes to payroll, pensions, bureaucracy, etc. Government waste is always high in ANY part of their operations. Whereas a private company is invested in efficiency. It's a commonly held belief that most businesses would fail if they had the efficiency of the government. That being said, please understand that I don't believe that all things run by the government should be privatized - there are some things which simply require too much oversight. Roads, however, are not one of them.

You old-timers know what I'm referring to... Once again, time for a trip down Memory Lane. Anyone still have the original box/disc/bruised-ego from tech-support?

Oh snap, it's on... quote: 1: I find everything wrong with it.Restricting trade? You find everything wrong with restricting unregulated trade? Maybe you'd be happier living under UN rule than US law then. quote: 2: Trust me. I have no disconnect when it comes to the government and I scrutinize everthing they do. If one thinks that the government is strickly a benign entity, one is just deluding themselves.

Wannabe post-modernism invades movies. Word is that they actually did have a better title but Winona Ryder stole it.

I don't blame the government for trying to restrict gambling in this manner. You are right - they want some of the spoils. I see nothing wrong with that. I find that a lot of people see the government with an odd disconnect (perhaps deserved) but you must remember that every gambling dollar going overseas is a dollar that could have stayed here therefore providing either tax-relief or additional spending without additional taxing. Either way, the taxpayer wins. Remember: government money is really your money. Isn't it nice when it doesn't come from you? quote: Also, the laws made in this country don't apply to foriegn countries the last I was aware of unless they made and international law with other countries which they didn't do.Huh? Every country has the right to dictate it's own international trade laws. The grey area here is the Internet and who's responsible for our trade laws being broken.

quote: How do their dollars replace the tax dollars that I paid? I already spelled this out. I'll do it again. *sigh* Private company gives government money for road. Okay, let me say it again: GIVES GOVERNMENT MONEY. That money that the government recieves is NOW MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY TOWARDS THE GOVERNMENT'S SPENDING. Ergo, monies you do not have to pay are TAXES YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY. Taxes you don't have to pay are TAX SAVINGS because you are SAVING MONEY that you would otherwise have to PAY. *Sheesh* Sure, your money was used to build the road. Those dollars are then replaced from a private company in the forms of taxes that you don't have to pay, because that money goes back into the government and is spent on other things that YOU WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE TO BE TAXED FOR. Dude, this isn't hard. If you want to discuss the merits of the particular program however, I'm fine with that. Let's just make sure we're on the same page.

quote: Being a sucesfull business man doesn't make you a good world leader. Besides the people who surround him like Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz (while I'm not a fan of them) DO have brains.Part of being an effective leader is to surround yourself with the right people. Furthermore, why is it that lefties always consider Bush to be "stupid" and then try to say that he was smart enough to win 2 elections, orchestrate 9/11, etc? I think your ilk simply want to insult the president regardless of how inconsistant said insults are...

Settle down, Soback. In the scenario you described, the GOVERNMENT was at fault for fleecing you, NOT the private company. I far more trust a private company to charge fairly than the government. And, you are clearly wondering why you're not getting your tax dollars back? The government is getting that money so WHY THEN IS IT THE COMPANY'S FAULT THAT YOU'RE NOT SEEING IT? Elect a government better than tax-and-spend and you may see equity. The bottom line is that either you're free market or you aren't. I am constantly amused by people wanting it both ways, such as yourself... Let me explain this very simply: your tax dollars paid for road. Company buys road with other dollars. Those dollars replace tax dollars you paid. DO NOT BLAME THEM FOR NOT RETURNING THE DOLLARS TO YOU. It is your GOVERNMENT not returning the dollars, and they will use those additional monies to pay for other things ... THAT YOU WOULD BE TAXED FOR. So maybe you won't see it on your DMV fees or property taxes ... or, more like it, you just won't recognize it. Again, keep your government in check - not capitalism.

Umm, no, YOU'RE missing the "point". The "point" you are trying to make is far different than the "point" that CNN was trying to make, considering the headline of the story, and that the story was informative and not an editorial as your "point" was.

And CNN wonders why it is losing credibility... During the G8 summit, a middle east erupting into flames, etc, they think the most important news item is President Bush saying the word "shit". I'm serious - this was the LEAD story on CNN.com.

Again, I don't mind. Sure the roads were built with YOUR tax dollars. But YOUR tax dollars were replaced when the company purchased the road. As for the company profiting, so what? At least they would fall under the state and federal laws to prevent them from gouging, which, by the way, the government itself doesn't have to worry about. The government can fleece us, but it is okay, because it is the government. A private company cannot charge us fair amounts, though?

Someone needs to find his very first post, if it still exists...

Me's missed this one too ... vacation. Congrats and good luck, $ilk!

quote: Originally posted by Tac: If this is his forum post count imagine how many pron cookies he has in his browser ROTFLMAO!!! But ... does he have the time?

I have no problem with this since US corporations also have interests and assets in foreign nations.

I'm NOT saying that I'm advocating it, but a nearby community has banned smoking in restaurants and the businesses have seen sales INCREASE...

Yes ... I'm back from vacation. What a great time it was, but now I must settle back into my political rants and diatribes... I'll call this World War III ... in the making. The Cold War wasn't really a "war" in the traditional sense. Even if we somewhat altered the meaning of "war" to suit it, it wouldn't have been a "world war" because there weren't all that many autonomous nations involved in the military build-up that was the Cold War. Remember ... if we're going to change the definition of war to involve the massive arms race known as the Cold War, only 2 nations were massively involved and invested. Not enough to justify calling it a World War in my opinion. A "war" perhaps, but not a "world war". That being said... Are we facing World War III? Indeed, we are. The Islamic world is against Western Culture and condemns it in such a mass-appeal agreement to make "democracy" seem impotent. Isn't it ironic how the governments of actual "democracies" have less support than Islamic dicatorships? So, while the Islamic world condemns us as "criminals" and "infidels", we are too busy facing the half of the country that condemns us (including themselves) as "nation builders" and "imperialists". I find it interesting how that "half" of the nation fails to notice that their many other "positions" such as: abortion, freedom of press (to be liberal), freedom of religion (so long as you're not Christian), women's rights and activism, freedom of expression (pornographic, vulgar, and otherwise), freedom FROM religion, the right to a fair trial (advocating the rights of the accused more than the victim), etc, et al, are the same ones that makes us "infidels" in the eyes of much of the middle east. See, the problem is that liberals want it both ways. They want us to show cursory respect for other cultures while those other cultures trash, disrespect, and condemn our own. So while another country can be close-minded, tyrannical, dictatorial, run-by-religion, kids can carry guns, etc, OUR country must understand that it's simply their "culture". But when OUR country involves Christians, guns that are CONTROLLED, democratically-elected governments that condemn certain Islamic countries, OUR nation is morally wrong in as much as we aren't "accepting" of other cultures. Apparently the liberals think we are morally superior to all others and therefore "more" should be expected of us. But wait - that can't be right, because then they would have to consider other cultures to be morally INFERIOR... Hmmm, how can we do THAT and get away with it? Oh, right ... let's have it both ways! Let's use OUR just laws and rights to assure that another's nations "laws" and "rights" are defended, EVEN IF they are directly opposite to ours! Who are WE to say that we are right in letting women vote? But we are right. And another nation is right to forbid it. EVERYONE is right! There ARE NO moral truths! Except for those "truths" that apply to us, because we're better than everyone else! Wiretap our overseas phone calls to suspected terrorists?!?! What an invasion! Just because Muslims don't accept that kind of behavior doesn't mean WE should! We're LIBERALS!!! Who says anyone else should have the same rights as WE DO? Yes, we are in World War III. Except that, right now, there are no battle lines, the weapons are mostly words and hypocrisies are in command.

quote: Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: The West - nor the US - can't do ANYTHING without China, Japan and Russia on board. The issue this: Who is responsible for that little prick having an arsenal to begin with? Thats right. All the people he is currently blackmailing. Its not like scientists leave his country, go somewhere to learn all this shit; then happily return home to share their acquired knowledge. As to the test failure. That just goes to show that not every instruction sheet found on Google will work or is credible. That prick. Someone just needs to send a GPS guided bomb and bury his ass. Both Iran and NK are doing the same shit; so I won't be surprised if they were'nt comparing notes. I knew you'd eventually think Republican.

Considering you like to pick and choose what to respond to, I'll simply pick the most ludicrous argument you made and respond to it. I said that the Constitution does NOT prohibit a gag-order during litigation and you tried to respond by quoting the First Ammendment. Too bad you didn't read it, first... quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.A "gag-order" is NOT a "law" passed by Congress. The Constitution specifically grants the judiciary the right to impose a "gag-order" during pending and proceeding litigation. Ever hear of a sequestered jury? Has the justice system been violation the Constitution all along? Nope. Also, the Executive Branch can impose a a "gag-order" if it believes national security interests are served by doing so. So can the Legislative Branch. "Freedom of Speech" is a fairly restricted freedom. Along with not being able to yell "fire" in a movie theater, there are other common-sense restrictions. One can't commit libel, slander, break classifications, etc. Constitutionally, "freedom of speech" refers not to reporting facts; rather, it refers to opinions not being suppressed. If it meant you could say ANYTHING, one could not sequester a jury and one would be allowed to commit libel, slander, etc... Next.

quote: That isn't what I am suggesting at all.Total cop-out, considering you didn't feel it necessary to tell me what you're suggesting then. In fact, I think it is EXACTLY what you were suggesting, but you're afraid to admit it because ... well, who knows why? I had enough respect for you to try to reiterate what your point was; please share the same respect for me. quote: That does not prove that there are sufficient checks and balences in the system at all. The only reason they won was because the FBI decided that it wasn't worth the effort to continue with the investigation through the NSL.Wow. I know you're not THAT dense. WHY, per se, do you think the FBI gave up on the investigation? Dude, READ THE ARTICLE SLOWLY and the actual NEWS ARTICLE that supports it, then step up to the plate. I mean, I've already done the research for you ... the least you could do is not try to "fool" me with convoluted logic. quote: This only proves that it has checks and balences any other law has (a large group of people going against it). Wow, AGAIN. Then you must hate our system of GOVERNMENT itself. If that's the case, than you're not someone I wish to discuss the merits of ANY governmental policy with. Let me paraphrase your argument: "Although EVERYTHING else in government has the same checks-and-balances, it isn't good enough for this ONE thing." That is MANIFESTLY SILLY. quote: In case it isn't clear (which wouldn't be particularly surprising) I am arguing that the NSL has insufficient (as obviously I was incorrect in the belief that it had none) checks and balances (read: lack of court overview).[/qoute]Read: Librarians won through court overview.