ObamaRama 8

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Weak. If a piece of infrastructure doesn't exist and I think I could make more profits if it did, I'll build it myself. But you can be darn sure that a private company will do a lot more careful cost-benefit analysis of the project than the government ever would. For a private company, it's their butts on the line (or should be!), but it absolutely matters not one iota to people in the government if they build bridges to nowhere.

You must live in La La Land.

[huskyfan]

Re: ObamaRama 8

That's all fine as long as you realize that the infrastructure that allows the private sector to exist does not exist in a vacuum.

the private sector IS what allows the government to exist.

[blockski]

Re: ObamaRama 8

You must live in La La Land.

No, he's absolutely right.

Weak. If a piece of infrastructure doesn't exist and I think I could make more profits if it did, I'll build it myself. But you can be darn sure that a private company will do a lot more careful cost-benefit analysis of the project than the government ever would. For a private company, it's their butts on the line (or should be!), but it absolutely matters not one iota to people in the government if they build bridges to nowhere.

The thing that I'd add, however, is the importance of network effects.

Look at freight rail, for example. It's extremely efficient. By all accounts, the technology alone should be more widespread than it is, but since it's competing with trucking (which has a massive, government paid-for, tax free highway infrastructure just given to them) while the railroads are paying for their own infrastructure, paying taxes on the land, and making investments in their own upkeep, they've understandably retreated into areas where they have a huge competitive advantage (long haul, bulk cargo, etc).

There's absolutely a reason for governments to invest in infrastructure. They can have the vision and long term approach to build things that the private sector would not - particularly big networks. But we also need to realize that these investments do distort the marketplace, and constantly adjust our investments accordingly.

I, for one, would really like to see Obama push the National Infrastructure Bank idea. We need the investments, we need new financing mechanisms, and the idea of the government providing the little push over the hump that the private sector might need (just as it did with the original railroads, via land grants) is a good idea.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: ObamaRama 8

There's absolutely a reason for governments to invest in infrastructure. They can have the vision and long term approach to build things that the private sector would not - particularly big networks. But we also need to realize that these investments do distort the marketplace, and constantly adjust our investments accordingly.

Are you arguing both sides? You can't argue "A" and then ask for "B". Their obviously based on the reactions I've gotten NO reason for the government to invest any money in infrastructure. Just let the private sector take care of it.

Perhaps some folks should live in a 3rd world country for a while and see what no infrastructure looks like.

[MinnFan]

Re: ObamaRama 8

I would wager pretty much all of the increase is driven by the recession...and we know who was driving when we hit that tree. Also why do those on the right keep trying to bury military spending?

How does the recession increase spending? These aren't deficit numbers. Its purely gov't spending.

Defense spending has actually increased under Obama so perhaps you should be happy it wasn't included.

[blockski]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Are you arguing both sides? You can't argue "A" and then ask for "B". Their obviously based on the reactions I've gotten NO reason for the government to invest any money in infrastructure. Just let the private sector take care of it.

Perhaps some folks should live in a 3rd world country for a while and see what no infrastructure looks like.

Both sides? There are no sides. It's a world of gray, not black and white. Your simple-minded retorts are just plain wrong.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Both sides? There are no sides. It's a world of gray, not black and white. Your simple-minded retorts are just plain wrong.

This all started when I said the private sector doesn't exist in a vacuum. You then argue that it does cause you agree with someone who disagreed with that, but in your argument you ask for government hand outs. And I'm the simpleton?

[5mn_Major]

Re: ObamaRama 8

How does the recession increase spending? These aren't deficit numbers. Its purely gov't spending.

Defense spending has actually increased under Obama so perhaps you should be happy it wasn't included.

Government bailouts have been designed to stop the economy from going into a freefall. If banks fail on a widespread basis, people panic. If people panic, they pull money out of institutions. Huge job losses would have destroyed govt income not just from new unemployment claims, but also from huge reductions in govt tax income. The best answer to limit the deficit (which is ultimately what matters...not spending) is to keep the country from a catastrophy.

Over last winter, this was a real threat that the US cannot afford. Increases in govt spending have been important so far. What happens going forward as and if the economy improves is what will matter.

And unfortunately, much of the military spending so far is a result of the Republican ramp up...its just that Obama hasn't entirely pulled the plug yet. We shouldn't be in Iraq, we shouldn't be in Germany.

Having said that, I'm of the opinion that the health care battle was the wrong battle at the wrong time. I'm not necessarily for or against...just not the priority.

I am against new measures against the banks. There are a number of folks who feel we should have a witch hunt against the banks. We shouldn't. We should hit the decision makers and put them in jail. But banks just need basic regulations on what products they have so as to protect society. Unfortunately, the administration appears to be attacking the way (size, organization) banks go to market.

I am very much against all this meddling in the financial industry.

[LynahFan]

Re: ObamaRama 8

This all started when I said the private sector doesn't exist in a vacuum. You then argue that it does cause you agree with someone who disagreed with that, but in your argument you ask for government hand outs. And I'm the simpleton?

You also stated, in so many words, that the private sector could not exist (which is pretty black-and-white) without government-built infrastructure. That's just flat incorrect. The private sector would certainly look different than it does today - probably better and more efficient - but it would exist.

[blockski]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Here's what you said (emphasis is mine):

That's all fine as long as you realize that the infrastructure that allows the private sector to exist does not exist in a vacuum.

I don't want hand outs, I want investments. From the government and the private sector.

There are different levels of investment, there are different kinds of projects, and different kinds of infrastructure.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: ObamaRama 8

You also stated, in so many words, that the private sector could not exist (which is pretty black-and-white) without government-built infrastructure. That's just flat incorrect. The private sector would certainly look different than it does today - probably better and more efficient - but it would exist.

Infrastructure includes Laws, Police, Fire, Hospitals, Roads, Traffic Laws, etc. etc. etc.

But, yeah, I'm pretty black and white.

Like I said, move to a 3rd world country. It's all private sector there, and real efficient.

[geezer]

Re: ObamaRama 8

You people aren't making any sense. Infrastructure exists without regard to how it's funded; UN, federal, state, county, community or privately. Different people have different preferences but the practical levels of infrastructure won't change much; we still need roads & law enforcement. So you either pay those taxes to some governing entity, or you refuse and go all vigilante on a horse.

The poor level of infrastructure in a 3rd world country doesn't reflect how it's funded. It reflects how wealthy that economy is.

[blockski]

Re: ObamaRama 8

You people aren't making any sense. Infrastructure exists without regard to how it's funded; UN, federal, state, county, community or privately. Different people have different preferences but the practical levels of infrastructure won't change much; we still need roads & law enforcement. So you either pay those taxes to some governing entity, or you refuse and go all vigilante on a horse.

The poor level of infrastructure in a 3rd world country doesn't reflect how it's funded. It reflects how wealthy that economy is.

How it's funded has a direct impact on exactly what gets built - that's the point.

[geezer]

Re: ObamaRama 8

SCOTUS knocks down McCain-Feingold
'bout time.

[joecct]

Re: ObamaRama 8

SCOTUS knocks down McCain-Feingold
'bout time.

Yep - maybe we'll start getting better candidates.